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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Yeah, instead of treads you now have stupid looking antigrav plates.

And stubbers all over the shop

opinions on the changes aside (the tank BTW looks better in person.) my point is that you can see it's very much related to space marine tanks.

it's not say a case of primaris tanks suddenly being smooth and rounded eldarish looking things.

That for sure, but the overburdening with Dakka of the non bolter variation really takes it's toll though, doesn't it?

actually thats the funny thing, once you look at the model you realize that the number of guns on it isn't as excessive as you'll think looking at the model closely. it looks like a lot of firepower because they removed firing arcs from the game, but basicly the tank has a left right and rear mounted weapon. placed right above the doors so it's clearly intended to provide covering fire as the squad disembarks. a hull mounted heavy bolter or Lascanon to provide some forward firepower. the turret mounted main gun, and a pintal mounted gun. the turrent then has some smoke launchers attached on it that yeah can be configured to throw grenades instead (which I suspect is more something that's done by the various "we're space marines and have no fear! we don't need to hide in smoke" chapters)not saying it's a totally sensable tank design (those don't exist in 40k) but when you look at the weapon placement on the model? you can make sense of the reasoning behind the masses of guns. and if they ever brought back fire arcs and kept the splitting fire rules... the guns on the repulsor would start to make a LOT of sense (more so then the guns and gun placement on a Land Raider)

Primaris were designed for 7th

Zustiur wrote:Space marines did not have grav tanks. Now they do. That is a change in the overall aesthetic of space marines.

But they had grav tech: Land Speeders (of 4 different chassis types!).

The existence of Land Speeders tells me that the core to the Space Marine aesthetic was not in their lack of skimmer units. Land Speeders still look "Space Marine-y", as do the Repulsors, because the core of the Space Marine vehicle aesthetic isn't that they have tracks.

The fact that other parts of the imperium may have had grav tanks all along does not alter the fact that this is a change in the space marine aesthetic.

But it is an argument against "the Imperium's never had skimmers!"

And again, the very fact that Land Speeders exist (and actually skim higher than Repulsors) shows that tracks are not the key to Space Marine aesthetic.

It's a change I don't like and don't feel should have been done. I think insectum7 would agree with me. As has been pointed out, this change moves space marines one step away from their existing identity and very slightly blurs the line between marines and other armies such as Eldar and tau.

More than Land Speeders did?

Similarly, all marines prior to Phobos, including scouts, had mirrored shoulder pads. Phobos marines have smaller shoulder pads on one side. All marines had flared greaves, Phobos have a gap that breaks up the line of the flare. These two changes alter the silhouette in a way that bothers me. If I ever get any, I'll be looking for a way to resolve these two problems.

And Marines prior to Mark VII plate had beaks for helmets. But they're still identifiable as Marines.

Flexibility in the way a unit can be set up before the battle and flexibility on the tabletop itself are two unrelated things. Tactical marines have many more the options than intercessors, they are more flexible at army selection time.

I don't see how Tacticals are regarded as more "flexible" when only 1/5 of the squad can have a different weapon than the Intercessors who can swap out everyone's main weapon for a different one that changes the unit's playstyle.

They might be flexible in different ways (ie, one is flexible in how it functions on the battlefield, and the other is flexible in it's potential for being slightly better against other targets), bu they *are* both flexible.

The auxiliary grenade launcher is bad at nearly everything, especially anti tank.

And the current missile launcher isn't? It's not exactly a stellar weapon, is it?
Personally, I find the grenade launcher to be surprisingly effective, at least, in my experience.

While I grant that having two ammo types is more flexible than a meltagun, the missile launcher has the same number of options. This invalidates the grenade launcher as a consideration of unit flexibility on the tabletop. It is equal to the missile launcher in number of ammo types but inferior at both roles.

And the missile launcher requires the squad to stay still to fire at full capacity. The grenade launcher does not. Flexibility - the squad isn't forced to babysit their heavy weapon guy, but can move at their normal rate in battle.

Prior to the introduction of centurions, squad size did indeed follow a common theme of the max squad size being 10 marines. Most started at 5 with bikes as a notable exception. Attack bikes and land speeders being bigger exceptions to that common theme. Note that for a time land speeders could be up to 5 in one unit. i.e. 10 marines.

If you're needing to ignore units to argue that your faction had a cohesive pattern, then that pattern clearly wasn't that clear.
I'm not arguing that the 5/10 pattern wasn't predominant in most Marine units, but that's also the same with Primaris. Select specialist units (Aggressors, Centurions, Bikers, Inceptors, etc etc) buck that trend - and that's fine to admit that.

I personally would be happier if all that design time on centurions, stalker, hunters and primaris had instead been spent on refreshing other parts of the range. Eldar, Orks, sisters and so on. Think where those armies would be now with that many kits updated. No more resin!

Agreed. I don't think the whole Space Marine model reboot in 2017 (was it 2017) needed to be done. The kits were fine as they were. However, I think out of the two revamps to the line, the Primaris one is better than the 2017 range, generally speaking.

Not Online!!! wrote:Yeah, instead of treads you now have stupid looking antigrav plates.

And stubbers all over the shop

And yet they are still identifiably Space Marine, and not Guard, or Admech, or Tau, or Eldar, or any other faction. Their armour design and plating and even their fluff is distinctly Space Marine.

Regarding the whole "Space Marines didn't have hover tanks" thing, this is where actually giving the lore a chance and reading it would help: the grav tech for those tanks is the same grav tech used for the Land Speeder. It is literally the STC Arkhan Land dug up slapped onto a tank (something Land himself did when he mashed a Land Raider with the hover tech of a Land Speeder). So it's not even new tech, it's just a different way of using existing tech. The only reason so many of them are rolling out is Guilliman's authority is ensuring that the Mechanicus is working its cogs off right now making stuff.

Guilliman even tasked the Mechanicus with studying the anti-grav STC further, so we could see a return of Imperial Jetbikes in the Imperium. And they'll be as subtle as a brick to the face.

EDIT: let me back up my claims with evidence:

So the fabricator general of Mars is on board with building the new stuff?

All those shouts of tech Heresy seem so hollow now. Maybe the complainers should read the new lore?

So here's the thing. Everyone agrees that the range of models can and should be expanded even more, and that Primaris HQs should have more options. The codex books haven't expanded the lore as well as they could have, but the recent BL novels have all told compelling stories in the new setting.

The fact that this topic is still going does indicate a bit of an irrational dislike for the Primaris. Kudos to everyone who isn't a raging hater and is pointing out the many substantial positives.

 Ishagu wrote:
So the fabricator general of Mars is on board with building the new stuff?

All those shouts of tech Heresy seem so hollow now. Maybe the complainers should read the new lore?

It's not even "new" since the STC for gravic tech is from M30 and mixing STCs together is how the Imperium gets anything done. Heck Power Armour is made of dozens of STCs thst govern different parts of the armour used together.

The lower leg/foot armor design on Phobos armor looks a lot like Gundam. Phobos generally looks very sporty and high-tech instead of medieval and anachronistic. It overlaps with Tau a bit.

Scouts didn't look particularly medieval either but they were certainly a lot less high tech than Phobos. I suppose you might say scouts looked modern for their time kinda like the way Phobos looks modern for the present. And at present the high tech aesthetic is more the norm.

Dreadnoughts moved away from clunky, mechanical reliquary to vaguely sporty, combat robot. The reliquary and purity seals are still there, they're just a little less prominent. But there are definitely some examples of old dreadnoughts that veered into the high tech look too, like ironclad dreadnoughts with that trapezoid pattern of segmented plating.

Intercessors definitely retain knight-like elements though it remains to be seen whether or not we'll ever see intercessors with the really medieval stuff like storm shields and thunder hammers. Or even the weirdly anachronistic stuff like chainswords.

Is it possible for a chainsword to be tacticool or is that an oxymoron?

I think it’s more of cawl tampering with the emperors genentic work on space marines that people are calling heresy.

The fabricator is going to be onboard with anything if it is STC derived. They seem to have dialled back a bit from earlier fluff saying cawl did this stuff all through his own innovation and modifications, and are now saying a lot of what he did was developed from STCs.

They already can take chainswords and thunder hammers...

robbienw wrote:
I think it’s more of cawl tampering with the emperors genentic work on space marines that people are calling heresy.

The fabricator is going to be onboard with anything if it is STC derived. They seem to have dialled back a bit from earlier fluff saying cawl did this stuff all through his own innovation and modifications, and are now saying a lot of what he did was developed from STCs.

We're in the midst of a reboot of 32 years of background, of course it's going to be rough in places and need to be continually be fleshed out and the rough edges smoothed out. Some of the details were likely not thought out completely, much like when they wrote Rogue Trader the details weren't really nailed down at the time, even with the expansions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
They already can take chainswords and thunder hammers...

Now if we can just get those options opened up to characters and other sergeants.... (seriously, I've been trying to get people to email GW to ask for that so we can use those upgrade kits on more stuff).

Well...that's certainly one design

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
So the fabricator general of Mars is on board with building the new stuff?

All those shouts of tech Heresy seem so hollow now. Maybe the complainers should read the new lore?

It's not even "new" since the STC for gravic tech is from M30 and mixing STCs together is how the Imperium gets anything done. Heck Power Armour is made of dozens of STCs thst govern different parts of the armour used together.

It's not even about whether the tech is available or not. It's just a "Oh, I guess all Space Marine tanks are gping to fly now, where they once almost exclusively ran ground vehicles." For Primaris, skimmers are moved from being the exception to the norm.

Which might seem small in itself, but there are a bunch of other changes occuring at the same time, like the Stubber thing. Weapons are starting to look less like 40k guns and more like modern guns.

But maybe most importantly, when I saw the Repulsor my reaction was "floating Bradley", which is dissapointing. It's not unique imagery. I've probably seen hundreds of concept pieces that amount to the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ValentineGames wrote:
Well...that's certainly one design

Right!?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
So the fabricator general of Mars is on board with building the new stuff?

All those shouts of tech Heresy seem so hollow now. Maybe the complainers should read the new lore?

It's not even "new" since the STC for gravic tech is from M30 and mixing STCs together is how the Imperium gets anything done. Heck Power Armour is made of dozens of STCs thst govern different parts of the armour used together.

It's not even about whether the tech is available or not. It's just a "Oh, I guess all Space Marine tanks are gping to fly now, where they once almost exclusively ran ground vehicles." For Primaris, skimmers are moved from being the exception to the norm.

Which might seem small in itself, but there are a bunch of other changes occuring at the same time, like the Stubber thing. Weapons are starting to look less like 40k guns and more like modern guns.

But maybe most importantly, when I saw the Repulsor my reaction was "floating Bradley", which is dissapointing. It's not unique imagery. I've probably seen hundreds of concept pieces that amount to the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ValentineGames wrote:
Well...that's certainly one design

Right!?

I assume that crunch wise the stubber thing is to balance rules that work with bolters, while lore wise it's because the Mechanicus is so overloaded gearing up a warmachine like it was M30 that they can't make enough bolters and the heavy stubbers are being used as a means to cover the gap.

I just wished they kept the mark 7/8 helmets for the new primaris line. I never liked the mark 4 design.

 Segersgia wrote:
I just wished they kept the mark 7/8 helmets for the new primaris line. I never liked the mark 4 design.

The doghelm is great for assault based chapters, but I feel like MkIII would have worked well instead as well.

That said, if you have MkVII heads lying around it's an easy swap.

 Segersgia wrote:
I just wished they kept the mark 7/8 helmets for the new primaris line. I never liked the mark 4 design.

Fair point. If you have any spares, they do seem to fit on very well all the same, as do shoulder pads.
This criticism makes far more sense than some of the other opinions put forward. Admitting that, yes, Primaris do feature old designs, but not old designs that they like.

If the people complaining about skimmer tanks also said that they didn't like the Land Speeders, or that the Land Speeders didn't fit the Space Marine aesthetic, then that's a logical argument. But claiming that they had no problem with one kind of Space Marine skimmer, but having a problem with another purely because "skimmers aren't supposed to be Space Marine vehicles" would be strange.

 Segersgia wrote:
I just wished they kept the mark 7/8 helmets for the new primaris line. I never liked the mark 4 design.

Literally nothing is stopping you from using those helmets with the primaris though.

ValentineGames wrote:
Well...that's certainly one design

That right there is an example of convergent evolution

And people tell me Primaris aren’t toylike!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

robbienw wrote:
I think it’s more of cawl tampering with the emperors genentic work on space marines that people are calling heresy.

The fabricator is going to be onboard with anything if it is STC derived. They seem to have dialled back a bit from earlier fluff saying cawl did this stuff all through his own innovation and modifications, and are now saying a lot of what he did was developed from STCs.

We're in the midst of a reboot of 32 years of background, of course it's going to be rough in places and need to be continually be fleshed out and the rough edges smoothed out. Some of the details were likely not thought out completely, much like when they wrote Rogue Trader the details weren't really nailed down at the time, even with the expansions.

Reboot is such an overused word these days. It’s no more of a reboot than any new edition of 40k is, or the retconning the studio do to the fluff all the time.

 Crimson wrote:

 Segersgia wrote:
I just wished they kept the mark 7/8 helmets for the new primaris line. I never liked the mark 4 design.

Literally nothing is stopping you from using those helmets with the primaris though.

I know you can just basically kitbash them with the older helmets, and I will once I get around to collecting an army of them. It is just a gripe I have with their current design, since mark 4 just happened to be the one pattern that I didn't like. This is why I was pleasantly surprised with the Infiltrators. If those helmets were the default, I would've accepted the primaris way sooner.

robbienw wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Well...that's certainly one design

That right there is an example of convergent evolution

And people tell me Primaris aren’t toylike!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

robbienw wrote:
I think it’s more of cawl tampering with the emperors genentic work on space marines that people are calling heresy.

The fabricator is going to be onboard with anything if it is STC derived. They seem to have dialled back a bit from earlier fluff saying cawl did this stuff all through his own innovation and modifications, and are now saying a lot of what he did was developed from STCs.

We're in the midst of a reboot of 32 years of background, of course it's going to be rough in places and need to be continually be fleshed out and the rough edges smoothed out. Some of the details were likely not thought out completely, much like when they wrote Rogue Trader the details weren't really nailed down at the time, even with the expansions.

Reboot is such an overused word these days. It’s no more of a reboot than any new edition of 40k is, or the retconning the studio do to the fluff all the time.

What old fluff has it changed? What fluff was removed? Yes it changed the result of that summer campaign decades ago but nothing else. I don’t think reboot is the right word either. It’s a development of the fluff. The designers didn’t sit down and design the back ground of 40k as it was Pre 8th. It grew. And changed as it matured and developed. This is the next bit. Contradiction is as much the grimdark as anything else. New marines being hated when old marines, which were new once is classic 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for Phobos looking to modern the skull faced helmets were a bit of a 40k staple.

Sometimes, as it devolped, it immatured. Marines riding wolves, marines in armor, in armor. . .

BrianDavion wrote:

I'm not saying it's not differant and something new, cause it is, but claiming that it has no aestetic ties to the space marine line is... inaccurate. you can tell just looking at the thing it's a space marine tank

I didn't say it had no aesthetic ties. I said it was a change in what the space marine aesthetic was.
If it was a new land raider variant with tracks I wouldn't be commenting on it.
I have no problem with new elements being introduced to space marines so long as: 1 they fit the existing theme, 2 they aren't at the cost of keeping other parts of the product line up to date.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Kaiyanwang wrote:That's because at this point I have to suspect you are not actually reading what people write.
As stated above, the a-grav tech was supposed to be rare among the Imperium, less so among xenos. The Land Speeder is supposed to be an exception. So are the custodes, the elites of the elites of the elites, albeit nowadays we see them battle some random Ork on the tabletop for whatever reason.
The fact that Custodes had the a-grav rhino was supposed to be exceptional. "wow, these guys are so special that their rhino flies!".
Now everyone is special, therefore none is.

When Chapters seemed to have as many Land Speeders as they had Land Raiders, I don't know if I'd call them *that* rare.
Like, yes, they're rare, but so are Land Raiders.

Custodes grav-tech to me was to showcase their general access to good tech and prioritisation in the Imperium. With Guilliman coming back and the armoury of the Space Marines being improved via direct support from the Lord Regent of the Imperium, I think Marines getting some grav is perfectly fine. It's not like the Imperium as a whole had no grav-tech. Not to mention that general look of the Repulsor's hull has all the trappings of a Space Marine vehicle. I'm sure if you put treads on it, there would be far less complaints.
Plus, how about the Sisters of Silence? Or the Admech skimmers? I've not been seeing anywhere near as much vitriol directed at them as I have seen against Primaris tanks.

Of course, you can answer saying that you prefer this new tech paradigm and that's perfectly fine. But you are not limiting your answer to this. What you are trying to do is to depict the other opinion (a-grav tech was supposed to be special for the imperium) as inherently wrong, even if it's something that was considered the norm in editions 3rd-7th.

And at the same time, you're advocating that grav-tech WAS supposed to be special, and showing that as a fact. I'm okay with admitting that it's my opinion that the current stuff is fine, that there is no issue with the grav-tech, and I'm not saying it's a fact. However, at the same time, saying that it goes against the Imperial design philosophy and it's out-of-character for Marines to have it is also an opinion.
That's my point - you're just backing up opinions with opinions, but a lot of the time, they sound like (so perhaps I'm just reading wrongly into it) they're meant as facts.

Again, Guilliman pushing for advancements is made to give fluff to these new models, but IMHO makes the setting less interesting. Land speeders were just 1-2 models, the way they were spammed on the table is not a valid point.
For the rest.. what can I say? What I can get from here is that you don't like how I write my posts. And now you are writing some confusing statement about the fact that people have opinions. Thank you we knew it. Until now, it seems that some of these opinions are forbidden here and dismissed outright.
But I am optimistic, little step by little step we are getting there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

When you make arguments like "Primaris have skimmers*, they're stepping on the toes of the Eldar!", I felt this was a suitable point.

This cannot be possibly taken seriously because you are using it as a validation for your point while the a-grav rich factions are the ones supposed to have an ancient and elegant tech (necron, eldar) or are the true innovators (tau). Your ork statement is not only illogical (you draw a conclusion while there is no connection) but spins on his head Insectum's point. It's nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But it is an argument against "the Imperium's never had skimmers!"

And here is where I think you just don't read other people's posts.
Existence alone is just one factor. You completely ignore rarity.
Same here:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

If the people complaining about skimmer tanks also said that they didn't like the Land Speeders, or that the Land Speeders didn't fit the Space Marine aesthetic, then that's a logical argument. But claiming that they had no problem with one kind of Space Marine skimmer, but having a problem with another purely because "skimmers aren't supposed to be Space Marine vehicles" would be strange.

It's not a difficult concept. One thing it's saying an element of an army shown as a rarity, another is it being the norm. Not many ork infantry units have a good armor save. Just meganobz (I think) have a 2+. Orks are supposed to have scrappy armor. In the moment they start to produce the new Prim-Ork (say) models all with a 2+, the way we perceive the faction changes. One could like the new aesthetics (if they look like the old black orcs I probably would!) but for sure the way we perceive Ork infantry would at least slightly change.
It's not that difficult to grasp. I don't want to persuade you that my pov is necessarily right, but you could at least admit that someone thinking differently could have a legitimate opinion - thing you outright refuse to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Regarding the whole "Space Marines didn't have hover tanks" thing, this is where actually giving the lore a chance and reading it would help: the grav tech for those tanks is the same grav tech used for the Land Speeder. It is literally the STC Arkhan Land dug up slapped onto a tank (something Land himself did when he mashed a Land Raider with the hover tech of a Land Speeder). So it's not even new tech, it's just a different way of using existing tech. The only reason so many of them are rolling out is Guilliman's authority is ensuring that the Mechanicus is working its cogs off right now making stuff.

Guilliman even tasked the Mechanicus with studying the anti-grav STC further, so we could see a return of Imperial Jetbikes in the Imperium. And they'll be as subtle as a brick to the face.

EDIT: let me back up my claims with evidence:

Spoiler:

Thank you for the lore info. I am not questioning the fact that they made up lore in order to justify the models (GW is generally attentive to this, regardless of what can one think about the specific lore). Nonetheless, I find the lore change itself bad because makes the differences between imperium and other factions less special.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:

The fact that this topic is still going does indicate a bit of an irrational dislike for the Primaris. Kudos to everyone who isn't a raging hater and is pointing out the many substantial positives.

That's quite bold from the only person not actually contributing significantly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 slave.entity wrote:

Dreadnoughts moved away from clunky, mechanical reliquary to vaguely sporty, combat robot. The reliquary and purity seals are still there, they're just a little less prominent.

The issue is that sadly the purity seal in the changed contexts look like, if you allow me, relics. In the sense that they are vestigial, remnants of an older aesthetics. In the new context, it feels schizophrenic.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Sometimes, as it devolped, it immatured. Marines riding wolves, marines in armor, in armor. . .

Yeah, because nothing says "Grimdark" like Santa and his hover sleigh...

I'm replying on my phone, sorry if the formatting gets weird.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Zustiur wrote:Space marines did not have grav tanks. Now they do. That is a change in the overall aesthetic of space marines.

But they had grav tech: Land Speeders (of 4 different chassis types!).

The existence of Land Speeders tells me that the core to the Space Marine aesthetic was not in their lack of skimmer units. Land Speeders still look "Space Marine-y", as do the Repulsors, because the core of the Space Marine vehicle aesthetic isn't that they have tracks.

I clearly said tank. Is a land speeder a tank?

The fact that other parts of the imperium may have had grav tanks all along does not alter the fact that this is a change in the space marine aesthetic.

But it is an argument against "the Imperium's never had skimmers!"

And again, the very fact that Land Speeders exist (and actually skim higher than Repulsors) shows that tracks are not the key to Space Marine aesthetic.

It's a change I don't like and don't feel should have been done. I think insectum7 would agree with me. As has been pointed out, this change moves space marines one step away from their existing identity and very slightly blurs the line between marines and other armies such as Eldar and tau.

More than Land Speeders did?

Yes. If I'm not mistaken, space marines now have more anti grav than Eldar!
Eldar tanks had grav. Space marines tanks had tracks. It was one of the things that separated them. Note careful, I said 'one of.' I did not say 'the only.'

Similarly, all marines prior to Phobos, including scouts, had mirrored shoulder pads. Phobos marines have smaller shoulder pads on one side. All marines had flared greaves, Phobos have a gap that breaks up the line of the flare. These two changes alter the silhouette in a way that bothers me. If I ever get any, I'll be looking for a way to resolve these two problems.

And Marines prior to Mark VII plate had beaks for helmets. But they're still identifiable as Marines.

I'm not sure you know what a silhouette is... But if you want to include helmet changes, Phobos helmets are different too. I don't see how that helps your argument.

Flexibility in the way a unit can be set up before the battle and flexibility on the tabletop itself are two unrelated things. Tactical marines have many more the options than intercessors, they are more flexible at army selection time.

I don't see how Tacticals are regarded as more "flexible" when only 1/5 of the squad can have a different weapon than the Intercessors who can swap out everyone's main weapon for a different one that changes the unit's playstyle.

They might be flexible in different ways (ie, one is flexible in how it functions on the battlefield, and the other is flexible in it's potential for being slightly better against other targets), bu they *are* both flexible.

Yes, they are, in different ways. I raised this point because you seem to keep conflating one form of flexibility with another as though they amount to the same thing.

The auxiliary grenade launcher is bad at nearly everything, especially anti tank.

And the current missile launcher isn't? It's not exactly a stellar weapon, is it?
Personally, I find the grenade launcher to be surprisingly effective, at least, in my experience.

Your experience must be vastly different to mine. The recent changes to auto bolt rifles and stalker bolt rifles make the auxiliary grenade launcher even more superfluous. Why roll 1d6 and hope for 3+ S3 shots when you can get a flat 3 shots at a higher strength? Not to mention that the old stalker profile had a greater chance to hurt most tanks than the Krak grenade due to both needing 5+ to wound T7.

While I grant that having two ammo types is more flexible than a meltagun, the missile launcher has the same number of options. This invalidates the grenade launcher as a consideration of unit flexibility on the tabletop. It is equal to the missile launcher in number of ammo types but inferior at both roles.

And the missile launcher requires the squad to stay still to fire at full capacity. The grenade launcher does not.

Full capacity, yes. However, bolters also benefit from staying still now. And the -1 to hit is often balanced out against the lower wound chance you'd have from that grenade. 4+ to hit and 3+ to wound functions the same as 3+ to hit and 4+ to wound as you'd have when comparing the frag options against T3. I'm struggling to think of any situation where the missile launcher isn't equal or better.

Flexibility - the squad isn't forced to babysit their heavy weapon guy, but can move at their normal rate in battle.

Again, the tactical squad has options for that too. The grenade launcher isn't doing anything a tactical squad's weapon options can't do better. And as noted above, moving with a heavy weapon doesn't necessarily mean that the heavy weapon is inferior to the grenade launcher.

Prior to the introduction of centurions, squad size did indeed follow a common theme of the max squad size being 10 marines. Most started at 5 with bikes as a notable exception. Attack bikes and land speeders being bigger exceptions to that common theme. Note that for a time land speeders could be up to 5 in one unit. i.e. 10 marines.

If you're needing to ignore units to argue that your faction had a cohesive pattern, then that pattern clearly wasn't that clear.
I'm not arguing that the 5/10 pattern wasn't predominant in most Marine units, but that's also the same with Primaris. Select specialist units (Aggressors, Centurions, Bikers, Inceptors, etc etc) buck that trend - and that's fine to admit that.

You do understand that 'common theme' can have exceptions right? And that when you get too many exceptions it stops being the common theme? I absolutely can ignore those _2_ units. What I can't ignore is all the new units of 3-6 or indeed just 3 that have turned up lately.

I personally would be happier if all that design time on centurions, stalker, hunters and primaris had instead been spent on refreshing other parts of the range. Eldar, Orks, sisters and so on. Think where those armies would be now with that many kits updated. No more resin!

Agreed. I don't think the whole Space Marine model reboot in 2017 (was it 2017) needed to be done. The kits were fine as they were. However, I think out of the two revamps to the line, the Primaris one is better than the 2017 range, generally speaking.

Not just the 2017 range... The primaris range wasn't necessary either if you ask me. At least, not yet. All the xeno races and sisters and imperial guard should have been updated before we even considered primaris.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Thank you for the lore info. I am not questioning the fact that they made up lore in order to justify the models (GW is generally attentive to this, regardless of what can one think about the specific lore). Nonetheless, I find the lore change itself bad because makes the differences between imperium and other factions less special.

I feel like you'll do anything to brush off the lore and call it not canon. Rogue Trader started with the Imperium having Grav Tech, and the Astartes kept it in some form or another for decades. Now that the studio has gone back and gone "let's give Marines their grav tanks back" you say it breaks canon? Bull.

You've created you're own idea of what you think 40k should be, and instead of admitting you're pigeonholing the setting you keep trying to claim that every single call back to that old lore is somehow not in line with the very setting that is built on that lore. Even 30k's lore is built on a lot of stuff from Rogue Trader that most fans thought they'd never get back.

You can make up excuses all day and all night but the fact is you've created this problem for yourself and instead of trying to address you own failing headcanon you keep doubling down and blaming GW for doing it wrong.

Even when people hold your hand and explain how you can swap stuff around and do things to change how the models look you double down on the leg posability (reminder for those of us who've been playing a while, if you wanted customized leg poses you chopped the sucker off and built the missing bits out of green stuff so don't pretend this is a new problem) while ignoring how more natural the poses look and how the body line is more fitting than it used to be.

The arms off the old models -do- work on the new ones (images from Goonhammer):



And we can swap heads and shoulder pads as well. The only things that don't work without some kind of work are trying to use paired arms, but using the new paired arms and cutting the hands off to put on classic bolters or other weapons works just as well. Heck, you can even shave off the chest icon like I did here for a NMM chipping test model I did (spoilered for size because this is potato country):


Jes gave us a pretty blank canvas to work with on what we do with these guys. If you stare at it and can't figure out how to play with what they gave you then the fault isn't on the studio, it's on you for not wanting to go outside the lines and then complaining they don't give you enough freedom.

With that said, I'm done with this nonsense. I'm working on a Crusaders chapter (quartered red and white scheme) that I'm planning on adding candles, and doing a fair bit of parts swapping on (thinking of using Grey Knight arms with the swords and trying to make the storm bolters into Auto Bolt Rifles and giving them Crusader helms and use some back banners on them too).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Thank you for the lore info. I am not questioning the fact that they made up lore in order to justify the models (GW is generally attentive to this, regardless of what can one think about the specific lore). Nonetheless, I find the lore change itself bad because makes the differences between imperium and other factions less special.

I feel like you'll do anything to brush off the lore and call it not canon. Rogue Trader started with the Imperium having Grav Tech, and the Astartes kept it in some form or another for decades. Now that the studio has gone back and gone "let's give Marines their grav tanks back" you say it breaks canon? Bull.

You've created you're own idea of what you think 40k should be, and instead of admitting you're pigeonholing the setting you keep trying to claim that every single call back to that old lore is somehow not in line with the very setting that is built on that lore. Even 30k's lore is built on a lot of stuff from Rogue Trader that most fans thought they'd never get back.

You can make up excuses all day and all night but the fact is you've created this problem for yourself and instead of trying to address you own failing headcanon you keep doubling down and blaming GW for doing it wrong.

That "headcannon" is based on very real things, however. Namely that Grav-tech is RARE, and that it hasn't been on a production model for the Imperium outside of Land Speeders up until about 2016 or so.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Thank you for the lore info. I am not questioning the fact that they made up lore in order to justify the models (GW is generally attentive to this, regardless of what can one think about the specific lore). Nonetheless, I find the lore change itself bad because makes the differences between imperium and other factions less special.

I feel like you'll do anything to brush off the lore and call it not canon. Rogue Trader started with the Imperium having Grav Tech, and the Astartes kept it in some form or another for decades. Now that the studio has gone back and gone "let's give Marines their grav tanks back" you say it breaks canon? Bull.

You've created you're own idea of what you think 40k should be, and instead of admitting you're pigeonholing the setting you keep trying to claim that every single call back to that old lore is somehow not in line with the very setting that is built on that lore. Even 30k's lore is built on a lot of stuff from Rogue Trader that most fans thought they'd never get back.

You can make up excuses all day and all night but the fact is you've created this problem for yourself and instead of trying to address you own failing headcanon you keep doubling down and blaming GW for doing it wrong.

That "headcannon" is based on very real things, however. Namely that Grav-tech is RARE, and that it hasn't been on a production model for the Imperium outside of Land Speeders up until about 2016 or so.

You seem to be confused about how common it still is in the setting. Namely even with ONE THOUSAND chapters having access to it, that only represents a force (assuming some old math of mine that put an estimate at the population size of the Imperium at 16 Quintillion back before they broke the galaxy, let's call it a nice round 10 quintillion to represent the losses) 1 million people who can use anti-grav tech out of 10 quintillion is .00000000001% of the Imperium having access to the some kind of anti-grav tech.

The galaxy is a huge place, and just because a large chunk of what we see on the table can ride in grav tanks doesn't make it common to the setting.

Servo-skulls are practically everywhere and they use grav tech. If you can make servo-skulls and land speeders, then you logically should be also be able to make grav tanks. I really don't think that sort of setting logic attack works against grav tanks, they make certainly enough sense in the setting.

It is fine to prefer the tracked look though. Whilst I like Repulsors, and they clearly have the Space Marine vehicle look, it still clearly is a a bit different aesthetic than a tracked tank.

Kaiyanwang wrote:Again, Guilliman pushing for advancements is made to give fluff to these new models, but IMHO makes the setting less interesting. Land speeders were just 1-2 models, the way they were spammed on the table is not a valid point.

There was at least 4 variant hulls of Land Speeder (standard, Storm, Tempest, and the Dark Angel one - the Darkshroud, was it?). And in most sources I can find, they're no rarer than Land Raiders. Hell, they don't even seem rarer than Predators and Vindicators.

For all the talk of them being rarer, it doesn't really come across in how many are depicted (again, not even on tabletop).

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

When you make arguments like "Primaris have skimmers*, they're stepping on the toes of the Eldar!", I felt this was a suitable point.

This cannot be possibly taken seriously because you are using it as a validation for your point while the a-grav rich factions are the ones supposed to have an ancient and elegant tech (necron, eldar) or are the true innovators (tau). Your ork statement is not only illogical (you draw a conclusion while there is no connection) but spins on his head Insectum's point. It's nonsense.

Insectum's point seemed to be that "Space Marines can't have XYZ because XYZ factions have that, and it's supposed to be unique to them" (which is untrue anyway, as there are plenty of Land Speeders). I reversed that point by showing how other factions also lay claim to "Marine things". Saying that "you can't do that, XYZ faction does it too" simply can't work when there is so much overlap between the many many factions.

And you say it yourself - "ancient and elegant tech" - the Repulsors don't fit that category. They're crude, violent, and brutally effective: all the things a Space Marine should be. I think the way they fluff the grav plates makes them more emblematic of Space Marines than any of the older vehicles.
They've got technology that would be considered magical by modern standards, and yet they use it in the most brutish and deadly way possible by having it lift heavily armoured tanks by punching into the ground.

That's the most Space Marine thing I've heard of, in my opinion.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But it is an argument against "the Imperium's never had skimmers!"

And here is where I think you just don't read other people's posts.
Existence alone is just one factor. You completely ignore rarity.

As addressed, Land Speeders are no rarer than Land Raiders, Predators, or Vindicators.

Same here:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

If the people complaining about skimmer tanks also said that they didn't like the Land Speeders, or that the Land Speeders didn't fit the Space Marine aesthetic, then that's a logical argument. But claiming that they had no problem with one kind of Space Marine skimmer, but having a problem with another purely because "skimmers aren't supposed to be Space Marine vehicles" would be strange.

It's not a difficult concept. One thing it's saying an element of an army shown as a rarity, another is it being the norm. Not many ork infantry units have a good armor save. Just meganobz (I think) have a 2+. Orks are supposed to have scrappy armor. In the moment they start to produce the new Prim-Ork (say) models all with a 2+, the way we perceive the faction changes. One could like the new aesthetics (if they look like the old black orcs I probably would!) but for sure the way we perceive Ork infantry would at least slightly change.

It depends how many Ork units have the 2+ save. Is it their regular boyz? Is the armour still in Ork-y style?

I think a big difference between the two is that Ork boyz have never worn mega-armour, but that Space Marine vehicles HAVE had anti-grav. Giving mega-armour to something like Stormboyz or Flash Gitz or something? I could work with that! But Ork core infantry has always been light-medium infantry. Space Marine vehicles however have always had *some* anti-grav units.

It's not that difficult to grasp. I don't want to persuade you that my pov is necessarily right, but you could at least admit that someone thinking differently could have a legitimate opinion - thing you outright refuse to do.

I can *see* what your argument is saying, but the reliance on logic that I find flimsy and incomprehensible is making it difficult to see any factual support behind it, beyond the fact of "I don't like Primaris" - which, as I continue to say, is absolutely fine on it's own. It's not the "I don't like Primaris" that's the problem. It's the "I don't like Primaris because XYZ", and that XYZ being some quite unusual logic to me.

And yes, agreed on the Black Orcs/Ironjaws aesthetic. I never played Orcs or Orruks, but I loved to play against Black Orc units. Such brutal looking models.

Zustiur wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Zustiur wrote:Space marines did not have grav tanks. Now they do. That is a change in the overall aesthetic of space marines.

But they had grav tech: Land Speeders (of 4 different chassis types!).

The existence of Land Speeders tells me that the core to the Space Marine aesthetic was not in their lack of skimmer units. Land Speeders still look "Space Marine-y", as do the Repulsors, because the core of the Space Marine vehicle aesthetic isn't that they have tracks.

I clearly said tank. Is a land speeder a tank?

No, but it is a vehicle. I honestly don't really see why that distinction needs to be made. Space Marines had grav-vehicles. Their Land Speeders still fitted into their aesthetic. Therefore, I don't think the grav-part is exactly a "core" Space Marine issue.

But if the fact it's officially designated as a tank is the problem, fair enough. Would you have a problem if GW had created another skimmer that wasn't a tank?

It's a change I don't like and don't feel should have been done. I think insectum7 would agree with me. As has been pointed out, this change moves space marines one step away from their existing identity and very slightly blurs the line between marines and other armies such as Eldar and tau.

I don't feel that it does change their identity at all.

If I'm not mistaken, space marines now have more anti grav than Eldar!

Primaris have 3 anti-grav units. Classic Marines have, what, 5? 6? (Land Speeder, Typhoon, Tempest, Storm, Darkshroud and Sammael's jetbike).

Eldar tanks had grav. Space marines tanks had tracks. It was one of the things that separated them. Note careful, I said 'one of.' I did not say 'the only.'

I never meant to insinuate it was the "only" thing. However, with how many Space Marine *vehicles* had anti-grav (because I don't see why we're separating tanks and non-tanks here), I don't think that treads were a defining feature of Space Marine vehicles.

'm not sure you know what a silhouette is... But if you want to include helmet changes, Phobos helmets are different too. I don't see how that helps your argument.

My point was only to say that the silhouette of the older Marines has changed too. And hell, the whole point in the OP of "regular Marines have fewer silhouettes!" isn't really true when you consider that the silhouettes of old units are very much different (jump packs, bikes, and suchlike having an effect on the unit's silhouette).

The grenade launcher isn't doing anything a tactical squad's weapon options can't do better.

Against T5 or 6 targets, the krak grenades are useful to me.

And as noted above, moving with a heavy weapon doesn't necessarily mean that the heavy weapon is inferior to the grenade launcher.

Again, my point isn't so much with the actual effectiveness of the weapon - that changes between editions and all. My point is that the Primaris Marines *do* have tactical flexibility options - which, again, I don't see why that's a key trait of what makes a Space Marine in the first place.

You do understand that 'common theme' can have exceptions right? And that when you get too many exceptions it stops being the common theme? I absolutely can ignore those _2_ units. What I can't ignore is all the new units of 3-6 or indeed just 3 that have turned up lately.

And what is the point at which exception does stop being just an exception? Because as I see it, Primaris haven't crossed that boundary yet.

If the point had been left at just "we have a disagreement about how much is too much", then fair point, but the fact that yourself and Insectum have both tried to handwave the Centurions away sounds a lot like you're just picking and choosing from the Marine list.

I personally would be happier if all that design time on centurions, stalker, hunters and primaris had instead been spent on refreshing other parts of the range. Eldar, Orks, sisters and so on. Think where those armies would be now with that many kits updated. No more resin!

Agreed. I don't think the whole Space Marine model reboot in 2017 (was it 2017) needed to be done. The kits were fine as they were. However, I think out of the two revamps to the line, the Primaris one is better than the 2017 range, generally speaking.

Not just the 2017 range... The primaris range wasn't necessary either if you ask me. At least, not yet. All the xeno races and sisters and imperial guard should have been updated before we even considered primaris.

Did I say I disagreed with you? Sisters should have gotten updates well before we started adding other factions to the game, and Eldar should have gotten them before Space Marines got anything. I think guard are fine though, and the 2017 range wasn't needed. Neither the 2017 or Primaris were necessary, but out of the two, I know which I thought was superior.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Namely that Grav-tech is RARE

Is it? At least, any rarer than Land Raiders, and suchlike?

and that it hasn't been on a production model for the Imperium outside of Land Speeders up until about 2016 or so.

It didn't mean it didn't exist though. Custodes had those hover vehicles for ages. There's lore about grav-tech being in use throughout the Imperium.

I'd like to point out that plasma's rare, but we see it in nearly every Imperial faction. Hell, some Necromundans have it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
It is fine to prefer the tracked look though. Whilst I like Repulsors, and they clearly have the Space Marine vehicle look, it still clearly is a a bit different aesthetic than a tracked tank.

This.

It's fine not to like it. It's fine not to like hover tanks. But to say "it's not a Space Marine style" is not exactly true, at least, until we can actually settle what "Space Marine style" is. Because clearly there is a great deal of disagreement about what Space Marine aesthetic actually is.

Honestly, it would be a lot easier just to say "it doesn't fit what I consider to be a Space Marine" than saying "that's clearly not Space Marine aesthetic".