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.

BrianDavion wrote:

"ohh GW doesn't show but tells!" "well actually they show it plenty" "the number of times it appers (and is thus shown) is irrelevant"

ok we're done here.

We are far from being done I am afraid. I would refrain from being this dismissing if I were you. This white-knighting is embarrassing enough on is own.
First and foremost, you are defending an unsubtle quote downright stating that GW shows even more lack of subtlety hammering over and over the same thing.
Secondly, you missed completely the initial point moved against that quote: it's the how the problem. They are stating outright the very main "theme" of his character conflict.
What's next? Robbie G looking at the camera and saying "I am scared!" "I am worried!" "I am hungry!".
Now 40k, I admit, was never that subtle but here we are facing fanfiction-tier writing.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Most likely scenario is that people like/dislike Primaris for purely emotional reasons and have been rationalizing it since they've picked their camp.

I feel like this rationalization is the problem as instead of approaching the problem acknowledging biases (such as mine that revolve around my enjoyment of painting Primaris versus my lack of enjoyment painting standard Marines) leads to things like making up facts about the lore, or looking for justifications to claim that the Primaris ruined 40k, or acting like the only logical option is to like something new and bash everyone who doesn't like it.

I never want to say a person can't feel a certain way about models, I mean I can't seem to enjoy painting Tau for reasons I've never been able to articulate, but I will happily point out where people got things wrong where they lay out their rationalizations of the old setting versuses the new (like the High Lords being unimportant to thensetting in the old lore).

This is downright insulting, especially in light of the fact that many voiced with points and examples their concerns.

They voiced rationalizations of their feelings leading to claims like "they're like Tau" or the one about the High Lords.

Juat because you make a point to justify why you feel a certain way doesn't make that point valid or true. I have never argued that people should like Primaris, but I have argued against most of those "points" because they rely misrepresenting lore, or outright fabricating claims about the model design.

Feel what you want, but don't try to hide behind false claims as if they're actual facts.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Most likely scenario is that people like/dislike Primaris for purely emotional reasons and have been rationalizing it since they've picked their camp.

I feel like this rationalization is the problem as instead of approaching the problem acknowledging biases (such as mine that revolve around my enjoyment of painting Primaris versus my lack of enjoyment painting standard Marines) leads to things like making up facts about the lore, or looking for justifications to claim that the Primaris ruined 40k, or acting like the only logical option is to like something new and bash everyone who doesn't like it.

I never want to say a person can't feel a certain way about models, I mean I can't seem to enjoy painting Tau for reasons I've never been able to articulate, but I will happily point out where people got things wrong where they lay out their rationalizations of the old setting versuses the new (like the High Lords being unimportant to thensetting in the old lore).

This is downright insulting, especially in light of the fact that many voiced with points and examples their concerns.

They voiced rationalizations of their feelings leading to claims like "they're like Tau" or the one about the High Lords.

Juat because you make a point to justify why you feel a certain way doesn't make that point valid or true. I have never argued that people should like Primaris, but I have argued against most of those "points" because they rely misrepresenting lore, or outright fabricating claims about the model design.

Feel what you want, but don't try to hide behind false claims as if they're actual facts.

Hillarious, and who made you arbiter of truth or your arguments more valid then others?

Pot, kettle, black.
Something something.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

"ohh GW doesn't show but tells!" "well actually they show it plenty" "the number of times it appers (and is thus shown) is irrelevant"

ok we're done here.

We are far from being done I am afraid. I would refrain from being this dismissing if I were you. This white-knighting is embarrassing enough on is own.
First and foremost, you are defending an unsubtle quote downright stating that GW shows even more lack of subtlety hammering over and over the same thing.
Secondly, you missed completely the initial point moved against that quote: it's the how the problem. They are stating outright the very main "theme" of his character conflict.
What's next? Robbie G looking at the camera and saying "I am scared!" "I am worried!" "I am hungry!".
Now 40k, I admit, was never that subtle but here we are facing fanfiction-tier writing.

40k writing has always been all over the place. Dark Imperium was quite good, but Plague War was a dry boring slog that I've heard makes Angels Descent look entertaining by comparison.

I don't recall where the quote comes from though and wish someone would at least credit the book so we could have better context for that mess.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Most likely scenario is that people like/dislike Primaris for purely emotional reasons and have been rationalizing it since they've picked their camp.

I feel like this rationalization is the problem as instead of approaching the problem acknowledging biases (such as mine that revolve around my enjoyment of painting Primaris versus my lack of enjoyment painting standard Marines) leads to things like making up facts about the lore, or looking for justifications to claim that the Primaris ruined 40k, or acting like the only logical option is to like something new and bash everyone who doesn't like it.

I never want to say a person can't feel a certain way about models, I mean I can't seem to enjoy painting Tau for reasons I've never been able to articulate, but I will happily point out where people got things wrong where they lay out their rationalizations of the old setting versuses the new (like the High Lords being unimportant to thensetting in the old lore).

This is downright insulting, especially in light of the fact that many voiced with points and examples their concerns.

They voiced rationalizations of their feelings leading to claims like "they're like Tau" or the one about the High Lords.

Juat because you make a point to justify why you feel a certain way doesn't make that point valid or true. I have never argued that people should like Primaris, but I have argued against most of those "points" because they rely misrepresenting lore, or outright fabricating claims about the model design.

Feel what you want, but don't try to hide behind false claims as if they're actual facts.

You have been shown pictures of why a given weapon, as an example, had a "tau" feel in part of its design. Your rebuttal was a partial answer, because has only shown that the mixed design nature of the piece (mechanicus) but not the nods to xeno-tech, possibly there because the sculptors were uninspired of threatened by a deadline.

I am not the one being irrational here. In the very least, I am accepting the fact that other can have rational opinions about design, for one thing.
Seriously, all of this makes the mere existence of a forum pointless.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

"ohh GW doesn't show but tells!" "well actually they show it plenty" "the number of times it appers (and is thus shown) is irrelevant"

ok we're done here.

We are far from being done I am afraid. I would refrain from being this dismissing if I were you. This white-knighting is embarrassing enough on is own.
First and foremost, you are defending an unsubtle quote downright stating that GW shows even more lack of subtlety hammering over and over the same thing.
Secondly, you missed completely the initial point moved against that quote: it's the how the problem. They are stating outright the very main "theme" of his character conflict.
What's next? Robbie G looking at the camera and saying "I am scared!" "I am worried!" "I am hungry!".
Now 40k, I admit, was never that subtle but here we are facing fanfiction-tier writing.

If I'm a white knight (the quientisential insult used by people to throw off any one defending any complaint about 40k no matter how rediuclas is it) does that make you a black knight?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

You have been shown pictures of why a given weapon, as an example, had a "tau" feel in part of its design.

a picture that only proved how fething rediculas the argument was. seriously the argument was so weak iI didn't figure it needed to be rebutted beyond ".. beyond being kiiiinda the same shape if you squint they're not at all alike"

Not Online!!! wrote:

Hillarious, and who made you arbiter of truth or your arguments more valid then others?

Put, kettle, black.
Something something.

For starters I don't dress my biases up as facts, make claims that can be proven false ("Redemptor plasma looks like Tau plasma") or generally argue in bad faith.

I've called out Ishagu for being too aggressive and trying to brute force people into accepting Primaris too.

Look, feel what you want, but present justifications of those feelings dressed up as facts and I'll happily argue about those facts.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Most likely scenario is that people like/dislike Primaris for purely emotional reasons and have been rationalizing it since they've picked their camp.

I feel like this rationalization is the problem as instead of approaching the problem acknowledging biases (such as mine that revolve around my enjoyment of painting Primaris versus my lack of enjoyment painting standard Marines) leads to things like making up facts about the lore, or looking for justifications to claim that the Primaris ruined 40k, or acting like the only logical option is to like something new and bash everyone who doesn't like it.

And could it be, that you're in fact doing the same thing. That due your liking the models, you are more forgiving to the associated fluff, and are willing to to make up some rather tortured justification for defending the quality and tone of the new lore?

I certainly have witnessed this working to other direction: people who really dislike the new lore ending up disliking the associated models as well.

I for one are doing my best to keep my assessment of the aesthetics (which I really enjoy) separate of my assessment of the lore (which I do not.)

I never want to say a person can't feel a certain way about models, I mean I can't seem to enjoy painting Tau for reasons I've never been able to articulate, but I will happily point out where people got things wrong where they lay out their rationalizations of the old setting versuses the new (like the High Lords being unimportant to the setting in the old lore).

HIgh Lords obviously are Important, but more as an institution than individuals. And they were all normal humans, not immortal demigods of the myth, nor did they have models and presence in half of the Space Marine armies in the game. You're just glossing over insanely huge thematic and practical differences.

I actually like the models. But as a proud member of the local Professional Organization of English Majors, I take issue with the sloppy writing that is their fluff.

We haven't seen this sort of thing since, dare I say it......Ward's GK? It's just chock full of lazy writer cliches and magical macguffins.

The gene-seed and genetic history of the Primarchs was lost. Until it wasn't, because GMan had the Sangprimus Portem, a magical Macguffin that has all their DNA.

All the armor and weapons were designed and crafted on Mars, but literally no one knew about it, despite Mars being a Forgeworld where nothing goes on without oversight.

It's the superman dilemma. Sups is a all-powerful demi-god incapable of being damaged, unless you PUNCH HIM REALLY HARD.

It's these types of jarring and abrupt lore/logic breaks that cause the reader/observer to snap out of a pre-conceived "realm of disbelief". You can't set rules in your universe, then break them casually, without causing "disbelief" in the viewer. TL;DR - logic breaks in a conceived world need to be rare and handled well, or you risk alienating the audience.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Hillarious, and who made you arbiter of truth or your arguments more valid then others?

Put, kettle, black.
Something something.

For starters I don't dress my biases up as facts, make claims that can be proven false ("Redemptor plasma looks like Tau plasma") or generally argue in bad faith.

I've called out Ishagu for being too aggressive and trying to brute force people into accepting Primaris too.

Look, feel what you want, but present justifications of those feelings dressed up as facts and I'll happily argue about those facts.

I did, however your argument boils down to :
"I don't agree with your point, therefore it's void!"

Be happy that you are not in my Debatte class.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

You have been shown pictures of why a given weapon, as an example, had a "tau" feel in part of its design. Your rebuttal was a partial answer, because has only shown that the mixed design nature of the piece (mechanicus) but not the nods to xeno-tech, possibly there because the sculptors were uninspired of threatened by a deadline.

You mean the CBT image that only really shares the plasma bottles but has a different silloute due to differences in shape and design? Yeah, I addressed the use of plasma bottles in the wider Imperium range because it's not that outlandish they'd have them on the Redemptor. Or are you trying to tell me that I need to explain one similar design element shared across different armies does not make one thing "like" another? Because I can give an example if it helps: Eldar, Guard, Orks, most Mechanicus, Chaos Space Marines, some daemons, Necrons and Space Marines have a shared design feature: they all have five fingered hands.

Just because a single element is repeated doesn't make one thing "like" another.

quote=Kaiyanwang 779789 10562916 6b818fbd57bb51968f0956479e510c11.jpg]I am not the one being irrational here. In the very least, I am accepting the fact that other can have rational opinions about design, for one thing.
Seriously, all of this makes the mere existence of a forum pointless.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Hillarious, and who made you arbiter of truth or your arguments more valid then others?

Put, kettle, black.
Something something.

For starters I don't dress my biases up as facts, make claims that can be proven false ("Redemptor plasma looks like Tau plasma") or generally argue in bad faith.

I've called out Ishagu for being too aggressive and trying to brute force people into accepting Primaris too.

Look, feel what you want, but present justifications of those feelings dressed up as facts and I'll happily argue about those facts.

Your misrepresenting the "facts". It was pointed out that the Dread's plasma looks like Tau Tech. I showed you the CIB which has a very similar front end so it has a similar outline shape. It also has the cannisters that exist on Tau plasma guns (as well as that third party CIB). I pointed out similarities and why it strikes me as looking like Tau tech. It's an subjective opinion and I fail to see how you can definitely say it's "proven false". I presented my opinion on the matter and you can disagree but how dare you say it's proven false as a matter of fact when it's a subjective take on an artistic design choice by GW.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Just because a single element is repeated doesn't make one thing "like" another.

Well, that depends entirely on the thing that is repeated. Is it a central design element? Then a term like "like" can be justified.

Or is it multiple small things that add up? This can also be the case.

 Crimson wrote:
And could it be, that you're in fact doing the same thing. That due your liking the models, you are more forgiving to the associated fluff, and are willing to to make up some rather tortured justification for defending the quality and tone of the new lore?

Quite possible. On the other hand I'm pretty forgiving of the writing in general (even the Bloodtide back in 5th didn't really put me in a tizzy despite playing Sisters, mostly because I saw a good -idea- of Sisters being martyred to save a doomed world, but really bad execution) so that's a thin hair to split I guess.

I guess my bias is likely in that I am fairly forgiving of the rough spots in the lore and trust that, much like the Horus Heresy, the lore surrounding the Primaris will be fleshed put and made better with each progressive update.

I

 Crimson wrote:
certainly have witnessed this working to other direction: people who really dislike the new lore ending up disliking the associated models as well.

I for one are doing my best to keep my assessment of the aesthetics (which I really enjoy) separate of my assessment of the lore (which I do not.)

I have a similar issue involving the old Marines. I love a lot of their stories (though anytime a lone Marine crushes an entire enemy squad without even getting his paint chipped has me roll my eyes a fair bit), but the models never really got me hooked on painting them. One of the noce things about the new models is the wider variety of armour types used means there is less chance of it getting stale painting the same kind of armour over and over too.

 Crimson wrote:

I never want to say a person can't feel a certain way about models, I mean I can't seem to enjoy painting Tau for reasons I've never been able to articulate, but I will happily point out where people got things wrong where they lay out their rationalizations of the old setting versuses the new (like the High Lords being unimportant to the setting in the old lore).

HIgh Lords obviously are Important, but more as an institution than individuals. And they were all normal humans, not immortal demigods of the myth, nor did they have models and presence in half of the Space Marine armies in the game. You're just glossing over insanely huge thematic and practical differences.

I was arguing the point about their importance in thr lore more than anything.

Honestly I am not against the Primarchs coming back. Most of them were supposed to be alive (or at least that was the breadcrumbs we were given implied), but I feel like they should have been locked out to games of 2.5k and up. Basically Apoc sized armies. As it is there is little reason not to cram Guilliman into any list you can afford him in which feels opposite of how important a Primarch should be and the scale of battles they should be involved with.

I guess that's a disconnect between narrative and matched play though.

Crimson wrote:Because it happens at unspecified time in a manner that doesn't affect the main setting, and most people in the setting and indeed in the real world do not even know about it. It is completely different thing than Guilliman's return being the focal point the game's metaplot.

People not knowing about it in the real world isn't my problem. You can be completely ignorant of 30k stuff, and that's fine, but if you don't pay any attention to it, you can't claim it's irrelevant just because you've not read it.

Personally, I don't see what's different at all between Guilliman coming back and other Primarchs returning. If the complaint is "Primarchs ruin the setting!!", why did I not hear the same when they came back before Guilliman did? Honestly, it just feels a little inconsistent in complaining, as per usual with nearly every complaint (not all) about Primaris - people overlooking and ignoring existing features of the lore and then claiming that the new stuff is completely out of left field.

That is utterly disingenous on an absurd level. The setting of the game is 41st millennium, it is called Warhammer 40 000, that is where all the focus is. I agree with you on many matters (though not on this one,) but your method of arguing is quite dishonest.

So GW have dictated that I can only play in M41? Not even factoring in that the current setting could be M42 by now (the Imperial calendar is ruined), and that apparently means I can't play games with Primaris Marines, that's an incredibly bad argument on your part.
Just because it's called Warhammer 40,000 doesn't mean it ALWAYS has to be played in M41. What, does every model need a warhammer too?

Warhammer 40,000 is the name of the setting, yes, but it doesn't HAVE to be set exactly in M41. No-one's forcing that at all.

Most people who play this game don't read BL books, and people who do are mostly fine with Primarchs, as the main focus of BL for a decade has been catering to Primarch fan boys.

Most people who play the game don't seem to lean too far pro or against Primarchs. While I agree that most probably don't read the books, I don't think I'd agree with your insinuation that people who don't read the books mostly hate the Primarchs. Honestly, without proper evidence, I'm not willing to make a swing for an argument on this either way.

Crimson wrote:It is not about winning or losing. The Imperium is now run by a living, breathing, mythic, noblebright demigod. Whether he succeeds or not doesn't change the fact that this already changes the setting immensely.

A noblebright demi-god who's suffering from crippling self-doubt, conflict between his beliefs and the theocracy he's supposed to be leading, and who's efforts have only been successful in that everything went 50% to hell, not 100%?
It's not all sunshine and rainbows, aside from the most basic of glimpses. It would be like me saying "the Imperium are the good guys, because they're the humans in this story!" It's reductive, dangerously so.

HoundsofDemos wrote:He represents a huge change though in prior to 8th edition 40k was more of a setting were stories took place, rather than an ongoing evolving narrative. Bobby G's return changed all that as we now have a central story with a main character.

He's barely any more of a main character than someone like Abaddon or the Emperor are. Or Dante. Or Calgar. Or literally any other named character. It's no more central than it's been before.

That combined with the fact that the entire idea and background of primaris marines don't really add anything to the setting but IMO definitely take something away some of what made it unique we end up with a setting that many of us, particularly older players don't really like.

I disagree. You're welcome to say that you think they detract from the setting, but I've still not heard a concrete reason for why and what Primaris detract from the setting.

Gitdakka wrote:This is a forum, it's built on opinions. You trying to shut down everyone who dislike primaris and devalue their statements is not adding anything positive to dakkadakka or 40k.

At the same time, just screaming "I hate Primaris!!" over and over doesn't add anything positive to DakkaDakka or 40k either. Especially when there's been dozens of threads on why Primaris are bad, or why 40k's terrible now, or some other equally hyperbolic opinion piece. Opinions are fine, but if your whole point is "we need to be positive and constructive", I don't see what is constructive about complaining.

Insectum7 wrote:Important question: Are there any points made by the anti-primaris camp that you think ARE valid?

It depends what their evidence is to support it, honestly. I'm sure there are fine points, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:The point of having unnamed High Lords of Terra is they are mysterious background characters because it's not about them.
It's about you and your Dudes, and their struggles and not the High Lords of Terra being on every battlefield to personally fight Khorne incarnate because every battle decides the fate of the universe.

It's about the fact that in the grim darkness of the future there is only pointless war between people with no names who die on unremember on a thousand battlefields.

Or it was, anyway.

We've had named characters for decades now. Have they been stopping people from enjoying their narratives because they exist?

Just because Guilliman is around doesn't mean for a second that it's only about him now any more than it's always been about Dante, or Calgar, or Helbrecht, or Grimnar.

Crimson wrote:The guy himself is noblebright. He is a noble hero lamenting the current state of the Imperium, and a considerable (though perhaps insufficient) power to change things.

Considering your bracketed point, isn't that the most grimdark part about it? The fact that we have people with good intent unable to meaningfully change or alter the world they find themselves in? Isn't that what makes the plight of the civilians and guardsmen the tragic and dark part - that they have no power to meaningfully change the horrors of the society they're in?

Also, superpowered immortals who are worshipped as divine and wield ultimate authority lamenting how hard their lot in life is isn't particularly endearing.

Personally, I don't believe that superpowered characters are inherently uninteresting. They *can* be, but that's not true in my perception of Guilliman.
This might be unpopular, but I think Guilliman is a far more interesting character than Abaddon - and I like Abaddon's characterisation overall.

..turn it down a notch or two please people.

Ta.

 Vankraken wrote:

Your misrepresenting the "facts". It was pointed out that the Dread's plasma looks like Tau Tech. I showed you the CIB which has a very similar front end so it has a similar outline shape. It also has the cannisters that exist on Tau plasma guns (as well as that third party CIB). I pointed out similarities and why it strikes me as looking like Tau tech. It's an subjective opinion and I fail to see how you can definitely say it's "proven false". I presented my opinion on the matter and you can disagree but how dare you say it's proven false as a matter of fact when it's a subjective take on an artistic design choice by GW.

It was stated that the Redemptor's plasma cannon looked like a tau plasma gun, I proved it did not. You then posted a claim it looks like a CIB, which has two things you can claim it shares the Redemptor: the muzzle shape (which is a gothic arch much like that of the MkVII helmet) and the plasma bottles (which Ad Mech also have). That doesn't make it more like a Tau gun when everything else about the two weapons are different. It doesn't have the two fins, it has exposed coils and more mass to the gun (unlike the CIB which has a thinner section in the bottom) and the general shape is different.

And 3rd party bits are not canon sources.

You presented a claim, the claim is demonstratably false and now you refuse to admit it. You can have opinions about Primaris but the moment you make claims like "it looks like a Tau gun" then people have the right to point out why that claim isn't true. You can't hide claims like thst behind the label of opinion and expect not to be called out on it, especially when you reply directly to someone who is disproving a claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Just because a single element is repeated doesn't make one thing "like" another.

Well, that depends entirely on the thing that is repeated. Is it a central design element? Then a term like "like" can be justified.

Or is it multiple small things that add up? This can also be the case.

Two similarities that are also found on Imperial models versus a number of differences in basic shape and outline. In this case it was unjustified. A Redemptor's Plasma Cannon doesn's share core design features with a Cyclic Ion Blaster. Some small secondary elements are similar, but similar elements are on other Imperial models as well meaning that they're hardly unique to Tau.

Anyone who dislikes Primaris because of "sloppy writing" is a hypocrite. 40k is not Shakespeare, Austen or Hemingway. It's pulp SciFi.

 Ishagu wrote:
Anyone who dislikes Primaris because of "sloppy writing" is a hypocrite. 40k is not Shakespeare, Austen or Hemingway. It's pulp SciFi.

No, but it does have Dan Abnett, one of the more prolific writers of our time.

People can dislike stuff because they don't like the writing. I don't get drawn into some stuff because the writing doesn't hook me. That doesn't make the thing objectively bad as much as it means the writing can be a barrier for entry for some.

Yeah, Dan Abnett is great.

As are ADB and Guy Haley, and the books they've writted in the current setting involving Primaris are great.

That's my point, the lore is no better or worse now than it has been.

 Ishagu wrote:
Anyone who dislikes Primaris because of "sloppy writing" is a hypocrite. 40k is not Shakespeare, Austen or Hemingway. It's pulp SciFi.

Anyone who disagrees with the following statement is wrong. X is not Y. X is Z.

You really need to step off the band box with the binary proclamations. "Only of of the following statements is true." or "Only I am right, the rest of you are wrong."

The writing is entirely subjective. And until now, you have been arguing that we are wrong for calling the fluff crap, saying it's not crap. Now you have completely flipped and are saying it's crap, but it's not bull dung. It's just dog turds.

Imo that tri-cowling on the front is not insignificant. It's got the heat coils which make it clearly Imperial Plasma, sure, but the front end of a gun is a pretty important element of gun design. You seem to be downplaying that.

Im not saying it looks like a Tau gun, but it's one of many elements among Primaris models that slide towards 'sleek tech'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
Anyone who dislikes Primaris because of "sloppy writing" is a hypocrite. 40k is not Shakespeare, Austen or Hemingway. It's pulp SciFi.

Pulp can have different levels of quality, too.

Kaiyanwang wrote:The number of times it appears has nothing to do with its nature.

Come on, this is ridiculous. You complain that GW don't explain their lore. When they do, you complain that they make it all too obvious?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:We haven't seen this sort of thing since, dare I say it......Ward's GK? It's just chock full of lazy writer cliches and magical macguffins.

Which would be fine, if it hadn't always been cliched and full of macguffins. Guilliman's body in stasis was a Macguffin. Dorn's hand, STCs, the whole "the Primarchs will return in a time of need" stuff - there's so many plot contrivances in 40k, I don't know why this is any different.

The gene-seed and genetic history of the Primarchs was lost. Until it wasn't, because GMan had the Sangprimus Portem, a magical Macguffin that has all their DNA.

Was it lost? I didn't think it was lost, only that it was impossible to create the Primarchs themselves, due to their Warp-iness.

All the armor and weapons were designed and crafted on Mars, but literally no one knew about it, despite Mars being a Forgeworld where nothing goes on without oversight.

Is that the case? I thought Mars was actually the most likely place for clandestine goings-on of technology.

It's the superman dilemma. Sups is a all-powerful demi-god incapable of being damaged, unless you PUNCH HIM REALLY HARD.

Which is why some of the best Superman stories are the ones where he's being challenged beyond "punch them very hard".

It's these types of jarring and abrupt lore/logic breaks that cause the reader/observer to snap out of a pre-conceived "realm of disbelief". You can't set rules in your universe, then break them casually, without causing "disbelief" in the viewer. TL;DR - logic breaks in a conceived world need to be rare and handled well, or you risk alienating the audience.

The problem is that nearly all the rules you've listed aren't being broken, at least in my eyes.

Not Online!!! wrote:I did, however your argument boils down to :
"I don't agree with your point, therefore it's void!"

That's not what's being said at all. What's being said is "I don't agree with your point, because your evidence for it is flimsy at best."

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, Dan Abnett is great.

As are ADB and Guy Haley, and the books they've writted in the current setting involving Primaris are great.

That's my point, the lore is no better or worse now than it has been.

I disagree. Plague War was not good.

ClockworkZion wrote:You presented a claim, the claim is demonstratably false and now you refuse to admit it. You can have opinions about Primaris but the moment you make claims like "it looks like a Tau gun" then people have the right to point out why that claim isn't true. You can't hide claims like thst behind the label of opinion and expect not to be called out on it, especially when you reply directly to someone who is disproving a claim.

Exactly this.

Opinions on Primaris are fine. Backing them up with easily disproven claims is what's getting called out.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
People not knowing about it in the real world isn't my problem. You can be completely ignorant of 30k stuff, and that's fine, but if you don't pay any attention to it, you can't claim it's irrelevant just because you've not read it.

Personally, I don't see what's different at all between Guilliman coming back and other Primarchs returning. If the complaint is "Primarchs ruin the setting!!", why did I not hear the same when they came back before Guilliman did? Honestly, it just feels a little inconsistent in complaining, as per usual with nearly every complaint (not all) about Primaris - people overlooking and ignoring existing features of the lore and then claiming that the new stuff is completely out of left field.

You asked why there was no uproar in these other instances, I explained it to you. Of course people not knowing about it, is pretty damn important reason for lack of uproar! Those events also not affecting the setting of the game is another. You ignored both of these obvious points.

So GW have dictated that I can only play in M41? Not even factoring in that the current setting could be M42 by now (the Imperial calendar is ruined), and that apparently means I can't play games with Primaris Marines, that's an incredibly bad argument on your part.
Just because it's called Warhammer 40,000 doesn't mean it ALWAYS has to be played in M41. What, does every model need a warhammer too?
Warhammer 40,000 is the name of the setting, yes, but it doesn't HAVE to be set exactly in M41. No-one's forcing that at all.

Yep. You're just taking your disingenuousness to absurd level. No one forces you to set your 40K games in any era of the setting, or even in that setting at all. You can set your 40K games in Star Wars universe or Equestria! Doesn't change the bloody and blatantly obvious fact that as presented the setting of the game is 41st millennium, which used to be an era of decline where Primarchs were barely remembered legends.

Considering your bracketed point, isn't that the most grimdark part about it? The fact that we have people with good intent unable to meaningfully change or alter the world they find themselves in? Isn't that what makes the plight of the civilians and guardsmen the tragic and dark part - that they have no power to meaningfully change the horrors of the society they're in?

And that gak just doesn't work with a demigod, it makes mockery of it. It is like making Ollanius Pius a fething perpetual!

Personally, I don't believe that superpowered characters are inherently uninteresting. They *can* be, but that's not true in my perception of Guilliman.

Guilliman is the President-Pope Superman, lamenting about how difficult his lot in life is. It is hard to get lamer than that.

I can instantly describe an example of old lore more stupid than anything relating to the Primaris.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Kaiyanwang wrote:The number of times it appears has nothing to do with its nature.

Come on, this is ridiculous. You complain that GW don't explain their lore. When they do, you complain that they make it all too obvious?

Again, I did not do that. I pointed out the waythe information about the state of mind of a character is given.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

No, a forum is a place of discussion, being rational isn't required. We have opinons, and can even back those opunions with facts, but it doesn't make those opinions facts themselves.
I've made it clear I won't argue about how people feel about Primaris, but the facts they present as justification fornthose feelings are fair game.

What I meant is that if you dismiss any opposing opinion and being 100% emotional reaction and any arguments as post-reaction rationalization, you make any honest discussion an impossibility.
And this is what happened. I am not asking to change your mind, just to recognize that other people's opinion could not be just driven by sheer emotion.

I am not even going to address your points about "the five hands". The details people pointed out concerning the similarities with xeno-tech are way less generic, I am sorry.

 Ishagu wrote:
I can instantly describe an example of old lore more stupid than anything relating to the Primaris.

Is that an objective statement? Also, rate the importance of said lore to setting.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo that tri-cowling on the front is not insignificant. It's got the heat coils which make it clearly Imperial Plasma, sure, but the front end of a gun is a pretty important element of gun design. You seem to be downplaying that.

Im not saying it looks like a Tau gun, but it's one of many elements among Primaris models that slide towards 'sleek tech'.

You're right, I did unintentionally downplay it because it's so forgettable that I had to go look at the model again just to remember it.

Huh. Guess it does have one element that is similar. I don't think it really makes it look like a Tau gun but yeah, I was wrong. There is a single Tau like element (though it's less boxy fins and more round lobes).