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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

Aye, even as a Guard player for many editions and years who has actually run a superheavy company in tournaments within the last few months, I have trouble remembering and keeping them all straight. Marines definitely aren't the only ones with some stupid naming, they're just among the easiest to notice, and GW seems to get worse and worse about it as time goes on and they need some copyrightable gibberish for literally every noun in the 40k universe

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Spoiler:

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".

So if you're legitimately looking for demonstrable differences:
Objectively fewer chainswords in the kits.
Objectively more tacticool pouches on the promo photos, presumably more in kits.
Objectively much more skimmer vehicles. Like 100% to 5%.
Objectively more scopes.

More "modern tech" details in addition to the above.
I'd argue more generic sci-fi design of the vehicles.
Fewer "gothic" details in kits. (Looking for servo-skulls, bannners, skull-accessories, stuff like that.)
Fewer exotic looking weapons on troops. (Grav, Melta, axes, etc. Basically less distinctive guns and CC weapons)

Non model differences:
Higher individual stats (departure from inter-faction balance)
Can't use traditional transports (departure from imagery)
Less in-squad flexibility (departure from design and imagery)
Came with the reappearance of a Primarch (departure in lore/setting)

I think you can take "fewer 'gothic' details on kits" off that list, Primaris have at least as many of those as the old marine range.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Higher individual stats (departure from inter-faction balance)

This one, right here, is my personal biggest sticking point with primaris in particular. I extend it to Custodes as well, just in case somebody happens to come and accuse me of being inconsistent or something, but primaris are much more frustrating to me because it's tough to argue that a space marine is not "the default unit of 40k".

Jumping primaris to W2 A3 (effectively, with shock assault) and 30" range with two shots at full range with bolter discipline has massively raised the baseline power, and the continuous point drops has turned what were previously mid-tier infantry into super-cheapo chaff, and previously elite infantry into...just being useless because they aren't cheap enough to be chaff but 8th is so deadly they just get deleted instantly.

I recognize that this is not the "Fault" solely of primaris marines, but they are an easy thing to point to that highlights an emblematic problem with the edition. Primaris marines, in order to be useful enough for people to want to buy them, had to turn them into these absolute monsters compared to everybody else's supposedly "Elite" infantry units like Immortals, Genestealers, Incubi, Aspect Warriors and the like.

Previously, 40k was a game where a space marine was an elite infantry guy, and many other more elite factions had units that were pretty analogous to marines (CSM, Necrons, Sisters) and many more factions had units that were defined by having a couple of stats the same as marines, while their other stats were weaker, which gave them a defining feature as mid-tier infantry (Eldar/Dark Eldar had the same firepower as marines but were much lighter, Orks/Genestealers/Daemons had similar or better melee power but were lighter and had little shooting, etc). Now, 40k is a game where a baseline marine is analogous to only the heaviest infantry that other factions can bring, and the distinction between, say, a guardian and an aspect warrior or a hormagant and a genestealer is a lot less meaningful.

Ultimately, I lay a lot of that at the feet of GW seemingly having gotten caught in a fan service loop for a very long time. Extremely vocal fans:

-Love when their units get point drops
-Hate when their units get point hikes
-Hate when their special characters get killed
-Hate when they shoot all their super-powerful guns at a thing and it doesn't die
-Love when they get super-special rules for their specific guys

Durability skew ALWAYS gets the most backlash from the fanbase. Just look at how hated the 'unkillable dreadnought lists' from IH are, how hated the tau drone spam was before that, how hated the sea of IG infantry was before that, back and back and back until you get to Invisibility Stars and Decurions and Draigostars. Point drops, on the other hand, always get positive receptions. Everyone loves it when their overcosted things get cheaper, so games get bigger and bigger and bigger, and deadlier and deadlier as units and mechanics get added to combat durability skew.

It's pretty easy why some of the hate gets put on space marines and their fans rather than at GW for writing the game that way. It kind of stinks to have to paint like 4-5x as many miniatures as your opponent and scoop them up off the table by the handful just so the opposing player gets to feel like they're playing the elite badasses. But if marines (and by extension, everybody) didn't feel so dang fragile, there would be no reason for this level of crazy creep to take place in the first place.

The Newman wrote:
I think you can take "fewer 'gothic' details on kits" off that list, Primaris have at least as many of those as the old marine range.

Oooh, I dunno about that. Just looking at the Tactical sprues vs. Intercessor sprues I think I see more prominence and variety. I think it's safe to say that the extra detail afforded to the Primaris tended to go towards techy details rather than "gothic" ones.

Through online sales, eBay, and local trades, I have only a couple Tactical Squads of Ultramarines left, which I'm keeping so I can field two cheap squads with Razorbacks. Primaris Marines are the future. More and more old Space Marine kits are going the way of the Dodo bird, and it's only a mater of time before none will be available.

For Chaos... looks like the next Psychic Awakening book will be giving Chaos some new Marines thanks to Fabious Bile. Stand by for some serious fluff retcon and possible Chaos Space Marine shake up! IMHO, Chaos Space Marines should have been way, way better then a standard Imperium Space Marine. They have been around since the Horus Heresy, 10,000 years. Constantly fighting, exposed to all kinds of... well, anything you can imagine. It should have been reflected in their rules. They are made out to be totally bad in the fluff, but in the game? They are worse then a regular Space Marine by far, but cost only 1 pt. cheaper? Oh well. Maybe in 9th edition we'll finally get a Chaos Space Marine army worthy of being on the table, instead of a couple MSU Cultists units to fill out Troops so they can take "the good stuff".

Probably very few Chaos Marines have been around for 10,000 years, and those that have are probably not part of your standard CSM squads.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Probably very few Chaos Marines have been around for 10,000 years, and those that have are probably not part of your standard CSM squads.

Maybe not 10000 years, but longer than most loyalists and definitely more than primaris. But not generally 10000 due to warp timey wimey stuff. But some legions are still primarily composed of veterans of the Heresy and Scouring.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Probably very few Chaos Marines have been around for 10,000 years, and those that have are probably not part of your standard CSM squads.

Maybe not 10000 years, but longer than most loyalists and definitely more than primaris. But not generally 10000 due to warp timey wimey stuff. But some legions are still primarily composed of veterans of the Heresy and Scouring.

Maybe so, but IMO that doesnt mean auto-vet. Survival over long periods of time doesn't necessarily mean they're operating at peak performance, it could also mean they havent been fighting constantly and have lost their edge. I'm all for the system in which CSM vary greatly from less-than-loyalist to greater-than-loyaliat depending on how you point them out. I'm just against the notion that ALL CSM default to better-than-loyalist.

But more to the point, I'm VERY against a paradigm in which the default loyalist is superior to the default CSM. Unfortunately that's the paradigm we're in now.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Probably very few Chaos Marines have been around for 10,000 years, and those that have are probably not part of your standard CSM squads.

Maybe not 10000 years, but longer than most loyalists and definitely more than primaris. But not generally 10000 due to warp timey wimey stuff. But some legions are still primarily composed of veterans of the Heresy and Scouring.

Maybe so, but IMO that doesnt mean auto-vet. Survival over long periods of time doesn't necessarily mean they're operating at peak performance, it could also mean they havent been fighting constantly and have lost their edge. I'm all for the system in which CSM vary greatly from less-than-loyalist to greater-than-loyaliat depending on how you point them out. I'm just against the notion that ALL CSM default to better-than-loyalist.

But more to the point, I'm VERY against a paradigm in which the default loyalist is superior to the default CSM. Unfortunately that's the paradigm we're in now.

Agreed on both points. Csm should not be default inferior to loyalists, but any veteran benefits should come with increased points cost. Csm shouldn't be "horde" marines.

 Insectum7 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I think you can take "fewer 'gothic' details on kits" off that list, Primaris have at least as many of those as the old marine range.

Oooh, I dunno about that. Just looking at the Tactical sprues vs. Intercessor sprues I think I see more prominence and variety. I think it's safe to say that the extra detail afforded to the Primaris tended to go towards techy details rather than "gothic" ones.

There's a skull on most of Intercessor chest-plate, most of the guns have scroll work, a lot of the shoulder pads and helmets have extra skull bits or scrolls, there's enough purity seals on the sprue to put one on every single Intercessor, plus those shields and six totem-boxes.

The Tac box has skulls on a lot of back-packs but less bling on the shoulder pads and chest plates. Go look at them on the GW site (and remember that the three Tac marine sprues build ten guys while the two Intercessor sprues only build five so there's effectively twice as much bling as what's on those sprues), the Tacs have a bit more variety in their bling, but they're really about the same in terms of quantity.

The Newman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I think you can take "fewer 'gothic' details on kits" off that list, Primaris have at least as many of those as the old marine range.

Oooh, I dunno about that. Just looking at the Tactical sprues vs. Intercessor sprues I think I see more prominence and variety. I think it's safe to say that the extra detail afforded to the Primaris tended to go towards techy details rather than "gothic" ones.

There's a skull on most of Intercessor chest-plate, most of the guns have scroll work, a lot of the shoulder pads and helmets have extra skull bits or scrolls, there's enough purity seals on the sprue to put one on every single Intercessor, plus those shields and six totem-boxes.

The Tac box has skulls on a lot of back-packs but less bling on the shoulder pads and chest plates. Go look at them on the GW site (and remember that the three Tac marine sprues build ten guys while the two Intercessor sprues only build five so there's effectively twice as much bling as what's on those sprues), the Tacs have a bit more variety in their bling, but they're really about the same in terms of quantity.

Techy details? The wrist computer for the Sargeant? I think there's that and one other "techy" piece

The "Gothic" detail is pretty equal but if you wanna go that route there's more skulls on the impulsor than the rhino, eliminators than scouts, more Aquilas on the repulsor than skulls on the land raider, Primaris apothecary to normal apothecary. But then there's probably more on bikes than inceptors etc.

Either side can cherry pick an example and this "muh skulls" argument for both sides is pretty played out. Mostly because one side is designed to appeal to the people that like a reserved amount of decoration and the people that love it. It's easier to add a seal to a leg than to remove one that's molded on

Insectum7 wrote:So if you're legitimately looking for demonstrable differences:
Objectively fewer chainswords in the kits.

But they *have* chainswords. If we're going by the logic of "fewer chainswords proportionally", should I be including the lack of chainswords in the Centurions and Terminator kits? How about Dreadnoughts and vehicles. I don't remember any chainswords on the Scout Sniper kit. Are these "not real marines" because they don't have chainswords? If I build my sergeants without chainswords, are they no longer Real Marines?

I wasn't aware that being a Space Marine was tied to the one weapon that not every Marine even has access to.

Objectively more tacticool pouches on the promo photos, presumably more in kits.

Promo photos mean nothing. Promo photos would imply that they can only be painted as Ultramarines. Look at what the kit offers and what the default model looks like.
And, on the tacticool pouches idea, Scouts have an awful lot of them. Are they not Real Marines?

Objectively much more skimmer vehicles. Like 100% to 5%.

Okay. And? Marines have skimmers. You're just stating numbers, not what they mean.

Objectively more scopes.

Again, both versions have scopes. Is there a set ratio of "scopes:non-scopes" that is the objective "REAL Marine" amount?

More "modern tech" details in addition to the above.

Like? What do they possess that normal Marines don't have access to?

I'd argue more generic sci-fi design of the vehicles.

You'd argue, and I'd disagree. The vehicles look nowhere near generic. They're big, chunky, flat armoured, and share the same characteristic cupolas, doors, and layered armour that we've come to expect from Space Marine vehicles. And, before anyone says anything about "but they're covered in boxes", the old Marine vehicles had boxes and cables in their sprue kit - just like the Repulsor stuff, it's totally optional to put on. But: this is all my subjective opinion, so not something I'd ever use as evidence against an objective point.

So, while I recognise it's completely subjective between us as to if it's generic or not, I'd ask you to recognise that it's subjective, and therefore not something to claim as some kind of "point" or evidence.

Fewer "gothic" details in kits. (Looking for servo-skulls, bannners, skull-accessories, stuff like that.)

I can name plenty of old Marine kits with no servo skulls, and I personally wouldn't call back banners grimdark (especially when there's plenty of SM kits that don't have them - oh, hi Scouts!)
As for skull accessories, have you seen the sprues? Nearly every Primaris Marine has a skull chestplate, usually several trinkets/shoulder pads/reliquaries with a skull motif on, as well as various saintly bones, aquilas and similar.

Fewer exotic looking weapons on troops. (Grav, Melta, axes, etc. Basically less distinctive guns and CC weapons)

I don't see many axes or mauls on most kits these days, Primaris or otherwise. The core Tactical Squad kit only has a power fist, chainsword and power sword. In terms of exotic, power fists, hand flamers, and plasma weaponry (which Primaris have plenty more of) seem more than adequate. Or are you specifically complaining about those other weapons being absent? I repeat my comment about chainswords - since when was it NECESSARY for a Space Marine to carry those weapons? I'm not saying that those weapons shouldn't exist, I would very much like for Primaris to have the option for axes and mauls, as well as inferno pistols and grav pistols (although, honestly, I think I'd prefer all power weapons being rolled into one again, freeing up customisation), but to imply that they're "not real Marines" for not having them is a step too far, and implies that any Marine army/collection that doesn't have those is somehow "not real".

Look at depictions of Space Marine media, both official and unofficial. We have the Ultramarines movie (panned, but I kinda like it's goofy charm in places. Not the best piece of 40k media, but I don't hate it) - only one chainsword, a thunder hammer, no plasma, no melta, plenty of bolters and a flamer, and a Land Speeder. Additionally, we see scoped bolters, and gothic details on many of the squad, but only really the "protagonist characters".
Similarly, we can look at Astartes, which many seem to regard as some of the best 40k media out there, let alone Space Marines, despite being unofficial. In that, we see only one truly "exotic" weapon, a plasma pistol, but plenty of very plain, very "tacticool" armour and markings. Honestly, with a helmet swap, those Astartes would be pretty easily recognisable as Intercessors.
We have the Dawn of War cinematic intros, which are both pretty low tech. We see two chainsword in each, but none of these power weapons, no meltas or even plasmas, and the Marines themselves range from very little ornamentation, to a back banner/chains and a purity seal on the force commanders. Nothing too extreme, I'm sure you'll agree.

So, in the light of projects like that, with quite low-tech Marines, ranging from gothic to tacticool armour styles, can you really say that those features "define" REAL Marines?
I'd argue that a Real Marine is the very core of what a Space Marine is, something that you can look at in a vacuum without any squadmates, without any additional wargear, without anything other than that one Marine, and still be able to recognise "that's a Space Marine". And the fact people can do that with oldMarines who have no chainswords, no exotic weaponry, no skulls, no ornamentations (like the snapfits) tells me that all those extra features are not key or core to what a Real Marine is.

Now, obviously, I have my take. But I won't call it a "Real" Space Marine, because I have absolutely no right or claim to authority on what is and isn't "real", so I won't make that claim.

Higher individual stats (departure from inter-faction balance)

Game stats change over time. Once Scouts has a much lower BS/WS than normal Marines. Now they don't. Once, Marines had a 4+ (I think, I wasn't around at that time). That's changed. Once grav-guns and Centurions and aircraft didn't exist. Now they do. Once Terminators were just 2+/5++ Marines with Relentless and Slow and Purposeful. Now they have an extra Wound. I'm not a fan of relying on in game stats beyond the abstract.

Can't use traditional transports (departure from imagery)

They can use Drop Pods in lore, if not in game (according to the Warhammer Adventures series). And again, many core Space Marine units can't use certain transports/purchase them directly (Terminators can't use Rhinos, Scouts can't buy Rhinos, or at least, couldn't).

Less in-squad flexibility (departure from design and imagery)

Again, was a squad always defined by the 5th member within it? Are 30k Marines not Space Marines? If I build a squad and I don't take a special weapon, are they not "Real Marines"?

Came with the reappearance of a Primarch (departure in lore/setting)

If Primaris came without Guilliman, would you then call them "Real Marines" then?

All I'm saying is that Primaris Marines don't possess a single feature that old Marines don't also possess that sets them unrecognisably apart, and that it's obvious that Space Marines can be identified as individuals, so why the focus on their group dynamics and the options of equipment that not every Marine even has access to?
If people can look at the three snapfit oldMarines and still call them Space Marines, they should be able to for the three snapfit Intercessors too.

the_scotsman wrote: But if marines (and by extension, everybody) didn't feel so dang fragile, there would be no reason for this level of crazy creep to take place in the first place.

Can't argue with that. In an idea world, all Marines would have the Primaris statline, or alternatively, regular Marines would feel a lot tankier.

It's something I think Kill Team does quite well, in fact, with the Transhuman Physiology rules, giving Astartes that extra kick of power that doesn't fully require a changed statline. However, I completely get why its not feasible in full 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Techy details? The wrist computer for the Sargeant?

Like the ones all Deathwatch Marines have? Not saying it's not techy, but that it's not new to Primaris.

I think there's that and one other "techy" piece

If I'm thinking what you're thinking, there's some kind of optional Geiger counter looking thing that can be hung from a model's waist, but as an optional bit of the kit, I don't think it should be counted, as you can very easily just not even clip it off the sprue, same as how people can choose not to glue on purity seals. Unless there's something else you're thinking of!

The "Gothic" detail is pretty equal but if you wanna go that route there's more skulls on the impulsor than the rhino, eliminators than scouts, more Aquilas on the repulsor than skulls on the land raider, Primaris apothecary to normal apothecary. But then there's probably more on bikes than inceptors etc.

Yeah, agreed. In terms of actual gothic details that are sculpted on, they're pretty even overall.

Either side can cherry pick an example and this "muh skulls" argument for both sides is pretty played out. Mostly because one side is designed to appeal to the people that like a reserved amount of decoration and the people that love it. It's easier to add a seal to a leg than to remove one that's molded on

I'm not even sure one side is necessarily designed for it. They definitely wanted to keep Primaris Marines blank as a basic model, but they've certainly given the provision for both the tacticool crowd and the gothic crowd with the amount of optional bits. It's literally a case of gluing on a purity seal, which you're spot on about.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Through online sales, eBay, and local trades, I have only a couple Tactical Squads of Ultramarines left, which I'm keeping so I can field two cheap squads with Razorbacks. Primaris Marines are the future. More and more old Space Marine kits are going the way of the Dodo bird, and it's only a mater of time before none will be available.

For Chaos... looks like the next Psychic Awakening book will be giving Chaos some new Marines thanks to Fabious Bile. Stand by for some serious fluff retcon and possible Chaos Space Marine shake up! IMHO, Chaos Space Marines should have been way, way better then a standard Imperium Space Marine. They have been around since the Horus Heresy, 10,000 years. Constantly fighting, exposed to all kinds of... well, anything you can imagine. It should have been reflected in their rules. They are made out to be totally bad in the fluff, but in the game? They are worse then a regular Space Marine by far, but cost only 1 pt. cheaper? Oh well. Maybe in 9th edition we'll finally get a Chaos Space Marine army worthy of being on the table, instead of a couple MSU Cultists units to fill out Troops so they can take "the good stuff".

Everyone is made out to be totally bad ass in their OWN lore, codex, novels etc. Its like Heroes on their own comics

But in anothers codex, lore, novel -comic crossover - suddenely there are the bolter fodder.

Except Space Wolves cos Space Wolves.

Looking back at this thread it is like a bunch of people saying 'I am not going to update to primaris because primaris are not the same and something important has changed in the game and setting and especially with marines so I will continue using old marines to do X' and then another few people saying 'all changes are either for the better or an aspect of a delusion'.

My answer remains that I will be playing my marines as primaris hunting loyalists because restartes are heresy.

err no no one is saying "another few people saying 'all changes are either for the better or an aspect of a delusion'."

fact is everyone is saying Primaris Marines are a matter of taste but to declare them "Not space marines" simply does not have any basis in fact. Some people might say they think Primaris Marines are better but that's pure taste. I mean they, objectively have better proportions and the details are a bit better sculpted (I say this with a completed MK 3 tactical marine and a primaris intercessor standing side by side on my desk over all GW's quality of sculpting the past little bit has improved and the new primaris Marines have really let them show it) but both look great and I hope to continue using a mix for a long time to come.

what seems to be happening is a handful of people who dislike Primaris Marines are able to articulate reasons. and others simply cannot artiuclate a good reason for their dislike without falling back on tired disproven arguements.

Are you surprised at the hostility against Primaris?

They are a shoehorned update to marines that seems to have to do more with selling new miniatures to older players than anything else.

If they just wanted to introduce a new history line and refresh a bit the game, they could have gone with: i) an entirely new imperium force made of moar elite creatures (and how that played out with the marines), ii) added primaris as simply something akin to terminators.

Instead, they choose to basically duplicate the entire marine range with new sculpts while slowly phasing out the old sculpts with rules. They even made sure you couldn't combine them well (transports are marine type specific, which makes little sense).

That the "new" marines have a different aesthetic is quite obvious to the objective observer, and also that they went with a different flavor. From an old decaying force full of flaws (marine chapters had their special imperfections) and holding on to old but better technology (e.g. plasma, floating vehicles), to a new force which is much cleaner (in looks and also no flaws), and a renaissance of the imperium that now is in the offensive (as opposed to desperately barely holding and decaying).

I do not like the change, the sales approach, or the fluff direction.

As to the main point of the thread, mine are in a box and will likely not see many more battles. Planned obsolescence sucks but you got to pick your battles.

 jeff white wrote:
Looking back at this thread it is like a bunch of people saying 'I am not going to update to primaris because primaris are not the same and something important has changed in the game and setting and especially with marines so I will continue using old marines to do X' and then another few people saying 'all changes are either for the better or an aspect of a delusion'.

My answer remains that I will be playing my marines as primaris hunting loyalists because restartes are heresy.

Why is change considered a good thing? the whole idea of primaris being good or space marines, what ever that means because somehow my GK aren't space marines, is that GW making drastic changes in the lore, are a good thing. And to me that seems to be a big stretch of an argument.

I mean the whole change happened, because GW wanted to force people in to buying models , limit the secondary market for some time and do a hit on recasters. The rest of stuff like lore and playability weren't even a secondary concern to GW, because if they wanted to do real changes. Then they would have gotten rid of all the old stuff, specially the characters, and maybe even reset the whole setting to being 30k or 50k, or what ever they may have wanted.

BrianDavion wrote:
err no no one is saying "another few people saying 'all changes are either for the better or an aspect of a delusion'."

fact is everyone is saying Primaris Marines are a matter of taste but to declare them "Not space marines" simply does not have any basis in fact.

Yeah, which is a thing that basically nobody has done, despite your crowd continuously claiming that.

I've explained, pretty calmly and rationally, why primaris marines bug me in particular that marines do not, as well as provided examples of several dedicated only-marines players I know who also are not big fans and why.

Usually, this comes down to stuff like

1) Army incompatibility. Primaris marines require above-and-beyond effort to incorporate into assault oriented marine armies like space wolves and blood angels (both in terms of getting them to match aesthetically requiring bits from other kits and getting them to be effective in close combat), they sit in the back and seem out of place in biker-oriented marine armies like ravenwing and white scars, and they can't take pods in drop pod focused armies. Most primaris units function extremely well in a gunline marine army, where you get them to their optimal range as fast as possible and then squat on Bolter Discipline all game, but are tough to integrate into the vast varied archetypical marine lists.

This, to me, is a super bizarre decision from GW, that mostly stems from the fact that you can count the number of primaris units that aren't armed with either boltguns or plasma of some sort on a couple of fingers.

2) Playstyle dissatisfaction. A lot of dedicated marine players I know, and certainly myself, like that marines are an army that has varied weaponry at the squad level, and varied equipment. This doesn't mean that people who play "heresy style" all 10 guys with boltguns and nothing else...but I'll just say if that guy exists I've never met him honestly. Primaris Marines' army setup tends to be more like Necrons than classic marines.

3) Obsolescence. People will always react worse to a new thing if it makes them worry that they have to give up their old thing. The reason I will never ract negatively to a new howling banshee kit, is that I know all the howling banshees I still have are completely compatible for it, 1-for-1. Primaris marines are VERY CLEARLY structured in such a way that it is inconvenient and confusing at best to continue to use your classic marine army to upgrade to primaris. GW continue to insist that they will coexist indefinitely, but that comes on the heels of the launch of AOS, and at the time of the primaris release distrust that they would take away support for peoples 1000$+ armies was at an all time high. If more primaris units were released that were directly analogous to pre-existing marine stuff, some of this distrust would likely fade away.

But please, continue punching that "People who dislike primaris don't think they're real marines" strawman, instead of addressing any legitimate point.

That the "new" marines have a different aesthetic is quite obvious to the objective observer, and also that they went with a different flavor. From an old decaying force full of flaws (marine chapters had their special imperfections) and holding on to old but better technology (e.g. plasma, floating vehicles), to a new force which is much cleaner (in looks and also no flaws), and a renaissance of the imperium that now is in the offensive (as opposed to desperately barely holding and decaying).

See this is what I do not agree with or even see where you are comning from.

Primaris look exactly like the decades of marines i have in my collection - most of them without ornate decoration. Only specific elite units, characters or upgrades were ornate.

The things that look much less like traditional marines are Centurions, Baby Carriers etc.

 Mr Morden wrote:

That the "new" marines have a different aesthetic is quite obvious to the objective observer, and also that they went with a different flavor. From an old decaying force full of flaws (marine chapters had their special imperfections) and holding on to old but better technology (e.g. plasma, floating vehicles), to a new force which is much cleaner (in looks and also no flaws), and a renaissance of the imperium that now is in the offensive (as opposed to desperately barely holding and decaying).

See this is what I do not agree with or even see where you are comning from.

Primaris look exactly like the decades of marines i have in my collection - most of them without ornate decoration. Only specific elite units, characters or upgrades were ornate.

The things that look much less like traditional marines are Centurions, Baby Carriers etc.

Oh I do not disagree entirely. It is more nuanced but it amounts to the same, in the end.

Where we agree: tactical marines, the regular guys, were not nice sculpts for my taste. Primaris are pretty much the same in that regard, adding some more poses and what not.
In part, primaris look more "standardized" and less "ornate" / "gothic" because they rolled them out without the chapter and unique unit sculpts. So all are interecessors, and not blood claws or sanguinary guard or what not.
I guess that in time this can be corrected, but it further reinforces the idea of simpler / generic that they have right now.

Besides that, it is quite clear to me that there is a change in the lore/fluff. That's the part about changing from losing to winning, from using old better relics to getting newer better technologies.

Combine that with the obvious cash grab (primaris can only use primaris stuff, primaris being made more competitive, etc.) and you get a whole bunch of angry people.

Why so much anger? I guess part of it is that the company is getting a lot less consumer friendly. From prices increasing far more than inflation, to miniatures having a shorter shelf time (obsolescence was not a thing for tac marines for how long?). Not to mention the crazy rule book bloat.

jeff white wrote:Looking back at this thread it is like a bunch of people saying 'I am not going to update to primaris because primaris are not the same and something important has changed in the game and setting and especially with marines so I will continue using old marines to do X' and then another few people saying 'all changes are either for the better or an aspect of a delusion'.

Who's saying that?
I absolutely agree that people are saying "something important has changed", but no-one's pointing at anything that wasn't already present! That's my argument.
By all means, if you think something has changed in your interpretation, don't play them, it's not my business. Just don't claim it as some kind of objective fact, or that you're somehow appealing to "True" or "Real" Space Marines.

My answer remains that I will be playing my marines as primaris hunting loyalists because restartes are heresy.

If that's your Marines' in-character belief, that makes complete sense. However, it's important to recognise that from our OOC omnipotent perspective of the setting, they fundamentally are not heresy.

Grey40k wrote:That the "new" marines have a different aesthetic is quite obvious to the objective observer

Is it? Show us.

See, that's my point. If you'd said "that 'new' marines have a different aesthetic is subjectively obvious to some observers', I would express that I felt differently, but ultimately accept that it's just a subjective opinion. But bringing in this "objective observer" is both antagonising to everyone who disagrees and also simply unable to be proven. I've asked repeatedly for people to objectively prove the differences in Primaris/oldMarine aesthetic, beyond simply resizing in parts, and no-one has. Hell, even on resizing, I don't see people screaming heresy or "fake marines!" when people made Truescale Marines, so it's not even like resizing was the problem.
I've heard empty platitudes about how they're not gothic enough (a set of goalposts that has shifted near constantly), even though many old kits ares similarly blank. (however, I will say that those few who have admitted they dislike the bare aesthetic on other models too aren't a problem, as they're being consistent and not singling out Primaris alone).
I've heard about them being too tacticool, yet many other Marine units have the same abundance of pouches and computers.
I've heard about them not fitting in due to a change in ratio of chainswords and special weapons, but when I can look at an individual Marines with no hint of a chainsword or squad special weapon around them and still recognise it as a Space Marine, that argument falls flat on it's face.

Where's the "objective" proof that makes Primaris different that also wouldn't incriminate oldMarines?

From an old decaying force full of flaws (marine chapters had their special imperfections) and holding on to old but better technology (e.g. plasma, floating vehicles), to a new force which is much cleaner (in looks and also no flaws

Sorry to inform you, but Cawl lied about that. Primaris Marines have all the same genetic deformities of their ancestors, hence why we can have Primaris Death Company.
Plus, "much cleaner" only depends on if you BUILT them that way! I can quite easily build a Tactical Squad with less ornamentation and more "cleanness" that a Primaris Marine, so quit with assuming that Primaris are cleaner. That's completely down to the person modelling/building their model, not anything hard coded into their design.

As I've shown many times, look at the snapfit tacticals, and tell me they don't clean. I mean, you admit yourself that you don't like the old Tactical Marines for being too clean - so why are you making some kind of "Primaris are bad because they're too clean" when you could just say "I don't like clean Space Marine sculpts" and not create a false divide between Primaris and older sculpts?

and a renaissance of the imperium that now is in the offensive (as opposed to desperately barely holding and decaying).

Excuse me, pardon? On the offensive? The Imperium's been cut in half, fighting even more wars and holding back even more powerful forces of Chaos, and xenos - Ultramar was outright invaded, as was Terra itself! The Imperium launched a single large crusade to staunch the bleeding, and is now back into a defensive stance just like it was beforehand!

What, are you going to claim that the pre-Rift Imperium was offensive too, because of things like the Damocles Crusade and Sabbat Worlds Crusade? No - those are smaller parts of the general defensive/reactionary nature of the Imperium at large - just like what's happening now. If you think the Imperium is "winning" or doing anything more than barely holding the Great Rift shut, you're sorely mistaken.

the_scotsman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
err no no one is saying "another few people saying 'all changes are either for the better or an aspect of a delusion'."

fact is everyone is saying Primaris Marines are a matter of taste but to declare them "Not space marines" simply does not have any basis in fact.

Yeah, which is a thing that basically nobody has done, despite your crowd continuously claiming that.

Insectum has been incredibly vocal about that, being the most common user of the term "Real Marines" when describing anything except Primaris.
Similarly, Brutus made a similar claim, but after their later explanation of viewing even oldMarines as 'not true Marines' when they didn't have much ornamentation, I have understood their issues not to be directly tied to Primaris Marines.

I've explained, pretty calmly and rationally, why primaris marines bug me in particular that marines do not, as well as provided examples of several dedicated only-marines players I know who also are not big fans and why.

No, you didn't.
You explicitly said that it wasn't a Primaris only problem, because your problems with them were not limited only to Primaris!

Scotsman, earlier in the thread wrote:It is not a unique problem to primaris...This does not mean the same problems do not exist with standard marines or other armies.

To make it clear - I have no issue against criticism of Primaris. But if you're going to complain about *PRIMARIS* complain about things that only affect Primaris.

1) Army incompatibility. Primaris marines require above-and-beyond effort to incorporate into assault oriented marine armies like space wolves and blood angels (both in terms of getting them to match aesthetically requiring bits from other kits and getting them to be effective in close combat), they sit in the back and seem out of place in biker-oriented marine armies like ravenwing and white scars, and they can't take pods in drop pod focused armies. Most primaris units function extremely well in a gunline marine army, where you get them to their optimal range as fast as possible and then squat on Bolter Discipline all game, but are tough to integrate into the vast varied archetypical marine lists.

Perhaps, but this is an issue with their currently limited roster lineup. We're hearing increased rumours of biker Primaris, so that could very well change. Secondly, in regard to incorporating Primaris into assault and biker based armies, we have plenty of fast transports like the Impulsor. Why would they not help fit into those categories? Similarly, on the assault front, while I do lament the lack of more readily available power weapons, Primaris Marines do get a solid amount of attacks, equal to those from a normal chainsword-armed Marine. If Assault Squads count as "assault oriented", surely Primaris should too?

Again, this is something I think Primaris do need more of. But, it's not like gunlining is a totally new Space Marine theme.

This, to me, is a super bizarre decision from GW, that mostly stems from the fact that you can count the number of primaris units that aren't armed with either boltguns or plasma of some sort on a couple of fingers.

I think it's a case of them wanting to put out the more "core" units first, and then later expanding on towards more specialised squads later. I personally would have liked to see more Tacticus armoured units instead of so much Phobos (and I don't really see the point in Incursors myself), but I feel confident that with time, we will see more CC Primaris.

2) Playstyle dissatisfaction. A lot of dedicated marine players I know, and certainly myself, like that marines are an army that has varied weaponry at the squad level, and varied equipment.

That may be their interpretation of what Marines are, but as you mention the heresy style of 10 bolters yourself - it's pretty clear that Space Marines are more than just "varied squad level weapons", otherwise that would imply that 30k isn't played with Space Marines! Plus, there's plenty of units which are common to see with no squad support weapons (Scouts and Terminators often don't take advantage of their optional support weapon, in my experience).

Again, it comes down to "do you think 30k Marines aren't real Marines".

3) Obsolescence. People will always react worse to a new thing if it makes them worry that they have to give up their old thing. The reason I will never ract negatively to a new howling banshee kit, is that I know all the howling banshees I still have are completely compatible for it, 1-for-1. Primaris marines are VERY CLEARLY structured in such a way that it is inconvenient and confusing at best to continue to use your classic marine army to upgrade to primaris. GW continue to insist that they will coexist indefinitely, but that comes on the heels of the launch of AOS, and at the time of the primaris release distrust that they would take away support for peoples 1000$+ armies was at an all time high. If more primaris units were released that were directly analogous to pre-existing marine stuff, some of this distrust would likely fade away.

While I'm not disagreeing, I will point out that this is a very emotionally charged and subjective point. It's entirely based on personal fears and emotional reactions, *not* any objective points that have been asked for. Again, we have no concrete evidence that GW will squat oldMarines, or that they won't provide any support for them ruleswise in the future. This is entirely based on theory and guesswork, not objectivity.
So, as I've said, while I don't have any issue with subjective feelings about Primaris, please don't pretend they're objective!

But please, continue punching that "People who dislike primaris don't think they're real marines" strawman, instead of addressing any legitimate point.

I mean, there are very clearly users who have the "Primaris aren't REAL Marines" opinion. It's not a strawman at all.

And I'm happy to accept legitimate points, if they are legitimate - aka, they're consistent in criticism of both Primaris and oldMarines, and understand the difference between subjective and objective.
Subjective criticism of Primaris? I have no issue with that. That's just opinion. But when I'm seeing users make claims like "Real Marines" or "objective observer" then I'm going to call out their argument.

You should read my reply above, where I explain what I meant.

In fact, a lot of the issues with primaris are due to the nature of what they are doing, i.e. replacing the old marine range with copy right clad newer sculpts.

They quite clearly did not have the sculpts and lore ready to make the switch, so in the transition we have lots of "bland" non chapter specific sculpts, and lore than is both forced and also bland (primaris are just better, they do not have flaws).

Something similar happened when WHFB moved to AoS; it took years for something ressembling a coherent / interesting lore to emerge from the wreck.

This is what happens when move so aggressively to sell / obsolete. Honestly, suits have taken over GW to its core.

Grey40k wrote:
In fact, a lot of the issues with primaris are due to the nature of what they are doing, i.e. replacing the old marine range with copy right clad newer sculpts.

Aside from the names, how are the Primaris more "copyright clad"? And again, "replacing" hasn't been confirmed yet.

You can argue all you like that's what they're doing, but it's not a fact. By all means, keep that as your subjective opinion, but it's not a fact.

They quite clearly did not have the sculpts and lore ready to make the switch, so in the transition we have lots of "bland" non chapter specific sculpts, and lore than is both forced and also bland (primaris are just better, they do not have flaws).

The old marines are full of non-Chapter specific sculpts. Why is this a Primaris problem?
Primaris are stronger, but they have the same flaws as old Marines. But how is that any different from something like the Custodes, who are flat out just superior to Space Marines in every way, and aren't even that much smaller in number, at least, not in a meaningful way?

Something similar happened when WHFB moved to AoS; it took years for something ressembling a coherent / interesting lore to emerge from the wreck.

This is what happens when move so aggressively to sell / obsolete. Honestly, suits have taken over GW to its core.

I'm still talking about Primaris here, not GW as a whole. What about Primaris specifically are these "objective" features that oldMarines don't have?

I have no problem with something like "I don't like scopes" or "I don't like the blank aesthetic", because that at least implies that the belief is applied to old Marines too. It's the singling out of Primaris for things that the other Marines are clearly also guilty of that makes no sense to me.

It is objective: non of the special chapter specific units were / are primaris on release. They might slowly make them primaris (e.g. death companies), but for years they haven't been.

What made armies look different were not tac marines, but precisely those chapter specific units.

Primaris are just a bunch of standard marine units; that's why they look generic. Can we agree on that?

Because at this point I am starting to think that you are here just to argue, not to have a conversation.

Grey40k wrote:
It is objective: non of the special chapter specific units were / are primaris on release. They might slowly make them primaris (e.g. death companies), but for years they haven't been.

None of the old Marines were Chapter specific on release. And now, both Primaris and old Marines have unique units and kits.
And yes, Primaris Death Company exist in rules, and are easy fodder for conversion.

Primaris are a new range. Why on earth would they have initially released with a whole range of unique units?

What made armies look different were not tac marines, but precisely those chapter specific units.

That's not an objective fact at all. Are you seriously implying that if I build an army with no unique units, it's going to look the same as everyone else's? Nonsense. That's down to posing, painting, and the customisation offered in the boxes themselves. You don't *need* Chapter specific sculpts to be special. What, are you saying that the Assault on Black Reach box wasn't a Space Marine box because it didn't have any Ultramarine only units in it?

Space Marine armies have no *requirement* for having unique units in them, - if they did, then homebrew armies wouldn't exist, as they wouldn't have any unique units, surely?

Primaris are just a bunch of standard marine units; that's why they look generic. Can we agree on that?

Primaris are a bunch of generic units with optional kit upgrades that can make them look more bespoke, yes. This is no different to the standard units in the oldMarine roster. Why is this phrased as a complaint of Primaris, when it's something the old range is equally as guilty of?

If Primaris Marines look generic, so do old Marines. Can we agree on that?
By all means, if you have a problem with generic looking units, please hold Tactical Squads, Assault Squads, Devastators Squads, Scout Squads, Veteran Squads, and Terminator Squads to the same standard.

Because at this point I am starting to think that you are here just to argue, not to have a conversation.

I'm open to a conversation, if people will be transparent about holding Primaris and oldMarines to the same scrutiny. It's about consistency. If you have a complaint about a certain aspect of the Primaris design, I expect you to hold oldMarines to the same.

I explained this so, so, SO many times, and you have proven time and time again that you are just more interested in talking to the imaginary version of my thoughts that exists only in your head, smudge. You're going on ignore until I stop participating in this thread, I'm sorry.

Just a quick summary, for other folks who might be observing:

-Old marines do not statistically downgrade other factions' elite units by comparison, e.g. making Tau feel weak at long range by having better guns at 30" or making aspect warriors seem slow by throwing out more attacks, or making GSC seem like dinguses when marines' infiltration units get to show up the turn before AND get a 12" aura of 'now you can't use your regular ass deep strike anywhere near us'.

^That is what I was referring to when I said "things about primaris bug me that don't bug me about old marines"

My examples 1, 2, and 3 from other marine players

^obviously subjective opinions that depend on the situation with the player's army. I never said that a theoretical person who had a heresy-style all boltguns all the time static marine gunline army would be able to easily incorporate primaris.

It doesn't seem, to me, subjectively, like what GW has released so far for primaris is "just" their core units. It seems like there has been a crazy over-reliance on anti-infantry specialists and plasma specialists.

Intercessors - anti-light infantry specialists
aggressors - anti-light infantry specialists
inceptors - 1 build is anti-light infantry specialists
reivers - anti-light infantry specialists
incursors - anti-light infantry guns/all plasma guns
infiltrators - anti-light infantry specialists
invictus warsuit - all guns are anti-light infantry
redemptor dreadnought - anti-light infantry gun/plasma gun
Hellblasters - all plasma guns
Impulsor - all anti-light infantry guns

The only primaris units that break that mold are eliminators, 1 of the builds for the repulsor, 1 of the builds for the repulsor executioner, and suppressors. The number of times I have had to tell new players trying to start primaris armies since the start of 8th that the reason they're struggling is that they have one single anti-tank unit in the form of a squad of hellblasters that their opponents just shoot off the table turn 1 is absolutely crazy. It is only with the extremely recent release of the impulsor that any kind of mobile strategy has really been possible with primaris.

The entire reason people have had trouble adopting them is because they have been putting out weird crazy crap INSTEAD of the core units. Imagine if GW decided to release classic marines from nothing and they went

Wave 1:

Tactical marines, but with no special or heavy weapons
Whole squad of just plasma gunners
Tactical Terminators
Knife and Boltgun scout kit
Land Raider/LR Crusader
Dreadnought
Captain
Chaplain
Librarian
Apothecary
5 lieutenant sculpts

How do I kill tanks? Just take this 350pt transport for a couple lascannons? how do I move my models up the board? 350pt transport again? how do I do melee?

So GW says "DW fam we got you here's wave 2"

-New kit for shotgun scouts
-New kit for sniper scouts
-New kit for slightly different boltgun scouts
-New kit for heavy flamer/twin HB dreadnought
-New kit for captain on foot
-New kit for librarian on foot
-New kit for lieutenant

-Finally, a Rhino!

That fixes the problems you were having right :^)

Autocannons are anti light infantry?

Old marines were as bad as primaries as a baseline, I never denied that.

But old marines had, as you acknowledged, specific units to chapters with more spice.

They rushed a whole replacement of old marines by primaries and hence they lack all the more special sculpts.

That’s purely a business decision that is not done to favor consumers but to obsolete decades of old marines.

I don’t really get what is your point, to be honest, besides npbeing argumentative. I th8nk we mostly are in agreement.

 fraser1191 wrote:
Autocannons are anti light infantry?

I swear to god there is some kind of vast illuminati conspiracy dedicated to taking my responses in this thread and responding to them as if I said the opposite thing to what is just got finished saying. It's uncanny.