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.

Yeah, no-one's complaining that we already have two new (well, they've already existed in the lore, but not in model, I think?) Terminator mark. All they'd need to do is release Primaris 'Indomitors' (similar name to the current Indomitus class Tactical Dreadnought Armour).

An army can only "feel elite" in comparison to other armies. If you want to successfully play an elite army, you need to find somebody willing to spend 3-4x of the money and time painting than you to let your dudes seem like big badasses carving through hordes of mooks.

Given that most marine players dont seem to have a problem understanding this issue when it comes to someone wanting to play a full army of imperial knights against them, it's odd to me that they didnt expect a little pushback from wanting to shift the "marines to other guys" ratio from approximately 1:2 to 1:3 or 1:4.

the_scotsman wrote:
An army can only "feel elite" in comparison to other armies. If you want to successfully play an elite army, you need to find somebody willing to spend 3-4x of the money and time painting than you to let your dudes seem like big badasses carving through hordes of mooks.

Given that most marine players dont seem to have a problem understanding this issue when it comes to someone wanting to play a full army of imperial knights against them, it's odd to me that they didnt expect a little pushback from wanting to shift the "marines to other guys" ratio from approximately 1:2 to 1:3 or 1:4.

That's an interesting point. Personally, I don't like that csm have become cheaper, inferior marines. I'd prefer they had better rules and increased points to pay for those rules, thus decreasing the ratio of them to other factions, as you say. Csm shouldn't be chaff, they should be rare and dangerous.

the_scotsman wrote:
An army can only "feel elite" in comparison to other armies. If you want to successfully play an elite army, you need to find somebody willing to spend 3-4x of the money and time painting than you to let your dudes seem like big badasses carving through hordes of mooks.

Given that most marine players dont seem to have a problem understanding this issue when it comes to someone wanting to play a full army of imperial knights against them, it's odd to me that they didnt expect a little pushback from wanting to shift the "marines to other guys" ratio from approximately 1:2 to 1:3 or 1:4.

except that this has ALWAYS been the case. back when I started 40K there where no primaris marines (of Imperial knights, or Custodes etc) but that didn't mean there where no elite small model count armies and no armies with large amounts of models.
Grey Knights vs Imperial Guard, for example.

yet LOTS of people happily play Imperial Guard.

BrianDavion wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
An army can only "feel elite" in comparison to other armies. If you want to successfully play an elite army, you need to find somebody willing to spend 3-4x of the money and time painting than you to let your dudes seem like big badasses carving through hordes of mooks.

Given that most marine players dont seem to have a problem understanding this issue when it comes to someone wanting to play a full army of imperial knights against them, it's odd to me that they didnt expect a little pushback from wanting to shift the "marines to other guys" ratio from approximately 1:2 to 1:3 or 1:4.

except that this has ALWAYS been the case. back when I started 40K there where no primaris marines (of Imperial knights, or Custodes etc) but that didn't mean there where no elite small model count armies and no armies with large amounts of models.
Grey Knights vs Imperial Guard, for example.

yet LOTS of people happily play Imperial Guard.

Now marines are even more elite, and the elites from other armies are not; for example, aspect warriors.

BrianDavion wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
An army can only "feel elite" in comparison to other armies. If you want to successfully play an elite army, you need to find somebody willing to spend 3-4x of the money and time painting than you to let your dudes seem like big badasses carving through hordes of mooks.

Given that most marine players dont seem to have a problem understanding this issue when it comes to someone wanting to play a full army of imperial knights against them, it's odd to me that they didnt expect a little pushback from wanting to shift the "marines to other guys" ratio from approximately 1:2 to 1:3 or 1:4.

except that this has ALWAYS been the case. back when I started 40K there where no primaris marines (of Imperial knights, or Custodes etc) but that didn't mean there where no elite small model count armies and no armies with large amounts of models.
Grey Knights vs Imperial Guard, for example.

yet LOTS of people happily play Imperial Guard.

Yeah. My first Chaos army had less than 20 models in it, would regularly clean up against Guard, Orks, Eldar, etc.

Elite doesn't mean what people think anymore.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
. . .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?
. . . And, on the tacticool pouches idea, Scouts have an awful lot of them. Are they not 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.
. . . And again, many core Space Marine units can't use certain transports. . .
. . . If I build a squad and I don't take a special weapon, are they not "Real Marines"?
. . . If Primaris came without Guilliman, would you then call them "Real Marines" then?

It should be pretty clear that the definition of anything is a combination of characteristics, and the more you deviate from those characteristics the less of that "thing" it becomes, and it becomes a new thing. If all of those variables represented an "axis of difference", Primaris Marines as a whole deviate further along more axis than the classic line.

And technically no, Scouts are not Marines because they haven't graduated into being a true Marine. They are by definition Marines-in-training. Certainly less of a Marine than an Assault, Devastator or Tactical Marine.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

. . . .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?

A: Promo photos are introductory images to the lore and hobby. They are definitely important.

B: Fewer-to-no Chainswords in the core kits, more techy details and more tacticool pouches across the range.

C: Are the promo photos somehow not "default models"?

D: How would you describe the differences in styling between these two lines of models? More techy/tacticool is absolutely applicable.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Hover Tank is a generic term, and when you search it, you get the Repulsor. You also get a bunch of stuff that looks a lot like a Repulsor/Executioner.
TVtropes "Hover Tank"https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HoverTank
Google search of "Hover Tank"


A collection of similar hover tanks:

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!)

Back banners are 40K grimdark because they are anachronistic. It's middle age thinking in a futuristic setting.

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.

Just looking at the pictures I posted above, the "skull and wing" count on the Scouts exceeds the Phobos Marines. Three skulls for each Scout, one on the chest, one on the right arm, and one on the gun. I see about 1 skull per phobos, but a s***-ton more scopes and antennae.

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.

Yeah it's different, because when all your troops are just running around with six different versions of a bolter, and each of those bolters have their differences brought attention to in stats, it's a lot more "tacticool" than a dude carrying a gun that is as big as himself. There is a distinct exchange in imagery happening. Swords and giant guns are being replaced with assault rifle-esque imagery.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Again, this should be obvious. The amount of stat differences, and how dramatic the change is in relation to other models in the game is what is important. Scouts changed WS and BS at some point. Terminators got an extra wound to combat the change in AP calculation. That particular change was in fact to keep their relationship to other models more stable through the change, rather than less, so is actually the opposite of your point. On the other hand, an extra wound and extra attack for every new model in the line is a massive upgrade in comparison to the other "troops of the line" out there, not to mention a base weapon with an upgraded range and AP. The "basic" model now has double the wounds of every other factions "basic" model. As I posted recently:

The base attacks of an Ork or Genestealer
More resilient than a Necron, twice as resilient as a CSM.
A gun as powerful as the Gauss Blaster
With the range of the Tau rifle.
Far out-"eliteing" the traditional Eldar elite infantry. (Avengers, Scorpions, Banshees, Warp Spiders)

They just wholly diminish the traditional advantages of those factions' baseline troops. And that's before the doctrines+super doctrines. It's a joke.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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

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

I have to say though, that GW is doing right now what they did when they started. That is, following the "meta".

GW lore was a joke, a simple collection of copy pasting current (at the time) sci fi elements mixed with the high fantasy alternates in space (eldar) .

https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-inspirations-for-the-Warhammer-40-000-aesthetics

Over time they solidified into a more unique GW franchise, which is what we know as the WH40k universe.

Right now, GW is doing the same thing, simply wiping the slate clean (to a certain extent) of some older elements that might no longer be in trendy (gothic / decaying vs modern / advanced).

Old marines with chain swords are no longer fashionable, assault rifles and scopes are.

For me, the biggest difference is how consumer unfriendly the way they change is. For many years, new sculpts would appear but old sculpts where truly supported. However, now the fact that old marines are the past and primaris are the future is quite clear.

Me, I like better the old aesthetics / lore / fluff. But their focus groups might be telling them to change direction these days.

Grey40k wrote:

Right now, GW is doing the same thing, simply wiping the slate clean (to a certain extent) of some older elements that might no longer be in trendy (gothic / decaying vs modern / advanced).

Or they've mistaken the ideology of gothic for nu-metal gothic. lol.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Grey40k wrote:

Right now, GW is doing the same thing, simply wiping the slate clean (to a certain extent) of some older elements that might no longer be in trendy (gothic / decaying vs modern / advanced).

Or they've mistaken the ideology of gothic for nu-metal gothic. lol.

that's the raven guard. the last recorded words their primarch said was never more. they're a chapter infamous for brooding in the shadows..

them being Emo as feth isn't anything new

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
. . .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?
. . . And, on the tacticool pouches idea, Scouts have an awful lot of them. Are they not 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.
. . . And again, many core Space Marine units can't use certain transports. . .
. . . If I build a squad and I don't take a special weapon, are they not "Real Marines"?
. . . If Primaris came without Guilliman, would you then call them "Real Marines" then?

It should be pretty clear that the definition of anything is a combination of characteristics, and the more you deviate from those characteristics the less of that "thing" it becomes, and it becomes a new thing. If all of those variables represented an "axis of difference", Primaris Marines as a whole deviate further along more axis than the classic line.

But all their features are features that already exist on oldMarines.

And technically no, Scouts are not Marines because they haven't graduated into being a true Marine. They are by definition Marines-in-training. Certainly less of a Marine than an Assault, Devastator or Tactical Marine.

So where's the complaints of them not being "Real Marines"?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

. . . .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?

A: Promo photos are introductory images to the lore and hobby. They are definitely important.

They're just as introductory as the artwork. Artwork which shows Primaris Marines looking just as gritty as the oldMarines. Promo photos aren't the be-all-end-all of what a kit can be.

B: Fewer-to-no Chainswords in the core kits, more techy details and more tacticool pouches across the range.

So, same as Scouts then.
It's almost like all Space Marine infiltration focused units (which Primaris have a lot of, right now!) have that kind of aesthetic.
If you want to compare oldMarines like Tacticals and Devastators, compare them to their closest equivalent, the Intercessors, who have less techy details, and just as many tacticool pouches.

C: Are the promo photos somehow not "default models"?

Not in my opinion. Default is a model literally built to the bare minimum (ie, no glued on purity seals, no glued on pouches, basically anything that isn't immediately part of the backpack, main body and gun).

D: How would you describe the differences in styling between these two lines of models? More techy/tacticool is absolutely applicable.

Spoiler:

Sorry, but no. The Scouts look just as techy/tacticool, and because of their lack of power armour and their wearing cloth armour instead, I find them less like Space Marines even. In your subjective opinion, perhaps they are more "techy", but not objectively - which is my whole point. These comparisons aren't based in fact and objectivity, they're based in opinions.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Hover Tank is a generic term, and when you search it, you get the Repulsor. You also get a bunch of stuff that looks a lot like a Repulsor/Executioner.
TVtropes "Hover Tank"https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HoverTank
Google search of "Hover Tank"

Spoiler:

Well, of course the Repulsor will show up on a generic term, because someone on Reddit literally just used it! That's the thing about google - it doesn't need to be official sources. And it's a tank that hovers, yes - that doesn't make ALL hover tanks the same any more than it does all tracked tanks.

A collection of similar hover tanks:

Spoiler:

Again, none of those tanks look Space Marine-y, and the Repulsor doesn't particularly fit any of them beyond literally just hovering and *being a tank*. The closest one is the one directly on the right, but even then, there's no way I'd mistake either for being in the same setting, let alone faction.

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!)

Back banners are 40K grimdark because they are anachronistic. It's middle age thinking in a futuristic setting.

So why don't Scouts have them?

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.

Just looking at the pictures I posted above, the "skull and wing" count on the Scouts exceeds the Phobos Marines. Three skulls for each Scout, one on the chest, one on the right arm, and one on the gun. I see about 1 skull per phobos, but a s***-ton more scopes and antennae.

And how about the Intercessors compared to Tacticals? And regarding scopes, Scouts have scoped bolt pistols - don't see that on the Phobos sculpts.

Spoiler:

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.

Yeah it's different, because when all your troops are just running around with six different versions of a bolter, and each of those bolters have their differences brought attention to in stats, it's a lot more "tacticool" than a dude carrying a gun that is as big as himself. There is a distinct exchange in imagery happening. Swords and giant guns are being replaced with assault rifle-esque imagery.

The guns are larger than the old ones? Swords are still sold and displayed with prominence. Just look at the wealth of Lieutenants with power swords.

They're not being replaced.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Again, this should be obvious. The amount of stat differences, and how dramatic the change is in relation to other models in the game is what is important. Scouts changed WS and BS at some point. Terminators got an extra wound to combat the change in AP calculation. That particular change was in fact to keep their relationship to other models more stable through the change, rather than less, so is actually the opposite of your point. On the other hand, an extra wound and extra attack for every new model in the line is a massive upgrade in comparison to the other "troops of the line" out there, not to mention a base weapon with an upgraded range and AP. The "basic" model now has double the wounds of every other factions "basic" model. As I posted recently:

The base attacks of an Ork or Genestealer
More resilient than a Necron, twice as resilient as a CSM.
A gun as powerful as the Gauss Blaster
With the range of the Tau rifle.
Far out-"eliteing" the traditional Eldar elite infantry. (Avengers, Scorpions, Banshees, Warp Spiders)

They just wholly diminish the traditional advantages of those factions' baseline troops. And that's before the doctrines+super doctrines. It's a joke.

Eh, I'm largely in favour of Marines of all stripes, Primaris or not, being that capable. Obviously, pricing needs to change (I'd prefer if everything cost more points, but I know GW won't go that way).

A "basic" Space Marine should, in my opinion, be doing what Primaris are. And the same should apply to Chaos too. To offset, Marines should be more expensive and fewer in number on tabletop.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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

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

The two are fundamentally connected, so the theoretical here is pretty worthless. But to answer the question: No. Because Primaris are already deviating along too many other axis.

All their "deviations" are already present on other Marines though.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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?

Ratios, and aesthetics are all about ratios. Fewer skulls, more scopes = more tacticool. It should be fairly obvious that "Having scopes on a few models" is not the same aesthetic as "Every model has 20 scopes." It's also really tiring that you continue trying to use it as an argument because it's demonstratively, quantitatively, objectively, false. This seems to be a hard concept for you. Like this statement:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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

Okay. And? Marines have skimmers.

I'll make a graph for you:

Spoiler:

And? You seem to be cherry picking which Primaris models you're working from when talking about "fewer skulls, more scopes" - you seem to be only talking about Infiltrators and Incursors - recon specialists, not even the main backbone of the Primaris range. That's why I'm comparing them to Scouts so much, because they're the closest comparison, not to Tacticals - which should be compared to Intercessors, who, funnily enough, have largely the same ratios!

Again, regardless of ratio, skimmers are part of the Space Marine design, and, just to correct you, I will mention that even mono-Primaris Chapters (like the Silver Templars) have Land Raiders.

B: As demonstrated above, hover tanks are a predictable Sci-Fi thing. A trope. 40Ks BEST asset is that it is decidedly NOT typical sci-fi. A Land Raider is fantastic 40k design, because for inspiration it's not looking at modern tanks, it's looking at antiquated designs and sticking a bizarre reasoning on top of it by giving it an assault ramp in the front. It's a battering ram, or a corvus in antiquated tank form. The Repulsor and Executioner just look like floating sci-fi MBTs. Much of their armament looks more like modern equipment.

That's your opinion. In mine, Repulsors look just as Space Marine-y as all the other Space Marine vehicles. Repulsors look like perfect 40k design to me, because they take a sci-fi concept (hover tank), and describe it in the most brutal terms possible, and create something to utterly built for war that it could only come from 40k. We have a tank that literally turns the ground to glass behind it from repeatedly punching the ground with it's anti-grav wash, with the flat, layered armour iconic to Space Marine vehicles, and this massive, hulking floating box of guns isn't even the main battle tank - it's a dedicated transport! It feels so much more 40k and so much more *Space Marine*, in my opinion, than things like Land Speeders.

C: It invades the design space of other factions. Tau and Eldar hover tanks become less special when the most common army in the game suddenly fields all hover tanks.

By that same logic, Space Marines having tanks at all invades the design space of Guardsmen.

Tau and Eldar hover tanks are so incredibly aesthetically different to Primaris hover tanks I don't know where to start. Speaking of, where's the complaints about AdMech not being "REAL" Admech because they have hover tanks, and Tau and Eldar being weakened by them?

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

In this case I'm talking about the range in broad strokes. It's true, Intercessors are not particularly "techy" (although their armor is subtley more techy), but those Infiltrators have tech coming out of their ears.

Since when were Infiltrators the entire Primaris range then?

If your complaint is with Infiltrators, or even all the Phobos Marines, alone, then say that, instead of "Primaris" - because, as you've just said, Intercessors and Hellblasters and Gravis-armoured Primaris aren't "particularly techy". It's the same kind of misrepresentation as me saying that the core of all Space Marine armies is Scout Squads.

Ah yes, grey knights, the last time gw decided marines werent elite enough. Remind me were those dudes unibersally popular or did everyone hate them so much they got left on the vine to slowly wither away until they can be quietly squatted later on down the line?

Nothing will be more unpopular than an overpowered elite army. Theyre super cheap so your local cheeseball can bandwagon into them, they always do the same things your elite troops but BETTERER, they wipe you off the table while you kill like 2 models, and they get showered with relentless fanwank fluff.

Doesnt matter if its knights, custodes, eldar with bikers and wraithknights, tau with triptides, or grey knights, meta build+elite army = most hated thing in the game.

the_scotsman wrote:
Ah yes, grey knights, the last time gw decided marines werent elite enough. Remind me were those dudes unibersally popular or did everyone hate them so much they got left on the vine to slowly wither away until they can be quietly squatted later on down the line?

Nothing will be more unpopular than an overpowered elite army. Theyre super cheap so your local cheeseball can bandwagon into them, they always do the same things your elite troops but BETTERER, they wipe you off the table while you kill like 2 models, and they get showered with relentless fanwank fluff.

Doesnt matter if its knights, custodes, eldar with bikers and wraithknights, tau with triptides, or grey knights, meta build+elite army = most hated thing in the game.

that logic would make sense if the hate train for Primaris was a relativly new thing, it's not (in fact they're MUCH more accepted then they used to be) the hate train began back when 8th edition started and the over all opinion of them where that Primaris where, rules wise, pretty "meh" the hate had begin to slow boil and then had a sharp uptake with the release of vanguard space Marines. and yet again the hate clearly isn't connected to their power you saw a big uptick in Primaris Marines with the release of vanguard Marines, but let's look at where the hate is concentrated. it's not just finding excuses to hate the powerful units. because if you look, the hate is aimed at aestetics. (I mean the most powerful of the new Phobos stuff is IMHO the eliminators, and most people think they're the gems of the newest stuff in terms of the model.


now there's been hate aimed at Marines in general yes but it's distinct from the anti-primaris hate. the anti-primaris hate is more the over all "hating anything new" you sometimes see in the fanbase. rememebr back when the centurion first came out, you had people saying how aweful they where, suggesting they made no sense, saying they broke lore, saying there looked stupid, saying they didn't fit the marine aestetic. etc.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Grey40k wrote:

Right now, GW is doing the same thing, simply wiping the slate clean (to a certain extent) of some older elements that might no longer be in trendy (gothic / decaying vs modern / advanced).

Or they've mistaken the ideology of gothic for nu-metal gothic. lol.

that's the raven guard. the last recorded words their primarch said was never more. they're a chapter infamous for brooding in the shadows..

them being Emo as feth isn't anything new

There's a gulf of difference between some lines of description and embracing Hot Topic whole-hog.

BrianDavion wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:
Ah yes, grey knights, the last time gw decided marines werent elite enough. Remind me were those dudes unibersally popular or did everyone hate them so much they got left on the vine to slowly wither away until they can be quietly squatted later on down the line?

Nothing will be more unpopular than an overpowered elite army. Theyre super cheap so your local cheeseball can bandwagon into them, they always do the same things your elite troops but BETTERER, they wipe you off the table while you kill like 2 models, and they get showered with relentless fanwank fluff.

Doesnt matter if its knights, custodes, eldar with bikers and wraithknights, tau with triptides, or grey knights, meta build+elite army = most hated thing in the game.

that logic would make sense if the hate train for Primaris was a relativly new thing, it's not (in fact they're MUCH more accepted then they used to be) the hate train began back when 8th edition started and the over all opinion of them where that Primaris where, rules wise, pretty "meh" the hate had begin to slow boil and then had a sharp uptake with the release of vanguard space Marines. and yet again the hate clearly isn't connected to their power you saw a big uptick in Primaris Marines with the release of vanguard Marines, but let's look at where the hate is concentrated. it's not just finding excuses to hate the powerful units. because if you look, the hate is aimed at aestetics. (I mean the most powerful of the new Phobos stuff is IMHO the eliminators, and most people think they're the gems of the newest stuff in terms of the model.


now there's been hate aimed at Marines in general yes but it's distinct from the anti-primaris hate. the anti-primaris hate is more the over all "hating anything new" you sometimes see in the fanbase. rememebr back when the centurion first came out, you had people saying how aweful they where, suggesting they made no sense, saying they broke lore, saying there looked stupid, saying they didn't fit the marine aestetic. etc.

Oh, the Primaris game and lore design are also disliked as well. It ain't just the looks.

I still haven't picked up any Centurions either. But I own a Hunter/Stalker, and am planning on building a custom pair of Storm Ravens, so it's not a "just hate the new thing" either.

-

-

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
. . .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?
. . . And, on the tacticool pouches idea, Scouts have an awful lot of them. Are they not 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.
. . . And again, many core Space Marine units can't use certain transports. . .
. . . If I build a squad and I don't take a special weapon, are they not "Real Marines"?
. . . If Primaris came without Guilliman, would you then call them "Real Marines" then?

It should be pretty clear that the definition of anything is a combination of characteristics, and the more you deviate from those characteristics the less of that "thing" it becomes, and it becomes a new thing. If all of those variables represented an "axis of difference", Primaris Marines as a whole deviate further along more axis than the classic line.

But all their features are features that already exist on oldMarines.

Having something in moderation is not the same as having something in abundance. You either really don't understand proportionality, or are being deliberately obtuse.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

D: How would you describe the differences in styling between these two lines of models? More techy/tacticool is absolutely applicable.

Spoiler:

Sorry, but no. The Scouts look just as techy/tacticool, and because of their lack of power armour and their wearing cloth armour instead, I find them less like Space Marines even. In your subjective opinion, perhaps they are more "techy", but not objectively - which is my whole point. These comparisons aren't based in fact and objectivity, they're based in opinions.

No Smudge, this is not a subjective opinion. The posted Phobos marines really do have more technical details on them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If your complaint is with Infiltrators, or even all the Phobos Marines, alone, then say that, instead of "Primaris" - because, as you've just said, Intercessors and Hellblasters and Gravis-armoured Primaris aren't "particularly techy". It's the same kind of misrepresentation as me saying that the core of all Space Marine armies is Scout Squads.

There are more techy details on other models in the line, but since you cannot even acknowledge the abundance of tech details on the previously posted Phobos pics, it's not worth having the discussion.

And with the continued denial of proportionality and apparent lack of functioning eyeballs, it's not worth responding to the rest of your post.

Oh, the Primaris game and lore design are also disliked as well. It ain't just the looks.

differant people are complaining about Primaris from a Lore or looks POV then the people complaining about Primaris rules. most of those people just started with the last codex. which was my point. when Primaris Marines first appered the only complaining was that Primaris marines where (for their points) actually pretty crappy

 Insectum7 wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote: But all their features are features that already exist on oldMarines.

Having something in moderation is not the same as having something in abundance. You either really don't understand proportionality, or are being deliberately obtuse.

My point is that all the features they have "in abundance" are features that already exist on Space Marines. It's not like these are small features that have cropped up out of nowhere and embellishing the core design, these have been part of the Space Marine design for longer than the Primaris have existed. I don't see at all what's "moderate" about the tacticool features on Scouts, yet I don't see complaint about them being "too tacticool" and not being worthy of being a Space Marine.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

D: How would you describe the differences in styling between these two lines of models? More techy/tacticool is absolutely applicable.

Spoiler:

Sorry, but no. The Scouts look just as techy/tacticool, and because of their lack of power armour and their wearing cloth armour instead, I find them less like Space Marines even. In your subjective opinion, perhaps they are more "techy", but not objectively - which is my whole point. These comparisons aren't based in fact and objectivity, they're based in opinions.

No Smudge, this is not a subjective opinion. The posted Phobos marines really do have more technical details on them.

Scouts: Stripped back armour (cloth)
Scopes and suppressors on guns
Pouches and holsters
Visors and goggles
Tacticool straps.

Phobos: Stripped down armour
Scopes on guns
Pouches and holsters
Visors/antennae (depending on if Infiltrator or Incursor)
Tacticool straps

But sure, *Phobos* Marines might be techy/tacticool (like Scouts, but hey). What about Tacticus armoured Primaris?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If your complaint is with Infiltrators, or even all the Phobos Marines, alone, then say that, instead of "Primaris" - because, as you've just said, Intercessors and Hellblasters and Gravis-armoured Primaris aren't "particularly techy". It's the same kind of misrepresentation as me saying that the core of all Space Marine armies is Scout Squads.

There are more techy details on other models in the line, but since you cannot even acknowledge the abundance of tech details on the previously posted Phobos pics, it's not worth having the discussion.

What are these techy details on Intercessors, Hellblasters and Gravis units? Or, more importantly the lack of the same tech details from other models in the Space Marine range?
I've acknowledged that Phobos have tech details, but fail to see that Scouts share the same amount of features, even if theirs don't stick up from a backpack.

I'm not denying Primaris have some tech features, but it's not a feature exclusive to them.

BrianDavion wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Ah yes, grey knights, the last time gw decided marines werent elite enough. Remind me were those dudes unibersally popular or did everyone hate them so much they got left on the vine to slowly wither away until they can be quietly squatted later on down the line?

Nothing will be more unpopular than an overpowered elite army. Theyre super cheap so your local cheeseball can bandwagon into them, they always do the same things your elite troops but BETTERER, they wipe you off the table while you kill like 2 models, and they get showered with relentless fanwank fluff.

Doesnt matter if its knights, custodes, eldar with bikers and wraithknights, tau with triptides, or grey knights, meta build+elite army = most hated thing in the game.

that logic would make sense if the hate train for Primaris was a relativly new thing, it's not (in fact they're MUCH more accepted then they used to be) the hate train began back when 8th edition started and the over all opinion of them where that Primaris where, rules wise, pretty "meh" the hate had begin to slow boil and then had a sharp uptake with the release of vanguard space Marines. and yet again the hate clearly isn't connected to their power you saw a big uptick in Primaris Marines with the release of vanguard Marines, but let's look at where the hate is concentrated. it's not just finding excuses to hate the powerful units. because if you look, the hate is aimed at aestetics. (I mean the most powerful of the new Phobos stuff is IMHO the eliminators, and most people think they're the gems of the newest stuff in terms of the model.


now there's been hate aimed at Marines in general yes but it's distinct from the anti-primaris hate. the anti-primaris hate is more the over all "hating anything new" you sometimes see in the fanbase. rememebr back when the centurion first came out, you had people saying how aweful they where, suggesting they made no sense, saying they broke lore, saying there looked stupid, saying they didn't fit the marine aestetic. etc.

I mean, I can only speak from my own perspective, but in my eyes the bulk of the initial hate directed towards primaris comes from either

A) marine players who don't want to be forced to re-buy their entire army or annoyed that all this new gak exists that they can't use with any of their existing stuff, or annoyed that their army was being repurposed into the "baby's first 40k faction" with very little in terms of interesting gameplay or list building decisions

B) non-marine players irritated that GW chose the single most up-to-date, modern, nearly wholly plastic miniature range in the game to reboot instead of armies with ancient sculpts

you can call that "Hating anything new" but there's been tons of new stuff that have been far more popular, and I'd suspect it's because conditions 1 or 2 have not been met here. Even the most vehement hater of the new CSM range has got to admit they don't have to buy the new stuff if they don't want to, because their old stuff is still fully legal, and basically everyone likes the new sisters range because good lord if anyone deserved the reboot it's them.

And now you've got extra hate because primaris and marines in general are the most imbalanced competitive meta we've seen so far in 8th edition and competitive marine lists are about as much fun to play against as stationary tau gunlines.

BrianDavion wrote:

Oh, the Primaris game and lore design are also disliked as well. It ain't just the looks.

differant people are complaining about Primaris from a Lore or looks POV then the people complaining about Primaris rules. most of those people just started with the last codex. which was my point. when Primaris Marines first appered the only complaining was that Primaris marines where (for their points) actually pretty crappy

I'll bet you a thousand dollars you can find posts from that era that dislike Primaris for reasons other than their ineffectiveness game-stats-wise.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I have no plans to change anything. I've got a bajillion painted old Chaos Space Marines, no need to replace them, and the newer models are really quite busy in terms of detail (and much more time consuming to paint as a result), not to mention more than twice the price of what my CSM's cost at MSRP when I picked them up.

Pretty much this right here. I am an incurable collector when it comes to older GW models, and there is not much that really inspires me to buy from the newer lines. With that in mind, when I cant really play my miniatures with the game presented, than it is time to move on to a different system or play an old edition that actually works for me. I have pretty much done that with my old WFB armies so if 40K is next than so be it.

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Oh, the Primaris game and lore design are also disliked as well. It ain't just the looks.

differant people are complaining about Primaris from a Lore or looks POV then the people complaining about Primaris rules. most of those people just started with the last codex. which was my point. when Primaris Marines first appered the only complaining was that Primaris marines where (for their points) actually pretty crappy

I'll bet you a thousand dollars you can find posts from that era that dislike Primaris for reasons other than their ineffectiveness game-stats-wise.

umm no bet I agree. that was my point. Scotsman was trying to note the hate grey knights got for their 5th edition codex, and claiming that Primaris hate is linked to being an overpowered elite army, which people "always hate"

I'm noting that the dislike for Primaris Marines from many people does not stem from their rules, because their rules being good is a fairly recent thing. and when Primaris Marines where introduced they where actually deemed mediocre.
and that the dislike of them by many people is more tied to their aestetics and lore then their power level. despite what Scotsman is trying to imply.

Well I think I'd also say there was some dislike because when they came out they were yet another marines+1. Dislike for stats inflation even if not competetive.

That and the general "Really GW? That's your idea? More marines but biggerer?"

 Insectum7 wrote:

That and the general "Really GW? That's your idea? More marines but biggerer?"

I think it's a good example of "be careful of what you wish for".
People have been whining for ages about marine models not being big enough vs how they're described in the fluff. Some people even went/go to the effort of converting the old marines to be taller.
Well congrats. You got GWs attention & convinced them bigger marines were a thing you all wanted. Enjoy your Primaris.

At least GW gave some half-assed fluff reason for the change in scale.

They didn't even need a reason to change the scale. It's not like upscaled versions of the classic kits wouldnt have sold. Did they think marine popularity would just dry up all of a sudden?

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Oh, the Primaris game and lore design are also disliked as well. It ain't just the looks.

differant people are complaining about Primaris from a Lore or looks POV then the people complaining about Primaris rules. most of those people just started with the last codex. which was my point. when Primaris Marines first appered the only complaining was that Primaris marines where (for their points) actually pretty crappy

I'll bet you a thousand dollars you can find posts from that era that dislike Primaris for reasons other than their ineffectiveness game-stats-wise.

umm no bet I agree. that was my point. Scotsman was trying to note the hate grey knights got for their 5th edition codex, and claiming that Primaris hate is linked to being an overpowered elite army, which people "always hate"

I'm noting that the dislike for Primaris Marines from many people does not stem from their rules, because their rules being good is a fairly recent thing. and when Primaris Marines where introduced they where actually deemed mediocre.
and that the dislike of them by many people is more tied to their aestetics and lore then their power level. despite what Scotsman is trying to imply.

If you're talking about the kind of "PRimaris? not in MY space marine army!?!!!" sentiment, then yeah, that has nothing to do with their power level because it's coming from marine players/collectors. When it comes to people who aren't exclusively marine players, hate for primaris tends to center around the fact that they just keep getting fething model releases and the fact that they are utterly miserable to play against.

Say what you like about regular marines, but they might occasionally do something besides sit and shoot from across the board? Playing against primaris is like playing against Tau if fire warriors could bust out sweet taekwondo and beat your melee units into the ground when you do get in.

 Insectum7 wrote:
They didn't even need a reason to change the scale. It's not like upscaled versions of the classic kits wouldnt have sold. Did they think marine popularity would just dry up all of a sudden?

They had run out of ideas and good sellers - hence the increasingly bizare and flanderised units for Wolves and Angels - rather than say doing some Thrallls or units for other Chapters.

So new models plus other armies was a obvious and welcomed (by many) way to go - its not like there is any thing missing in the current truly vast marine range - so new stuff means new interest and sales.