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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But how can an imprecise system be used to measure objectivity?

The Schrödinger equation comes to mind.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
.

Insectum7 wrote:Because aesthetic terminology is often imprecise.

So, completely subjective? Why use it to make claims to objectivity and things like "realmarine" if you're also going to say it's an imprecise system?

Imprecise does't mean subjective.

But how can an imprecise system be used to measure objectivity?

You're evidencing how incapable you appear to be at having this discussion.

Aesthetics isn't a "system". And merely sticking to quantifying terms doesn't capture the entire picture. But that doesn't mean it's subjective. Differences can objectively exist even if there aren't specific terms for those differences.

But for objectivity funsies,

Count for me the number of chainswords in Primaris kits.

Then find for me the ratio of skimmers to non-skimmers in realmarines, and do the same for Primaris.

Then count for me the number of tacticool pouches per-model on realmarines vs. Priamris.

^Do the same for scopes.

Then count for me the armor angles on Tacticals vs. Intercessors.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
.

Insectum7 wrote:Because aesthetic terminology is often imprecise.

So, completely subjective? Why use it to make claims to objectivity and things like "realmarine" if you're also going to say it's an imprecise system?

Imprecise does't mean subjective.

But how can an imprecise system be used to measure objectivity?

You're evidencing how incapable you appear to be at having this discussion.

Aesthetics isn't a "system". And merely sticking to quantifying terms doesn't capture the entire picture. But that doesn't mean it's subjective. Differences can objectively exist even if there aren't specific terms for those differences.

But for objectivity funsies, count for me the number of chainswords in Primaris kits.

no but aesthetics IS completely subjective.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
.

Insectum7 wrote:Because aesthetic terminology is often imprecise.

So, completely subjective? Why use it to make claims to objectivity and things like "realmarine" if you're also going to say it's an imprecise system?

Imprecise does't mean subjective.

But how can an imprecise system be used to measure objectivity?

You're evidencing how incapable you appear to be at having this discussion.

Aesthetics isn't a "system". And merely sticking to quantifying terms doesn't capture the entire picture. But that doesn't mean it's subjective. Differences can objectively exist even if there aren't specific terms for those differences.

But for objectivity funsies, count for me the number of chainswords in Primaris kits.

no but aesthetics IS completely subjective.

Debateable, but beside the point anyways.

BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But how can an imprecise system be used to measure objectivity?

The Schrödinger equation comes to mind.

Explain how that can be used in this situation?

Insectum7 wrote:Aesthetics isn't a "system". And merely sticking to quantifying terms doesn't capture the entire picture. But that doesn't mean it's subjective. Differences can objectively exist even if there aren't specific terms for those differences.

Using a term that has no clearly defined meaning is useless though. If we're outright admitting that aesthetic terminology like "gothic" is imprecise and doesn't really have a concrete meaning, why use it to make an objective claim? Otherwise, I can quite easily claim that "objectively, Primaris Marines are more gothic", and because it's an imprecise term, you can't argue with it?

Like, I completely get "gothic" being used to describe something ACTUALLY gothic (such as artwork from that period), or even "this feels gothic" (being used as a subjective), but trying to say "this IS gothic" and being unable to actually point to what it is? That's just subjective feeling - and that's totally valid! Just accept that it IS subjective.

You mention "differences can exist without specific terms" - I'm not asking for terms. I'm asking for explanations, diagrams, simple circling of a feature. Objective things that we can see perceive. Sure, you might *feel* imperceptibly that there's a difference, but that's subjective to you! That's my whole point. You can clearly experience something that I cannot - but that doesn't make your perspective the *correct* one. You can't claim "this is the REAL version" when it's based on your own subjective experience.

Count for me the number of chainswords in Primaris kits.

3, by my count (not including duplicates within the same kit). So, they both have chainswords. Nice. Your point?

Then find for me the ratio of skimmers to non-skimmers in realmarines, and do the same for Primaris.

Yep, Primaris have more skimmers. Your point? What, there's some kind of ratio that's correct?

Then count for me the number of tacticool pouches per-model on realmarines vs. Priamris.

Well, that's completely down to how many you put on, isn't it? Intercessors don't have to have any glued on, and I could glue on loads for oldMarines. In the same vein, asking "how many purity seals" doesn't work, because again, that all depends on how many you glue on yourself.

^Do the same for scopes.

Primaris have more scopes. Your point? Both factions have scopes, have been depicted as having both scopes and non-scopes, and the freedom to choose is down to the player.

Then count for me the armor angles on Tacticals vs. Intercessors.

What do you mean, angles? Faces, edges, of any degree, the sharpness of the angle, etc etc? As I see them, their angles are the same, with Primaris seeming to have a higher fidelity in terms of crispness (that comes from a newer sculpt).

So, all we've gathered is: Primaris have more skimmers (but skimmers are still very much a part of the whole Space Marine aesthetic, coming from the wealth of Land Speeder variants), and have more scopes. What, do you have a problem with scopes on Tactical Marines? Does Brother Verenor from the Ultramarines movie not count as a Space Marine?

In fact, let's actually think about that film - we've got Marines with scopes, the only vehicle being a Land Speeder, and the squad Sergeant not even carrying a chainsword!
I guess *that* must be why it was panned - they're not "Real Marines".

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
.

Insectum7 wrote:Because aesthetic terminology is often imprecise.

So, completely subjective? Why use it to make claims to objectivity and things like "realmarine" if you're also going to say it's an imprecise system?

Imprecise does't mean subjective.

But how can an imprecise system be used to measure objectivity?

You're evidencing how incapable you appear to be at having this discussion.

Aesthetics isn't a "system". And merely sticking to quantifying terms doesn't capture the entire picture. But that doesn't mean it's subjective. Differences can objectively exist even if there aren't specific terms for those differences.

But for objectivity funsies, count for me the number of chainswords in Primaris kits.

no but aesthetics IS completely subjective.

Debateable, but beside the point anyways.

You're right it is debatable, which is why anyone saying Manlet Marines are better design is completely wrong. Thanks for playing.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
My Plague Marines are a Mix of models from 2nd to 8th Edition. Funnily enough I bought the 2nd ed ones after the 8 th ed ones . So... Why would I have to change anything? Us Chaos Boys have the luxury to not have received unnecessary bloated rules for our truescale Marines, so we can use them side by side without problems.

the current taller, beefier plague marines aren't history, are they? :-(

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
.

Insectum7 wrote:Because aesthetic terminology is often imprecise.

So, completely subjective? Why use it to make claims to objectivity and things like "realmarine" if you're also going to say it's an imprecise system?

Imprecise does't mean subjective.

But how can an imprecise system be used to measure objectivity?

You're evidencing how incapable you appear to be at having this discussion.

Aesthetics isn't a "system". And merely sticking to quantifying terms doesn't capture the entire picture. But that doesn't mean it's subjective. Differences can objectively exist even if there aren't specific terms for those differences.

But for objectivity funsies, count for me the number of chainswords in Primaris kits.

no but aesthetics IS completely subjective.

Is it? Please explain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
I treat different marine models like armour marks. My squads have models that range from second edition to eighth mixed together - Warhammer is not a clean universe and given its scale and scope, Marines will almost certainly vary radically given the length and breadth of their combat and experiences. It makes the units way more fun to look at, and feels almost 'historical'.

Also feth spending £35 on ten models with less options than the previous, cheaper kit.

I wish that the restartes had been made with this attitude. I wanted to add and as you note even mix. Why the radical departure. Cant share equipment? GW gives me the 'emperor backstabbing the jedi clone war style' heebie jeebies...

My marines were lost in the warp. That was their story. Not so unique but 2 things.
1. They scavenge. Rebuild. Craftsmanship with such limited supplies in dead emptiness of space then scavenging hulks for parts... yada.
2. New models could have been contact upon a valiant return. Instead, now they return to find heresy!!! They are unsure of the universe that they have entered into... but one thing is certain. The foul stench of chaos hangs heavy over the empire. Much has changed ...

Wow I've never seen such a unique backstory on why a Chapter doesn't have Primaris since 8th started.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
They just aren't the space marines that I bought into to create my space marine army. They're a different thing. Their playstyle matches up just fine with some peoples' marine armies, but it doesn't match up with mine. It's the same reason I don't include unadorned, bolter-armed tactical marines in my army, or spiky chaos space marines, or Blood Bowl Halflings. They're not what my army is.

Yeah, that's completely fair. Just like how some people just don't like Bikes, or aren't keen on Scouts - Space Marines just have a very broad range of aesthetic and playstyle, so obviously some bits of it just don't align.
If people were upset because Primaris Marines don't match the particular style they prefer, well that's understandable, just as long as they make it clear that they're aware that non-Primaris Marines have that same issue.

Sure. The distinction is, when Deathwatch came out, nobody went and asked the guy with the uniform, gunline style imperial fists army when he was going to get around to replacing all his imp fists with individually armed, ornate, elite Deathwatch dudes.

I'm also aware that Necrons don't match that aesthetic. Were you gonna ask if I was aware that they are also different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh look, a new post on General from a returning space marine player. Let's see what questions he's got...

4: "Hey, where the chainswords at?"

The Chainswords are everywhere. Duh.

Actually this had always been their story.
The story then could change with restartes. Either buy in or no. Obviously no. Heresy was the decision.

As a CSM player, i'd just keep on using them.

I have the new CSM from the shadowspear set (I think it was called that?) but have no reason to use them at the moment. Been collecting for 20 years so I have a healthy number of CSM painted, converted, usable and looking like fairly chaotic marines. Not sure why I would replace? I'm glad I have some of the new ones and will build them in time but that's to add to my collection, not replace.

From a loyalist perspective, I can see some of the dilemma but then only if you absolutely MUST have the new thing to play with in a professional level competitive setting otherwise not sure why you'd have to upgrade and do anything with your older marines.

I suppose it's a loaded question as it assumes one will be replacing the old marine sculpts because one must upgrade to the new versions.

 jeff white wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
.

Insectum7 wrote:Because aesthetic terminology is often imprecise.

So, completely subjective? Why use it to make claims to objectivity and things like "realmarine" if you're also going to say it's an imprecise system?

Imprecise does't mean subjective.

But how can an imprecise system be used to measure objectivity?

You're evidencing how incapable you appear to be at having this discussion.

Aesthetics isn't a "system". And merely sticking to quantifying terms doesn't capture the entire picture. But that doesn't mean it's subjective. Differences can objectively exist even if there aren't specific terms for those differences.

But for objectivity funsies, count for me the number of chainswords in Primaris kits.

no but aesthetics IS completely subjective.

Is it? Please explain.

if you insist.
Aesthetics is described as a set of principals underlying beauty within art, or underlying and guiding the work of a partiuclar artist of movement.

the first is CLEARLY subjective. "beauty is within the eye of the beholder" and the second is, clearly up for debate. I know you're going to seize on that and claim "SEE THEY'RE TOTALLY DIFFERANT! AESTETICLY NOT THE SAME

except well 1: people disagree. 2: the evidance that they do indeed share an aestetic is pretty strong.

here's a old piece of Goodwin concept art for the MK 8 Space Marine, this dates back to 1990.

you can see how it informed the design of Primaris Marines, the armor is clearly reminiscant of the MK X tacticus armor, (unless you reaaaaaally think the knee pads are a sufficant aestetics change) and the power fist really does remind me of the fists on Agressors.

Likewise, the design of the new dreadnought...



take a look at the upper right sketch there. I can see some design ques for the redemptor. (meanwhile the contemptor dreadnought is a total and complete change from the dreadnought aestetic and people just accept it)

meanwhilke there is other old art out there that if you look at you can definatly see that GW dipped into their old art stock when designing primaris.

 jeff white wrote:


Is it? Please explain.

BrianDavion wrote:


if you insist.
A ) Aesthetics is described as a set of principals underlying beauty within art, or underlying and guiding the work of a partiuclar artist of movement.

B ) the first is CLEARLY subjective. "beauty is within the eye of the beholder" and the second is, clearly up for debate. I know you're going to seize on that and claim "SEE THEY'RE TOTALLY DIFFERANT! AESTETICLY NOT THE SAME

...

meanwhilke there is other old art out there that if you look at you can definatly see that GW dipped into their old art stock when designing primaris.

I have cut most and added A and B.

B does not follow from A

You might read Kant's third critique, of judgement. This may help...

The rest is gibberish. No one argues that GW did not look at old sketches to make restartes ... the renessaince followed gothic followed medeival eras. Of course this is not an issue.

I'm not a Marine player, but I do want to comment that some of what might be getting to people about Primaris is the same type of thing that's getting to me.

For years, I could play against Tactical Marines (regular Marines), Devastator Marines (biggo gun regular Marines), and Assault Marines (stabby regular Marines). Later, Sternguard and Vanguard were added (5th edition) which were Tactical Marines, but with +1 attack and more gun and Assault Marines with +1 attack and more stab respectively. I generally understood what those things were, and they had a unifying aesthetic now that they're all basically the same thing. Now, however, I find myself up against a blistering array of syllables and design aesthetic (both rules design and model design) that's just sorta everywhere.

"I'm shooting at the flying ones - on the stand?"
"Inceptors?"
"Maybe? The flying ones, right there!"
"That's inceptors, yeah."
*rolls dice, begins to remove models*
"Wait, no, those other flying ones!"
"Oh, those are suppressors!"

-- two turns later --
"I'm shooting at the Incessors."
*rolls dice, begins to remove models*
"Wait no, I was shooting at the unit there."
"Inceptors?"
"No, Interceptors? Intersectionals?"
"Intercessors? Oh, I thought you were wounding on Toughness 5!"
"I was!"
"Intercessors are Toughness 4!"
"Wait, why are the flyguys T5 but the foot guys T4? Oh, I mean the Interceptors, not the Suppressors."
"You mean Inceptors?"

At this point I just call them Intersuppreliminassrieversors.

I've had the exact same issue more times than I care to admit.

Whoever was in charge of naming over at GW has been drunk on the job for years.

here people just call them bolter dudes, flying dudes, the other flying dudes, plasma dudes, and I can't write the word that is used to describe the sniper ones, because it would break the forum terms.

no idea how reavers would be called, because no one uses them here. And aggressors are calle fat dudes. So no naming problems accure

At least they aren't Adjective NounVerb like all the Death Guard and Ork stuff.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
At least they aren't Adjective NounVerb like all the Death Guard and Ork stuff.

I so, so, vastly prefer the overly descriptive names to the stupid in-something names that all sound the fething same. Every Adjective Nounverb name can be easily shortened to something that easily disinguishes what the thing is and instantly clears up any confusion. The number of times I've actually said "Rukkatrukk Squigbuggy" I can count on zero fingers, because it's just the squigbuggy and that instantly and easily differentiates it from everything else in my army. Bloat Drone, Blight Hauler, Plaguecrawler or whatever it's called, there's pretty much nothing in the DG range I have trouble identifying.

The only army that I find more confusing to play against than space marines at this point with their 10,234,853 different slightly distinct bolter-armed duders is tyranids, because every time I look at a tyranid army some part of my brain switches off and I just see a weird jumbly mass of teeth and scythes and claws.That might just be me pulling a little bit of that alex jones on joe rogan meme but I just cannot differentiate tyranid stuff no matter how hard I try.

Unit1126PLL wrote:I'm not a Marine player, but I do want to comment that some of what might be getting to people about Primaris is the same type of thing that's getting to me.

For years, I could play against Tactical Marines (regular Marines), Devastator Marines (biggo gun regular Marines), and Assault Marines (stabby regular Marines). Later, Sternguard and Vanguard were added (5th edition) which were Tactical Marines, but with +1 attack and more gun and Assault Marines with +1 attack and more stab respectively. I generally understood what those things were, and they had a unifying aesthetic now that they're all basically the same thing. Now, however, I find myself up against a blistering array of syllables and design aesthetic (both rules design and model design) that's just sorta everywhere.

I think a lot of that just came with years of experience and familiarity though. When I've played against new players who've never experienced 40k before, they often don't recognise the distinctions between many units I'd say are classic, and it's only with units with vastly different silhouettes (think Terminators, Scouts, Bikers, jump packs units and Centurions) that stand out from the normal power armour (and even then jump pack units like Vanguard and Assault Marines can easily be confused).

"I'm shooting at the flying ones - on the stand?"
"Inceptors?"
"Maybe? The flying ones, right there!"
"That's inceptors, yeah."
*rolls dice, begins to remove models*
"Wait, no, those other flying ones!"
"Oh, those are suppressors!"

Eh, the same could/would happen for many other factions.
"I'm shooting the ones with jump packs."
"The Assault Marines?"
"Sure- why are you removing from that squad?"
"These are the Assault Marines?"
"No, I meant the other jump pack squad!"
"Ohhh, the Vanguard Veterans!"

It's even more extreme with the units from multi-kit kits, like Seraphim/Zephyrim or Sydonian Dragoons/Ironstrider Ballistarii, or, as I'm sure you'd appreciate, the massive variety of Baneblade hulls. Someone with little experience might just expect them to be the same unit with different weapons.

-- two turns later --
"I'm shooting at the Incessors."
*rolls dice, begins to remove models*
"Wait no, I was shooting at the unit there."
"Inceptors?"
"No, Interceptors? Intersectionals?"
"Intercessors? Oh, I thought you were wounding on Toughness 5!"
"I was!"
"Intercessors are Toughness 4!"
"Wait, why are the flyguys T5 but the foot guys T4? Oh, I mean the Interceptors, not the Suppressors."
"You mean Inceptors?"

Well, that's a naming thing, which, in all fairness can also be a problem outside of Space Marines. I mean, Tactical/Assault/Devastator all feel natural, but Sternguard and Vanguard? If you don't know what that means, why would you associate that?
Many units (as BCB says, Death Guard and Orks especially) have overly long names, and while it's pretty trivial to shorten them into more digestable ones (we don't call Riptides, XV-104 Riptide-class Battlesuits, so shouldn't we just call Sloppity Bilepipers 'Bilepipers'?), I'm still not completely sure on the distinction between Flash Gitz and Lootas - they both have big guns that obviously look looted and powerful? And nearly all Daemon names are a bit of a mess, even the classic ones. And why would someone know the difference between a Termagant, Hormagaunt and Tervigon just on name? And what's the different between a Baneblade, Banewolf, Banehammer, Banesword, Banelord?*

Similarly on expectation of durability and stats, I've never really understood why bikers get extra T and W. They'r still just one guy on a bike, the extra T makes sense, but the Wound? At least the Intercessors and Inceptors have a notable different in the thickness of their armour, on the similar degree as Terminators to Tacticals.

Most problems can be solved by pointing (or asking your opponent) to point at the unit that you're targetting. Asking your opponent to point is usually better, because they can touch their model, and then you know you're both paying attention.

Basically, Primaris are guilty of some pretty obtuse naming (well, some are fine - Eliminators, Infiltrators, Aggressors and Hellblasters I think are all pretty self-explanatory names), but let's not pretend that it's a Primaris only thing, or that we haven't all been in a position with an unfamiliar unit that we've gotten the name mixed up and designs have all blurred into one.

*I had to literally google that, and found out that one of them doesn't exist, one is a Hellhound class tank, and I can't even tell the difference aesthetically between two of them!
Viewers at home, if you're not familiar with these tanks, try and guess which is which!

I mean, a loota and a flash git look, like, completely different. I feel like you'd have to not have both on the table in front of you to be confused by them. Other than "ork have big gun" lootas are almost half the size, are on a different base, and have a gun that they hold over their shoulder with a rail thing, while flash gits hold their gun in front of their torso, have banners on their backs, and oh minor detail they've got comical pirate hats on.

Sure, if someone completely unfamiliar with 40k was asked "which one of these is a loota and which is a flash git" they'd probably get it wrong, but that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts. "which one of these is an aggressor" - you'd have no fething clue. Zero. You might get "Eliminators" and you might get "Infiltrators" but that last one would be a 1/3 chance between infiltrators reivers and incursors, they all look like infiltrating tactical dudes.

the_scotsman wrote:
I mean, a loota and a flash git look, like, completely different. I feel like you'd have to not have both on the table in front of you to be confused by them. Other than "ork have big gun" lootas are almost half the size, are on a different base, and have a gun that they hold over their shoulder with a rail thing, while flash gits hold their gun in front of their torso, have banners on their backs, and oh minor detail they've got comical pirate hats on.

And Suppressors and Inceptors look totally different, despite both having jump packs. So which is it - are people smart enough to tell between two aesthetically different units or not?
And aside from that, what's to say Flash Gitz and Lootas couldn't be different sculpts of the same kit? The Daemon models especially look quite different. After all, if their main "feature" is 'big cobbled together gun', why would if it's shoulder mounted or hand held matter? Plus, as the FW 30k weapon sculpts show, there's precedent for the same weapon being both shoulder-mounted and handheld.

Also, you absolutely don't have to build the Flash Gitz with pirate hats, as there's plenty of bare heads in the same kit.

Sure, if someone completely unfamiliar with 40k was asked "which one of these is a loota and which is a flash git" they'd probably get it wrong, but that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts. "which one of these is an aggressor" - you'd have no fething clue. Zero. You might get "Eliminators" and you might get "Infiltrators" but that last one would be a 1/3 chance between infiltrators reivers and incursors, they all look like infiltrating tactical dudes.

Like someone would be able to work out what Paladins, Purifiers, Strike and Purgators are?
And with Sisters of Battle, how can someone tell the difference between Celestians, Dominions, Retributors and regular Battle Sisters? And Seraphim/Zephyrim only become understandable if you understand Judeo-Christian mythology, or are aware of the connotation between Seraphs and angels, and even then, how could you tell which one is the power sword squad, or the twin pistol squad?

And do I really need to talk about Baneblades, Banehammers, Banewolves, Baneswords and Banestorms?


I'm not saying Primaris don't have obtuse naming, but pretending that plenty of other 40k units don't also have really vague naming is just ignorance.

Holy mother of god what is it with you and just DESPERATELY needing to have an internet dunk that you take what I say and imagine that I said the exact opposite thing?

You even quoted the part where I said

"Sure, if someone completely unfamiliar with 40k was asked "which one of these is a loota and which is a flash git" they'd probably get it wrong, but that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts."

and your "Counter" was

"Like someone would be able to work out what Paladins, Purifiers, Strike and Purgators are?"

No. Of course not. Because I literally said "that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts". MOST units in 40k do not have immediately clear delineations based on their name that can be comprehended by random folks.

the_scotsman wrote:
Holy mother of god what is it with you and just DESPERATELY needing to have an internet dunk that you take what I say and imagine that I said the exact opposite thing?

You even quoted the part where I said

"Sure, if someone completely unfamiliar with 40k was asked "which one of these is a loota and which is a flash git" they'd probably get it wrong, but that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts."

and your "Counter" was

"Like someone would be able to work out what Paladins, Purifiers, Strike and Purgators are?"

No. Of course not. Because I literally said "that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts". MOST units in 40k do not have immediately clear delineations based on their name that can be comprehended by random folks.

So why on earth would you possibly complain about Primaris doing something that, as you say, 90% of all 40k models do, as some kind of 'slam dunk' against Primaris? That'd be like me complaining that Primaris Marines are mounted on raised bases, even though practically everything is. If the majority of things have that problem, singling Primaris out for it isn't a solid argument.

You're guilty of what you're accusing me of - trying to make some kind of "slam dunk".

I heavily dislike planned obsolescence. Maybe play old editions if i can find anyone willing to do it or 30k.
Otherwise I'm switching to a different system.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:I'm not a Marine player, but I do want to comment that some of what might be getting to people about Primaris is the same type of thing that's getting to me.

For years, I could play against Tactical Marines (regular Marines), Devastator Marines (biggo gun regular Marines), and Assault Marines (stabby regular Marines). Later, Sternguard and Vanguard were added (5th edition) which were Tactical Marines, but with +1 attack and more gun and Assault Marines with +1 attack and more stab respectively. I generally understood what those things were, and they had a unifying aesthetic now that they're all basically the same thing. Now, however, I find myself up against a blistering array of syllables and design aesthetic (both rules design and model design) that's just sorta everywhere.

I think a lot of that just came with years of experience and familiarity though. When I've played against new players who've never experienced 40k before, they often don't recognise the distinctions between many units I'd say are classic, and it's only with units with vastly different silhouettes (think Terminators, Scouts, Bikers, jump packs units and Centurions) that stand out from the normal power armour (and even then jump pack units like Vanguard and Assault Marines can easily be confused).

Yes, but I think it's not a hard thing to get. "The ones with the chainswords are assault marines" - that's easy to remember. "The blinged-out ones with the chainswords are Vanguard marines" is harder, I agree. But the fundamental difference is:
1) Squad with significant numbers of heavy weapons = Devastator Marines
2) Squad with significant numbers of bolters = tactical marines
3) Squad with significant numbers of chainswords = assault marines.

Vanguard and Sternguard screwed this up a bit, but essentially they're just "Marines but with an extra attack" so confusing them isn't devastating the way confusing Suppressors and Inceptors is. And if they do have wargear changes that matter, those will be modeled (e.g. thunder hammer/storm shield vanguard) which make them easy to tell apart again. Lastly, they came out in 5th Edition, which is when all this creep started happening. Giving units access to the armory and preserving Retinues from 4th edition was easy to remember.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

"I'm shooting at the flying ones - on the stand?"
"Inceptors?"
"Maybe? The flying ones, right there!"
"That's inceptors, yeah."
*rolls dice, begins to remove models*
"Wait, no, those other flying ones!"
"Oh, those are suppressors!"

Eh, the same could/would happen for many other factions.
"I'm shooting the ones with jump packs."
"The Assault Marines?"
"Sure- why are you removing from that squad?"
"These are the Assault Marines?"
"No, I meant the other jump pack squad!"
"Ohhh, the Vanguard Veterans!"

This typically only happens in cases where the Vanguard is equipped the same as the Assault Marines, in which case it doesn't matter really, because that +1 attack isn't going to make or break the difference. Now, if it's a squad of lightning claws, thunder hammers, and power fists, I'm going to worry - but those are also much harder to confuse with basic Assault Marines.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
It's even more extreme with the units from multi-kit kits, like Seraphim/Zephyrim or Sydonian Dragoons/Ironstrider Ballistarii, or, as I'm sure you'd appreciate, the massive variety of Baneblade hulls. Someone with little experience might just expect them to be the same unit with different weapons.

Which is exactly my point. Baneblade hulls, Zephyrim, and Sydonian Dragoons/Ironstrider Balistarii were all released during or after 5th edition, and really should be the same datasheet with different weapons. However, GW's dropping of the armory system from codexes (and the ability to buy special rules) meant that they had to be different datasheets now. This is a deliberate design choice and one I do not like.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

-- two turns later --
"I'm shooting at the Incessors."
*rolls dice, begins to remove models*
"Wait no, I was shooting at the unit there."
"Inceptors?"
"No, Interceptors? Intersectionals?"
"Intercessors? Oh, I thought you were wounding on Toughness 5!"
"I was!"
"Intercessors are Toughness 4!"
"Wait, why are the flyguys T5 but the foot guys T4? Oh, I mean the Interceptors, not the Suppressors."
"You mean Inceptors?"

Well, that's a naming thing, which, in all fairness can also be a problem outside of Space Marines. I mean, Tactical/Assault/Devastator all feel natural, but Sternguard and Vanguard? If you don't know what that means, why would you associate that?
Many units (as BCB says, Death Guard and Orks especially) have overly long names, and while it's pretty trivial to shorten them into more digestable ones (we don't call Riptides, XV-104 Riptide-class Battlesuits, so shouldn't we just call Sloppity Bilepipers 'Bilepipers'?), I'm still not completely sure on the distinction between Flash Gitz and Lootas - they both have big guns that obviously look looted and powerful? And nearly all Daemon names are a bit of a mess, even the classic ones. And why would someone know the difference between a Termagant, Hormagaunt and Tervigon just on name? And what's the different between a Baneblade, Banewolf, Banehammer, Banesword, Banelord?*

Agreed here, but that doesn't make the problem easier. Especially since they keep coming out with brand new units. Tomorrow it'll be the Primaris Jazzerceptessors and they'll be armed with Rotary Bolt Projectors and I'll have yet another thing to remember. Slow down the releases! Especially if their names are long and difficult!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Similarly on expectation of durability and stats, I've never really understood why bikers get extra T and W. They'r still just one guy on a bike, the extra T makes sense, but the Wound? At least the Intercessors and Inceptors have a notable different in the thickness of their armour, on the similar degree as Terminators to Tacticals.

I agree with you with bikes, and personally dislike the way they are handled. The armor thing, though... wat? Why does thicker armor give you +1 toughness in the case of Inceptors but +1 armor save in the case of Terminators? Also don't inceptors have 3 wounds? Or is that aggressors? Or both? I honestly don't remember.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Most problems can be solved by pointing (or asking your opponent) to point at the unit that you're targetting. Asking your opponent to point is usually better, because they can touch their model, and then you know you're both paying attention.

I started doing this, but it gets tedious after a while. I'm on my eighth game against a Primaris player and he still calls his Inceptors "jumpy dudes", (from Winters SEO who also confuses himself in the middle of his battle reports with his own army), and then confuses himself with his Suppressors which he also calls "jumpy dudes." I'm not sure there's much of a way to do it if you don't play like EVERY WEEK.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Basically, Primaris are guilty of some pretty obtuse naming (well, some are fine - Eliminators, Infiltrators, Aggressors and Hellblasters I think are all pretty self-explanatory names), but let's not pretend that it's a Primaris only thing, or that we haven't all been in a position with an unfamiliar unit that we've gotten the name mixed up and designs have all blurred into one.

Correct, but this problem was much mitigated prior to 5th edition's madness. The era Oldmarines are from. There's been a slow escalation from "customize this unit into what you want" towards "buy this different unit entirely that represents what used to be customization!". So instead of "Devastators but I only took two heavy weapons" or "Tactical Marines in 2x6 groups with combi-plas, plas, lascannon" we have Sternguard.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
*I had to literally google that, and found out that one of them doesn't exist, one is a Hellhound class tank, and I can't even tell the difference aesthetically between two of them!
Viewers at home, if you're not familiar with these tanks, try and guess which is which!

Another product of GW moving away from customization (all the turreted ones should be "Baneblade" with access to the superheavy armory, and the non-turreted ones be "Shadowswords" with access to the superheavy armory, for example). Primaris are the latest and most exemplary force of this trend, though I think that has more to do with simple newness than deliberate action.

the_scotsman wrote:
Holy mother of god what is it with you and just DESPERATELY needing to have an internet dunk that you take what I say and imagine that I said the exact opposite thing?

You even quoted the part where I said

"Sure, if someone completely unfamiliar with 40k was asked "which one of these is a loota and which is a flash git" they'd probably get it wrong, but that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts."

and your "Counter" was

"Like someone would be able to work out what Paladins, Purifiers, Strike and Purgators are?"

No. Of course not. Because I literally said "that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts". MOST units in 40k do not have immediately clear delineations based on their name that can be comprehended by random folks.

Amen.

There's an effort in this thread to establish a system of aesthetics that can be used to declare the Primaris sculpts the only legitimate design for Space Marines.

Primaris represent a void of imagination, a standardized ensemble that's supposed to replace the gritty piecemeal lore of 40k. Nothing about it appeals to me, there have been much richer designs in the past.

And that's alright, I am not breaking aesthetic rules by saying that. The people (person) looking to enforce those rules are operating off faulty assessments.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Holy mother of god what is it with you and just DESPERATELY needing to have an internet dunk that you take what I say and imagine that I said the exact opposite thing?

You even quoted the part where I said

"Sure, if someone completely unfamiliar with 40k was asked "which one of these is a loota and which is a flash git" they'd probably get it wrong, but that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts."

and your "Counter" was

"Like someone would be able to work out what Paladins, Purifiers, Strike and Purgators are?"

No. Of course not. Because I literally said "that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts". MOST units in 40k do not have immediately clear delineations based on their name that can be comprehended by random folks.

So why on earth would you possibly complain about Primaris doing something that, as you say, 90% of all 40k models do, as some kind of 'slam dunk' against Primaris? That'd be like me complaining that Primaris Marines are mounted on raised bases, even though practically everything is. If the majority of things have that problem, singling Primaris out for it isn't a solid argument.

You're guilty of what you're accusing me of - trying to make some kind of "slam dunk".

Because I wasn't doing that, my dude. I used Primaris as an example because they're top of mind, and specifically called out Aggressors because i agree with your assessment that their name is generally fine and descriptive to what they are and do. Read the post. Actually read it - don't clip it apart so you can figure out which bits you can disagree with and dunk on for your internet debate - all I was saying was "to a person who plays 40k the distinction between a loota and a flash git is pretty obvious because physically they're totally different models, if you're talking about asking a random person which is which they will get the answer wrong for 90% of the models that exist in 40k."

There are a few units with names so descriptive it's immediately obvious what you're looking at - anyone's mom could probably pick out a Pink Horror from a lineup - but most aren't. It is not a unique problem to primaris. The only particular annoyance I have with primaris is how linguistically similar many of their names are, which leads to confusion, and since they are marines they fall into the same problem all marines have which is that their unit roster is fething colossal and many of their units do the exact same thing in different ways, and primaris marines continue this problem.

And in some instances they do exacerbate the problem more so than previous marine units did. The distinction between a melta gun, a flamer and a plasma gun is pretty obvious, much less so the difference between an auto bolt-rifle and a standard bolt-rifle, or...whatever it is that physically distinguishes incursors and infiltrators.

This does not mean the same problems do not exist with standard marines or other armies - say, which guardsmen in that huge blob of guardsmen are Veterans, with BS3+ and 3x specials per squad, which are Infantry, with 10-man squads, and which are 30-man conscript blobs? Who knows, they could be literally the exact same models. I did also bring this gak up before, when I talked about tyranids, but it seems like you ignored that as well.

You are giving basically any statement that says anything negative about primaris marines a level of ludicrous, pedantic uncharitability that you are simply not applying to any other posts. If someone says eldar guardians are ugly models, you don't jump down their throat and go "WELL WHAT ABOUT THESE UGLY MODELS FROM OTHER FACTIONS, HUH? HUH??? WHY DON'T YOU THINK ANYTHING ELSE IS UGLY?" You insist that every opinion on primaris marines is inconsistent unless the individual also lists out every other thing they find bad in other aspects of the game at the same time, because your assumption is that people are hypocritically holding these opinions about primaris and not other stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Holy mother of god what is it with you and just DESPERATELY needing to have an internet dunk that you take what I say and imagine that I said the exact opposite thing?

You even quoted the part where I said

"Sure, if someone completely unfamiliar with 40k was asked "which one of these is a loota and which is a flash git" they'd probably get it wrong, but that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts."

and your "Counter" was

"Like someone would be able to work out what Paladins, Purifiers, Strike and Purgators are?"

No. Of course not. Because I literally said "that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts". MOST units in 40k do not have immediately clear delineations based on their name that can be comprehended by random folks.

Amen.

There's an effort in this thread to establish a system of aesthetics that can be used to declare the Primaris sculpts the only legitimate design for Space Marines.

Primaris represent a void of imagination, a standardized ensemble that's supposed to replace the gritty piecemeal lore of 40k. Nothing about it appeals to me, there have been much richer designs in the past.

And that's alright, I am not breaking aesthetic rules by saying that. The people (person) looking to enforce those rules are operating off faulty assessments.

..I mean, I'd go ahead and say that about a LOT of the 1,023,235,123* very slight variations on the theme of "dreadnought" "terminator" "power armored bolter wielding marine" and "rhino chassis tank" pumped out over the last 3-4 editions by games workshop and FW. Just go look at how many variants of "dead guy in space armor" forgeworld currently sells, it MUST be in the triple digits at this point or close. Primaris are just the Iphone 11 of marines - the one people seemed to finally stand back and realize "Hey, they're just re-re-re-re-re-re releasing the same thing and requiring us to repurchase this product we already own!

Keep em use em. If tac marines get the boot I'll just call them intercessors.

 Gangland wrote:
Keep em use em. If tac marines get the boot I'll just call them intercessors.

Given the size difference, you could call them Primaris Squats.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Gangland wrote:
Keep em use em. If tac marines get the boot I'll just call them intercessors.

Given the size difference, you could call them Primaris Squats.

Which would be hilarious.

Unit1126PLL wrote:"The ones with the chainswords are assault marines" - that's easy to remember. "The blinged-out ones with the chainswords are Vanguard marines" is harder, I agree. But the fundamental difference is:
1) Squad with significant numbers of heavy weapons = Devastator Marines
2) Squad with significant numbers of bolters = tactical marines
3) Squad with significant numbers of chainswords = assault marines.

In that same vein:
1) Squad with bolters and straight leg armour = Intercessors
2) Squad with antennae = Infiltrators
3) Squad with visors = Incursors
4) Squad with plasma weapons = Hellblasters
5) Jumping squad with big cannons = Suppressors
6) Jumping squad with twin guns = Inceptors
7) Squad with camo cloaks = Eliminators
8) Squad with gauntlet weapons = Aggressors
9) Squad with skull masks = Reivers

Vanguard and Sternguard screwed this up a bit, but essentially they're just "Marines but with an extra attack" so confusing them isn't devastating the way confusing Suppressors and Inceptors is. And if they do have wargear changes that matter, those will be modeled (e.g. thunder hammer/storm shield vanguard) which make them easy to tell apart again. Lastly, they came out in 5th Edition, which is when all this creep started happening. Giving units access to the armory and preserving Retinues from 4th edition was easy to remember.

Again, I don't see what's confusing (or even similar) about Inceptors and Suppressors beyond "jump packs". They don't even have the option for the same weapons, unlike Assault Marines and Vanguard Vets! If "jump pack" is enough to cause confusion, the same should be said of Vanguard and Assault Marines - and I believe the only reason they're not confused by veteran players is simply exposure. Vanguard Vets have been a thing for over a decade. Primaris haven't even had 5 years. If/when Primaris are given the same amount of time and exposure that new fans to the setting will be equally familiar, there will be just as much confusion between Primaris units as there is between oldMarine units.

This typically only happens in cases where the Vanguard is equipped the same as the Assault Marines, in which case it doesn't matter really, because that +1 attack isn't going to make or break the difference. Now, if it's a squad of lightning claws, thunder hammers, and power fists, I'm going to worry - but those are also much harder to confuse with basic Assault Marines.

But the Suppressors and Inceptors aren't equipped anywhere near the same! In your example, the person would surely say "I'm shooting those jump pack guys with the twin guns".

There isn't really a reason that Primaris jump units should be confused that couldn't also apply to oldMarines. Well, save for, again, people having experience of oldMarines units for longer.

Which is exactly my point. Baneblade hulls, Zephyrim, and Sydonian Dragoons/Ironstrider Balistarii were all released during or after 5th edition, and really should be the same datasheet with different weapons. However, GW's dropping of the armory system from codexes (and the ability to buy special rules) meant that they had to be different datasheets now. This is a deliberate design choice and one I do not like.

Right, so it's *not a Primaris problem*.

I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page that many of the complaints about Primaris aren't really *Primaris* problems, but issues that have been around long before they were even around, and I take issue with calling Primaris out on those issue without also mentioning that those problems are in no way exclusive to them. It's a semantic issue, but it's incredibly frustrating seeing the sheer amount of "Primaris complaints" and comparatively nothing about the other factions that share the same problem.

Agreed here, but that doesn't make the problem easier. Especially since they keep coming out with brand new units. Tomorrow it'll be the Primaris Jazzerceptessors and they'll be armed with Rotary Bolt Projectors and I'll have yet another thing to remember. Slow down the releases! Especially if their names are long and difficult!

Again, not a Primaris problem - that's an every new faction problem. I mean, I can barely name any of the new Ork vehicles or GSC units, but you don't see me complaining that the new Ork units and GSC aren't "Real".

I don't have an issue with people saying "I don't like GW's current naming convention" or "I wish GW would slow down with their releases so the player base can get used to the new stuff", but I do have an issue with the implication that it's a Primaris problem.

I agree with you with bikes, and personally dislike the way they are handled. The armor thing, though... wat? Why does thicker armor give you +1 toughness in the case of Inceptors but +1 armor save in the case of Terminators? Also don't inceptors have 3 wounds? Or is that aggressors? Or both? I honestly don't remember.

Terminators do an extra Wound too, let's not forget. End of the day though, thicker armour = more durability, either in the form of toughness or armour and Wounds.
And no, Aggressors/Inceptors only have 2 Wounds. Like Terminators.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Most problems can be solved by pointing (or asking your opponent) to point at the unit that you're targetting. Asking your opponent to point is usually better, because they can touch their model, and then you know you're both paying attention.

I started doing this, but it gets tedious after a while. I'm on my eighth game against a Primaris player and he still calls his Inceptors "jumpy dudes", (from Winters SEO who also confuses himself in the middle of his battle reports with his own army), and then confuses himself with his Suppressors which he also calls "jumpy dudes." I'm not sure there's much of a way to do it if you don't play like EVERY WEEK.

Sounds like this player would confuse themselves with their Vanguard Vets and Assault Marines too, which are both jumpy dudes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
*I had to literally google that, and found out that one of them doesn't exist, one is a Hellhound class tank, and I can't even tell the difference aesthetically between two of them!
Viewers at home, if you're not familiar with these tanks, try and guess which is which!

Another product of GW moving away from customization (all the turreted ones should be "Baneblade" with access to the superheavy armory, and the non-turreted ones be "Shadowswords" with access to the superheavy armory, for example). Primaris are the latest and most exemplary force of this trend, though I think that has more to do with simple newness than deliberate action.

Exactly, it's newness, but it still creates the kind of impression the Primaris are somehow completely different to everything else that's ever come before. Just the simple understanding/recognition that Primaris aren't the ONLY culprit of cases that have been around for decades beforehand would be appreciated, but instead, all there seems to be (or the vast majority) is just "Primaris are the worst and break DECADES of design philosophy etc etc".

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, it's almost certainly a case of veteran players jumping on something new because it's unfamiliar, but something new players would have no issue with.

techsoldaten wrote:There's an effort in this thread to establish a system of aesthetics that can be used to declare the Primaris sculpts the only legitimate design for Space Marines.

Who on earth is claiming that Primaris are the "only" legitimate design for Space Marines? It certainly isn't me.

What I'm seeing is an effort to claim a system of aesthetics that declare Primaris as "not-Space Marine", but I've seen no argument that uses aesthetics as a base that doesn't also make old Marines irrelevant. There's only one party who's claiming that there's some kind of "Real Marine" aesthetic - and unfortunately, they're unable to show what that is without also jeopardising their own "Real Marines".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:Because I wasn't doing that, my dude. I used Primaris as an example because they're top of mind, and specifically called out Aggressors because i agree with your assessment that their name is generally fine and descriptive to what they are and do. Read the post. Actually read it - don't clip it apart so you can figure out which bits you can disagree with and dunk on for your internet debate - all I was saying was "to a person who plays 40k the distinction between a loota and a flash git is pretty obvious because physically they're totally different models, if you're talking about asking a random person which is which they will get the answer wrong for 90% of the models that exist in 40k."

I do read it. I only clip out the bits I'm actually responding to. If I don't include it, it's either because I agree with it, or have nothing to say about it (usually the same thing).

I'm just saying that if a Loota and Flash Git can be easily identified as different, something like Inceptors and Suppressors should equally be identifiably different. But, if it makes my point consistent, I apologise if I implied that you were being inconsistent.

There are a few units with names so descriptive it's immediately obvious what you're looking at - anyone's mom could probably pick out a Pink Horror from a lineup - but most aren't. It is not a unique problem to primaris. The only particular annoyance I have with primaris is how linguistically similar many of their names are, which leads to confusion, and since they are marines they fall into the same problem all marines have which is that their unit roster is fething colossal and many of their units do the exact same thing in different ways, and primaris marines continue this problem.

Right, so it's not exactly a *Primaris* only problem, and an extension of the Space Marine faction's problems.
It's that distinction that I just want to bring attention to, not to stifle criticism of Primaris. By all means, I suppose criticism of them, as long as it's consistent!

And in some instances they do exacerbate the problem more so than previous marine units did. The distinction between a melta gun, a flamer and a plasma gun is pretty obvious, much less so the difference between an auto bolt-rifle and a standard bolt-rifle, or...whatever it is that physically distinguishes incursors and infiltrators.

This does not mean the same problems do not exist with standard marines or other armies - say, which guardsmen in that huge blob of guardsmen are Veterans, with BS3+ and 3x specials per squad, which are Infantry, with 10-man squads, and which are 30-man conscript blobs? Who knows, they could be literally the exact same models.

Exactly - the highlighted part is exactly my argument! I literally just want people to bring attention to that, to recognise that their issues with Primaris are present in so many other places that receive nowhere near the same zealous hatred.

I did also bring this gak up before, when I talked about tyranids, but it seems like you ignored that as well.

I didn't comment on it, because I agreed with it. Just because I don't comment on EVERYTHING doesn't mean I don't read it.

You are giving basically any statement that says anything negative about primaris marines a level of ludicrous, pedantic uncharitability that you are simply not applying to any other posts. If someone says eldar guardians are ugly models, you don't jump down their throat and go "WELL WHAT ABOUT THESE UGLY MODELS FROM OTHER FACTIONS, HUH? HUH??? WHY DON'T YOU THINK ANYTHING ELSE IS UGLY?"

Guess I'm just doing exactly what all the people who start/hijack all these Primaris hate threads are doing.

Also, if someone says Eldar Guardians are ugly, they usually don't follow that up with "these aren't REAL ELDAR", or "Eldar Guardians are OBJECTIVELY BAD", and there's certainly not whole threads dedicated to hatred of Eldar Guardians.

You insist that every opinion on primaris marines is inconsistent unless the individual also lists out every other thing they find bad in other aspects of the game at the same time, because your assumption is that people are hypocritically holding these opinions about primaris and not other stuff.

I mean, I'm not seeing them complain about everything else - of course I'm going to take their comments literally, because that's all I can see. I also make it VERY clear that I'm only after clarification and for people to say that they share those opinions with everything else, and when they do, I'm more than happy to give up the discussion when they *make clear they're being consistent*.

It's a simple as that. If you're going to namedrop Primaris, make it clear that it's ONLY Primaris, for the sake of a consistent argument.

Right, sure, the problem isn't just Marines.

But Marines are so omnipresent that it is more obvious. I can count on one hand the number of times I have played against a Baneblade variant in the entirety of 8th edition.

I have played more against marines in 2020 (yes, even with COVID) than I have Imperial Guard Superheavies ever. So if I was a normal player, the fact that I can't tell the difference between a Shadowsword and a Stormsword isn't as important or irritating.

I do acknowledge that it exists though.