Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

w1zard wrote:

But I spent many hundreds of hours on my xbox360 account racking up gamerscore. Why should I have to abandon that to upgrade to the xbox one? Things move forward, sometimes that involves leaving things in the past.

I think that's a false equivalence. Getting achievements in videogames is not the same as assembling and painting miniatures. There's a permanence to miniatures that appeals to their fans, and GW generally respects that, which I see as a very positive thing.

Stux wrote:

w1zard wrote:

But I spent many hundreds of hours on my xbox360 account racking up gamerscore. Why should I have to abandon that to upgrade to the xbox one? Things move forward, sometimes that involves leaving things in the past.

I think that's a false equivalence. Getting achievements in videogames is not the same as assembling and painting miniatures. There's a permanence to miniatures that appeals to their fans, and GW generally respects that, which I see as a very positive thing.

There is also a permanence in getting achievements that are linked to you gaming account and are visible to anyone who looks. Why do you get to say that painting miniatures is so much more important then getting achievements on video games? Both are a hobby, and both yield visual results and a sense of satisfaction. I see no difference between the two, save one is a solid object, ad the other is pixels on a screen.

Again, I'm not advocating throwing out the old figures. Just making them not legal in matched play, they would still be fine in narrative play.

I don't get to decide it, the companies involved do. GW say that permanence is important. Awesome, I agree. If you have a problem with Microsoft erasing your progress every generation then take it up with them. It doesn't mean we can't have nice things here. That is the false equivalence.

Stux wrote:
I don't get to decide it, the companies involved do. GW say that permanence is important. Awesome, I agree. If you have a problem with Microsoft erasing your progress every generation then take it up with them. It doesn't mean we can't have nice things here. That is the false equivalence.

Agreed, the console comparison is stupid and makes no sense. The Xbox 360 becoming obsolete because a new generation came out means that new games are developed on new technology. A trukk being replaced with a different looking trukk is not the same thing, its more equivalent to the ps4 vs ps4 slim where the only real difference is a size and look change. The PS4 will still play the same gak the PS4 slim does, it just looks different.

I guess we all gotta go back and replace our old 3rd/4th edition tactical marines since new tactical marines came out, despite having the same rules and looking roughly the same. This whole argument is useless because GW doesnt care either way so I dont know why this even is a discussion.

I get that some models are smaller, but when was the last time you played against a player that brought older models for that reason and it actually made a difference in your matched play game? If its a tournament then the TO will have a rule against using older models. How many TOs do that? Probably very few because nobody cares.

 Billagio wrote:

I guess we all gotta go back and replace our old 3rd/4th edition tactical marines since new tactical marines came out, despite having the same rules and looking roughly the same.

Yes, you should. Although I probably wouldn't care if they were the same size and used the same sized bases. I would definitely care if they were noticably bigger/smaller or used different sized bases. Because, you know that actually effects the game right?

w1zard wrote:

 Billagio wrote:

I guess we all gotta go back and replace our old 3rd/4th edition tactical marines since new tactical marines came out, despite having the same rules and looking roughly the same.

Yes, you should. Although I probably wouldn't care if they were the same size and used the same sized bases. I would definitely care if they were noticably bigger/smaller or used different sized bases. Because, you know that actually effects the game right?

Ok but now you realize that if GW were to care about this they would have to enforce a list of units that can or cannot use which is a pain in the ass and would cause a lot of controversy. The only other option would be no old units in which case everyone has to replace half their armies even if theyre the same size

 Billagio wrote:

Ok but now you realize that if GW were to care about this they would have to enforce a list of units that can or cannot use which is a pain in the ass and would cause a lot of controversy. The only other option would be no old units in which case everyone has to replace half their armies even if theyre the same size

Nah, just a simple rule stating that the most current model needs to be used for all datasheets. Conversions and old models would still be permitted if they were the same size and used the same bases. If that means a lot of people had to replace figures I guess that is tough luck for them.

You could use your 3rd edition space marines because they are the same size as current marines... but that old ork trukk absolutely wouldn't fly.

I would still expect updating to current models being expected as part of the hobby though.

@w1zard

I really don't think that GW's balance is so fine that having a slightly smaller model will actually affect anything. Being able to maybe pile in an extra model is hardly noticeable, especially since models within an inch of models in combat also swing. And as for LOS, well, there is no standard for terrain size/spread so model size is largely irrelevant.

Define 'same size'.

Are we talking about a conversion with a mil or two in the difference? Or are we talking about a dreadnought being cut and bent at the knees, maybe with the gun arm braced on the fist? Cos that's a cool conversion but might lower the height by over a centimetre.

What you're suggesting is the death of the hobby side of things and the enforced obsolescence of a huge tract of models. Did you pay any attention at all to the reception AoS had? It almost bankrupted the company and made the brand so toxic that only a very good 8th edition 40k has managed to turn it around. I'd be surprised if the entire AoS range sold as much as Space Marines alone. And that's where you want to go.

Your comparison with computer games makes zero sense. What makes 40k and table top games in general work is the opponent and the community. Playing the game is an authentic social contract. Invalidating thousands, perhaps millions, of armies, will alienate the equivalent number of players. They'll just walk away or keep playing an earlier edition. And the evidence from the AoS debacle suggests they'll walk away.

Hence, there never was, nor ever shall be, a rule excluding older variants of models. And this is why minimarines will continue to be supported rules wise but maybe not in models, and also why Primaris will, probably, get their own codex, eventually. They can then keep existing Marine players happy but not have to produce any new models. Old marines, I think, will be let wither on the vine. You'll be able to turn up to a tournament in 20 years time with a classic marine army, still supported in rules, only to be greeted with the same condescension that SoB players have had to put up with for the past decade.

w1zard wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Yeah, I can't think of it ever being an issue for a major tournament having players running old models for advantage.

Then you have a very limited imagination. If I were an competitive ork player I'd make sure to get my hands on those old trukks because they are much smaller and thus easier to hide out of LOS or keep in cover.

I never said I was unable of understanding the implications. I'm saying that it's never been a practical issue in any major tournament of note. If there had ever been a relevant precedent, there'd be more people than just you making an issue out of it. Dictating which generations of models people can use would mostly serve to push away hobbyists with investments in collections that go way back, and is largely irrelevant at the highest levels of play anyway, where keeping up with competitive metas makes stocking up specifically on dated models for the purpose of LoS advantage is just impractical. It'd do more harm to the community than good.


Additionally, 40k isn't a particularly good game in its own right. It's carried by the models. Restricting them in an obtrusive way is just not good for anyone's bottom line.

Dandelion wrote:
@w1zard

I really don't think that GW's balance is so fine that having a slightly smaller model will actually affect anything. Being able to maybe pile in an extra model is hardly noticeable, especially since models within an inch of models in combat also swing.

While this would actually matter, and can be pretty huge depending on the army, most regulations require modern base sizes and it's an easy fix to make without invalidating the model itself, so it's a non-issue.

w1zard wrote:

You could use your 3rd edition space marines because they are the same size as current marines... but that old ork trukk absolutely wouldn't fly.

3rd edition marines are absolutely not the same size although they need to be side by side with current marines to see it. How close to the current size is close enough?

What about people that used the generic terminator kit for their Blood Angels but now the BA specific terminators are out? Or old firewarriors vs. new firewarriors? Is that okay? I'm guessing that you're going to say that's okay because they're pretty much the same size. Your rule just got a lot more complicated...

Metal marine dread vs. plastic? They're definitely smaller but not a lot smaller?

You're probably going to end up with a specific ban list and that would make more sense. e.g. old Avatar that's on a 25mm base - not okay, all of the subsequent big models are fine.At that point it is a pretty small number of models affected.

w1zard wrote:

I would still expect updating to current models being expected as part of the hobby though.

What about the many cases where updated models are barely different? New firewarriors and old firewarriors are pretty close to identical. New crisis suits are more poseable but are interchangeable with the old ones. Marines have had four generations of models (not counting primaris) and the last three generations are pretty much interchangeable but they aren't exactly the same size. Updating to new models just because really doesn't make sense much of the time.

w1zard wrote:

 Billagio wrote:

I guess we all gotta go back and replace our old 3rd/4th edition tactical marines since new tactical marines came out, despite having the same rules and looking roughly the same.

Yes, you should. Although I probably wouldn't care if they were the same size and used the same sized bases. I would definitely care if they were noticably bigger/smaller or used different sized bases. Because, you know that actually effects the game right?

Hey there Nathan Poe, how you doin'?

 Scott-S6 wrote:

3rd edition marines are absolutely not the same size although they need to be side by side with current marines to see it. How close to the current size is close enough?

That would be up to GW to decide.

 Fafnir wrote:

While this would actually matter, and can be pretty huge depending on the army, most regulations require modern base sizes and it's an easy fix to make without invalidating the model itself, so it's a non-issue.

I'm glad at least someone on the other side recognizes the implications instead of simply dismissing them. But no, size still plays a very large part in balance because it decides LOS which can and will turn games under the right circumstances.

 Fafnir wrote:

I never said I was unable of understanding the implications. I'm saying that it's never been a practical issue in any major tournament of note. If there had ever been a relevant precedent, there'd be more people than just you making an issue out of it. Dictating which generations of models people can use would mostly serve to push away hobbyists with investments in collections that go way back, and is largely irrelevant at the highest levels of play anyway, where keeping up with competitive metas makes stocking up specifically on dated models for the purpose of LoS advantage is just impractical. It'd do more harm to the community than good.

Additionally, 40k isn't a particularly good game in its own right. It's carried by the models. Restricting them in an obtrusive way is just not good for anyone's bottom line.

If 40k wants to be taken seriously as a competitive tabletop game (and I do think GW is slowly moving in this direction) they will have to implement model standardization at some point, at least for matched play. I'm sorry but they just can't have a "serious" game without it.

Banville wrote:
...And this is why minimarines will continue to be supported rules wise but maybe not in models, and also why Primaris will, probably, get their own codex, eventually. They can then keep existing Marine players happy but not have to produce any new models. Old marines, I think, will be let wither on the vine. You'll be able to turn up to a tournament in 20 years time with a classic marine army, still supported in rules, only to be greeted with the same condescension that SoB players have had to put up with for the past decade.

No. Mark my words, it may take awhile but old marines will absolutely be phased out at some point. I am sure enough that I'd bet a sizable chunk of money and some very sensitive body parts on it.

w1zard wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

3rd edition marines are absolutely not the same size although they need to be side by side with current marines to see it. How close to the current size is close enough?

That would be up to GW to decide.

GW has decided - old models are just fine. You're the one trying to create a new restriction.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

GW has decided - old models are just fine. You're the one trying to create a new restriction.

Let me rephrase. I think GW need model standardization. It is up to them how anal they want to get about it, but I think within 3mm in height and width is good enough for me.

w1zard wrote:
But no, size still plays a very large part in balance because it decides LOS which can and will turn games under the right circumstances.

Given that LoS is now absolutely two-way (no circumstances other than LoS ignoring weapons where a model can be shot at but can't shoot back as in previous editions) I actually don't think it's nearly as important.

It is now essentially impossible to hide models behind other models (for example the old ork trukk behind a new trukk or battlewagon has no advantage compared to the new model (it can still be shot at and shoot underneath the other vehicles)).

The only interesting interaction really is non-infantry models and scenery - smaller models may receive cover more easily.

Well this topic took a strange turn.

Can we please get back to talking about Primaris Marines?

Once GW have released Codes for the remaining factions (Space Wolves, Orks, and Genestealer Cults) I imagine we will see them release new models for factions. Seeing as they are now including the rules with models, this opens up the option of expanding on the current Codex. If not this, they could do campaign books that expand upon the story and add new models and rules.

Sure it will mean a lot of information spread over pieces of paper, but it is sure better than having to fork out for a new Codex every 3-4 years.

With that in mind this could be what sees the fabled second wave of Primaris Marines. What that brings is anyone's guess, but I think it will be the shot in the arm their range needs, it would be nice to see named Primaris characters for the Chapters, and a dedicated assault squad.

Down the line in a few years time we may see the two types of Marines diverge enough to be spread over two Codxes, one for regular Marines, and one for Primaris. That way GW don't have to add to regular Marines, and can keep their line as a complete range without stepping on the toes of their new Primaris range.

How long till we have Primaris Legion of the Damned models?

Cause who doesn't want LotD in plastic?

 fraser1191 wrote:
How long till we have Primaris Legion of the Damned models?

Cause who doesn't want LotD in plastic?

How would that work?

Would Cawl make insane ghost marines or would they send out some regular primaris looking unsuccessfully for the LotD's fortress monastery?

At some point, since we apparently have Primaris Librarians, there's going to have to be Grey Knight Primaris. And despite all the current moaning about GK, I'd actually be interested in seeing what GW might do with that.

w1zard wrote:

I'm glad at least someone on the other side recognizes the implications instead of simply dismissing them. But no, size still plays a very large part in balance because it decides LOS which can and will turn games under the right circumstances.

But consider that terrain is not standardized either: I could easily just place larger LOS blocking terrain pieces that would also affect the outcome of the game. If everyone were playing with the exact same terrain in the exact same layout all the time then yes you would notice a difference. But when you can't or don't account for the terrain itself, then model size is really a non issue.

Dandelion wrote:

w1zard wrote:

I'm glad at least someone on the other side recognizes the implications instead of simply dismissing them. But no, size still plays a very large part in balance because it decides LOS which can and will turn games under the right circumstances.

But consider that terrain is not standardized either: I could easily just place larger LOS blocking terrain pieces that would also affect the outcome of the game. If everyone were playing with the exact same terrain in the exact same layout all the time then yes you would notice a difference. But when you can't or don't account for the terrain itself, then model size is really a non issue.

Not even getting to terrain. What if a model is intended to hold a sword up in the air, but I decide I like it pointing forwards instead. This likely does much more to change the profile of the model than sculpts from different generations. Am I not allowed to use this model in matched play now?

As we've all been saying, GW are hobby first, competition second. The rules will never be this restrictive.

Stux wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

w1zard wrote:

I'm glad at least someone on the other side recognizes the implications instead of simply dismissing them. But no, size still plays a very large part in balance because it decides LOS which can and will turn games under the right circumstances.

But consider that terrain is not standardized either: I could easily just place larger LOS blocking terrain pieces that would also affect the outcome of the game. If everyone were playing with the exact same terrain in the exact same layout all the time then yes you would notice a difference. But when you can't or don't account for the terrain itself, then model size is really a non issue.

Not even getting to terrain. What if a model is intended to hold a sword up in the air, but I decide I like it pointing forwards instead. This likely does much more to change the profile of the model than sculpts from different generations. Am I not allowed to use this model in matched play now?

As we've all been saying, GW are hobby first, competition second. The rules will never be this restrictive.

It's definitely violating w1zard's 3mm rule.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Stux wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

w1zard wrote:

I'm glad at least someone on the other side recognizes the implications instead of simply dismissing them. But no, size still plays a very large part in balance because it decides LOS which can and will turn games under the right circumstances.

But consider that terrain is not standardized either: I could easily just place larger LOS blocking terrain pieces that would also affect the outcome of the game. If everyone were playing with the exact same terrain in the exact same layout all the time then yes you would notice a difference. But when you can't or don't account for the terrain itself, then model size is really a non issue.

Not even getting to terrain. What if a model is intended to hold a sword up in the air, but I decide I like it pointing forwards instead. This likely does much more to change the profile of the model than sculpts from different generations. Am I not allowed to use this model in matched play now?

As we've all been saying, GW are hobby first, competition second. The rules will never be this restrictive.

It's definitely violating w1zard's 3mm rule.

I think the best way to achieve what w1zard wants, without encroaching too badly on the historic hobbying aspect, is to simply do away with true line of sight. It causes so many issues anyway, especially for the competitive scene.

Instead we use a system like Malifaux or many other miniatures games where the actual model is purely aesthetic, and all rules instead relate to bases. There are issues to overcome with regards to verticality in these systems, but they are not insurmountable.

It may require debasing of models, but that would be it to create an entirely fair playing field. If GW really wanted to push that, they could make bases really cheap without it hurting their margins overall significantly.

 stonehorse wrote:
Well this topic took a strange turn.

Can we please get back to talking about Primaris Marines?

Sorry, the discussion kind of devolved.

 stonehorse wrote:

Down the line in a few years time we may see the two types of Marines diverge enough to be spread over two Codxes, one for regular Marines, and one for Primaris. That way GW don't have to add to regular Marines, and can keep their line as a complete range without stepping on the toes of their new Primaris range.

No. As I said before in a couple of previous posts, I think regular marines will be phased out at some point. I would be extremely surprised if Primaris Marines and original marines were to get their own codexes. Primaris marines are everything space marines should be in terms of game mechanics. It is far more likely that Primaris Marines will continue to have codex and model releases, and normal space marines just... won't.

w1zard wrote:

Nah, just a simple rule stating that the most current model needs to be used for all datasheets.
I would still expect updating to current models being expected as part of the hobby though.

Please tell me this is sarcasm....

I've got no real issues with Primaris.
The fluff is ok...if a little rushed. But the entire edition was rushed really so I guess you just gotta accept it and use some imagination with it

The models are ok. Certainly better than most that are covered in crap. Or "detail" as others call it.
And I like how allot of regular marine parts fit the primaris models for some fun conversions.

Game wise...ok so they aren't great. And hellblasters seem to be spammed allot and I wish they had more versatility...but...meh.
Like I say this whole edition feels rushed. And new GW hates versatility and individualisation So I guess they just didn't want to bother.

the primaris fluff is more "not fleshed out" rather then rushed. give it a few years for black library to do their thing and that might change

ValentineGames wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Nah, just a simple rule stating that the most current model needs to be used for all datasheets.
I would still expect updating to current models being expected as part of the hobby though.

Please tell me this is sarcasm....

I've got no real issues with Primaris.
The fluff is ok...if a little rushed. But the entire edition was rushed really so I guess you just gotta accept it and use some imagination with it

The models are ok. Certainly better than most that are covered in crap. Or "detail" as others call it.
And I like how allot of regular marine parts fit the primaris models for some fun conversions.

Game wise...ok so they aren't great. And hellblasters seem to be spammed allot and I wish they had more versatility...but...meh.
Like I say this whole edition feels rushed. And new GW hates versatility and individualisation So I guess they just didn't want to bother.

Prior to Roundtree taking the reigns, I think Kirby was planning to replace the current marines with Primaris - less, more standardized options and “better” stat line than original marines. I’m guessing that plan changed, it’s now a more “wait and see if they’re more popular” before GW bites the bullet to phase out classic marines for Primaris. GW may have already invested too much to stop the eventual conversion to Primaris-only, but once they do, I sense a retcon - “yeah, your Primaris? That’s always how the marines have been” will creep in if that occurs. This would actually allow players with old models to use most of their old marines as numarines, rather than a mix of classic and Primaris.

Also, 8E’s narrative took a sharp right turn. Previously, the game was somewhat nillistic - mankind was on the verge of collapse and it was just a question what force - Chaos or xenon - that was going to take them out. With Guilliman’s return and the arrival of Primaris, it very much feels like an Imperium reborn that has a fighting chance to not only rebuild, but wipe away the errors of the past. Definitely, the fluff is ascribing more heroic ideals to the almost formerly oppressive, totalitarian, xenophobic outlook of the Imperium. Personally, I miss the “we’re all doomed, but let’s try to die a heroic, if ultimately futile death” of the old narrative.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

w1zard wrote:

You could use your 3rd edition space marines because they are the same size as current marines... but that old ork trukk absolutely wouldn't fly.

3rd edition marines are absolutely not the same size although they need to be side by side with current marines to see it. How close to the current size is close enough?

No no, they really are the same size. My army has both and there's no difference even side by side. They new kit has some models in slightly different posture, but even there you get greater variation in height by just gluing their torsos on in a more upright position.

Dandelion wrote:
I really don't think that GW's balance is so fine that having a slightly smaller model will actually affect anything.

'Slightly' smaller?



Yup, can't see the size difference at all

Want to see a few more similar comparisons with updated models (even PA models like old Ahriman or DG guys are tiny next to plastic ones) or is that one enough?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

3rd edition marines are absolutely not the same size although they need to be side by side with current marines to see it. How close to the current size is close enough?

No no, they really are the same size. My army has both and there's no difference even side by side.

You might want to buy a new glasses then because 3rd edition one (barely taller than the lime green thing) is absolutely not the same size as modern plastic marine:



And most recent PA marines, Death Watch and Thousand Sons, both are taller than even BA ones. Same size you say? New plastics are as big as metal terminators pictured above!

Banville wrote:
What you're suggesting is the death of the hobby side of things and the enforced obsolescence of a huge tract of models. Did you pay any attention at all to the reception AoS had? It almost bankrupted the company and made the brand so toxic that only a very good 8th edition 40k has managed to turn it around. I'd be surprised if the entire AoS range sold as much as Space Marines alone. And that's where you want to go.

Uh, no. That was myth AoS haters spread. Not only AoS considerably outsold Fantasy (to be fair, wasn't exactly hard with how terrible Fantasy sales were) even at the start, a good number of AoS models were in the list of GW bestsellers:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/672927.page

Out of 28 best selling items, 1 was LotR, 6 were AoS, 18 were 40K, rest were bundled sets. Gee, 1/3 sales of GW's flagship behemoth (and that right in the middle of period where Gladius, War Convocation, and the rest of the broken gak were driving up sales of basic kits, accounting for 'success' of 12 of 40K units on the above list) sure sounds terrible, eh?

To add to above, the loudest anti-AoS whiners were also the people who were buying the least in vast majority of cases, so it's absolutely shocking GW instead of beating long dead horse went for refresh that at least gave them chance to grow the business somewhat in the future. Especially due to the fact such pesky and unimportant things as play time, ease of pickup and entry, and rules not being a mountain of overcomplicated grandfathered in junk were all significantly shifted towards attracting new players. What a dumb strategy!