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.

 Crimson wrote:
Frankly, people who would have a problem with old marines being used as primaris in such a situation would be dicks.

I don't disagree with you, but as Ishagu notes, this is a visual game and even I would expect some kind of alteration to the model to make them fit in. Rebasing Tacticals on taller 32mm bases would be enough for me, but I'm known for being quite liberal with conversions

-

 Ishagu wrote:
If people really want Terminators get a box of the SM Heroes series 2

This is actually good advice. I purchased a box last week from firestorm games, they are great models. The only new marine kit i will be buying during this codex release window for sure

 Ishagu wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Frankly, people who would have a problem with old marines being used as primaris in such a situation would be dicks.

40k is a visual game, it's why we don't play with paper tokens. I make the effort to have a painted army and use the correct models so my opponent and myself get the pleasure of playing with and against them.
I expect the same in return from my opponent. I love a good conversion but I don't appreciate lazy proxies.

I stand by my assessment. We are not talking about tokens or unpainted models or other barbarism like that. We are talking about lovingly painted older models. If RT beakies can be be modern tacticals then in the future those tacticals can be intercessors.

At the moment I'm not going to agree. I should also point out that the classic Marines have pretty great rules in the new codex and are completely viable by themselves.

If, in the future, they literally have no rule support I might re-visit my stance.

 Crimson wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Frankly, people who would have a problem with old marines being used as primaris in such a situation would be dicks.

40k is a visual game, it's why we don't play with paper tokens. I make the effort to have a painted army and use the correct models so my opponent and myself get the pleasure of playing with and against them.
I expect the same in return from my opponent. I love a good conversion but I don't appreciate lazy proxies.

I stand by my assessment. We are not talking about tokens or unpainted models or other barbarism like that. We are talking about lovingly painted older models. If RT beakies can be be modern tacticals then in the future those tacticals can be intercessors.

Eh, that's kind of like saying you can use old Dreadnoughts as Terminators.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Frankly, people who would have a problem with old marines being used as primaris in such a situation would be dicks.

40k is a visual game, it's why we don't play with paper tokens. I make the effort to have a painted army and use the correct models so my opponent and myself get the pleasure of playing with and against them.
I expect the same in return from my opponent. I love a good conversion but I don't appreciate lazy proxies.

I stand by my assessment. We are not talking about tokens or unpainted models or other barbarism like that. We are talking about lovingly painted older models. If RT beakies can be be modern tacticals then in the future those tacticals can be intercessors.

Eh, that's kind of like saying you can use old Dreadnoughts as Terminators.

That's not even close. That's like saying you can't use the Devastators box for anything but Devastators. They're all PA Marines...

Not everyone has to agree to proxies. As I pointed out at this current moment the classic Astarts are fully supported with great rules.

IF they no longer had rules, then we can look at this issue again in the future.

 Ishagu wrote:
Not everyone has to agree to proxies. As I pointed out at this current moment the classic Astarts are fully supported with great rules.

IF they no longer had rules, then we can look at this issue again in the future.

I agree with him actually. Not a common thing for me, but for the moment and the near future it's not an issue. Someday it might, in which case we can look at it then, but right now Mini marines have good rules.

If people had read what was actually said, they would know that the whole thing was about such a hypothetical future where the minimarine rules no longer exist.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Just because the anti tank gun exists ss a choice doesn't mean it's close to good as a choice. You'd need to be able to double down on the flexible weapons like the Grav Cannon and ML (as bad as it is). TECHNICALLY, in your definition from earlier, the only units that can be real Marines then are Sterngaurd and Devastators. Neat, huh?

Thanks for playing.

You mean "Thanks for playing the Slayer-Fan-has-to-make-up-definitions-in-order-to-feel-like-he's-scoring-a-point" game? That's an old and tired game.

It's also telling that you had to resort to other Classic units to try and make that point. Amusingly, it makes mine.

Also Starcraft? They look literally nothing like the Starcraft units, REALLY showing your ignorance in design (ironic since you say you work in design) and the inability to accept a minor change. That's actually kinda fascinating.

Agressors are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethower on each. Firebats are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethrower on each. Good enough for our purposes here.

Also, good luck trying to insult me on a proffessional basis. You don't have a chance in hell of actually landing one.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Just because the anti tank gun exists ss a choice doesn't mean it's close to good as a choice. You'd need to be able to double down on the flexible weapons like the Grav Cannon and ML (as bad as it is). TECHNICALLY, in your definition from earlier, the only units that can be real Marines then are Sterngaurd and Devastators. Neat, huh?

Thanks for playing.

You mean "Thanks for playing the Slayer-Fan-has-to-make-up-definitions-in-order-to-feel-like-he's-scoring-a-point" game? That's an old and tired game.

It's also telling that you had to resort to other Classic units to try and make that point. Amusingly, it makes mine.

Also Starcraft? They look literally nothing like the Starcraft units, REALLY showing your ignorance in design (ironic since you say you work in design) and the inability to accept a minor change. That's actually kinda fascinating.

Agressors are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethower on each. Firebats are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethrower on each. Good enough for our purposes here.

Also, good luck trying to insult me on a proffessional basis. You don't have a chance in hell of actually landing one.

No, YOU made up the definition for what a "real" Space Marine was. I proved that the only units that can fit your definition are the ones that can take multiple Grav Cannons or MLs, meaning your Tactical Marines aren't real Marines because they can't actually handle different kinds of threats due to how weapons are selected on them.

Also no they don't look like Firebats just because they're big and have Flamethrowers. Also I have no idea what you're talking about with "landing one" but if you legit actually worked in design you wouldn't be making comments that were completely incorrect like the Firebat = Flamegressor one. So either you don't work in design or you're blinded by your nostalgia because you're hung up on what "real" Space Marines are.

Pick one.

Mr Morden wrote:I still use RT era marines and Primaris in the same army.

Marines are not all the same size.

Same here, last time I checked humans are not the same height.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Just because the anti tank gun exists ss a choice doesn't mean it's close to good as a choice. You'd need to be able to double down on the flexible weapons like the Grav Cannon and ML (as bad as it is). TECHNICALLY, in your definition from earlier, the only units that can be real Marines then are Sterngaurd and Devastators. Neat, huh?

Thanks for playing.

You mean "Thanks for playing the Slayer-Fan-has-to-make-up-definitions-in-order-to-feel-like-he's-scoring-a-point" game? That's an old and tired game.

It's also telling that you had to resort to other Classic units to try and make that point. Amusingly, it makes mine.

Also Starcraft? They look literally nothing like the Starcraft units, REALLY showing your ignorance in design (ironic since you say you work in design) and the inability to accept a minor change. That's actually kinda fascinating.

Agressors are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethower on each. Firebats are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethrower on each. Good enough for our purposes here.

Also, good luck trying to insult me on a proffessional basis. You don't have a chance in hell of actually landing one.

No, YOU made up the definition for what a "real" Space Marine was. I proved that the only units that can fit your definition are the ones that can take multiple Grav Cannons or MLs, meaning your Tactical Marines aren't real Marines because they can't actually handle different kinds of threats due to how weapons are selected on them.

Also no they don't look like Firebats just because they're big and have Flamethrowers. Also I have no idea what you're talking about with "landing one" but if you legit actually worked in design you wouldn't be making comments that were completely incorrect like the Firebat = Flamegressor one. So either you don't work in design or you're blinded by your nostalgia because you're hung up on what "real" Space Marines are.

Pick one.

Go on. Find my definition and quote it. Understand the holistic argument being made. Then you can try this line of attack again.

None of that changes the fact that Intercessors can't bring anti-tank weapons to what is often a tank battle.

@"professional design blah blah blah" don't care. Others have drawn the parallel and will get the point. That you're trying to actually make something of it is a "you thing".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Mr Morden wrote:I still use RT era marines and Primaris in the same army.

Marines are not all the same size.

Same here, last time I checked humans are not the same height.

Very true, although the different styles/proportions don't mesh very well, imo.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Just because the anti tank gun exists ss a choice doesn't mean it's close to good as a choice. You'd need to be able to double down on the flexible weapons like the Grav Cannon and ML (as bad as it is). TECHNICALLY, in your definition from earlier, the only units that can be real Marines then are Sterngaurd and Devastators. Neat, huh?

Thanks for playing.

You mean "Thanks for playing the Slayer-Fan-has-to-make-up-definitions-in-order-to-feel-like-he's-scoring-a-point" game? That's an old and tired game.

It's also telling that you had to resort to other Classic units to try and make that point. Amusingly, it makes mine.

Also Starcraft? They look literally nothing like the Starcraft units, REALLY showing your ignorance in design (ironic since you say you work in design) and the inability to accept a minor change. That's actually kinda fascinating.

Agressors are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethower on each. Firebats are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethrower on each. Good enough for our purposes here.

Also, good luck trying to insult me on a proffessional basis. You don't have a chance in hell of actually landing one.

No, YOU made up the definition for what a "real" Space Marine was. I proved that the only units that can fit your definition are the ones that can take multiple Grav Cannons or MLs, meaning your Tactical Marines aren't real Marines because they can't actually handle different kinds of threats due to how weapons are selected on them.

Also no they don't look like Firebats just because they're big and have Flamethrowers. Also I have no idea what you're talking about with "landing one" but if you legit actually worked in design you wouldn't be making comments that were completely incorrect like the Firebat = Flamegressor one. So either you don't work in design or you're blinded by your nostalgia because you're hung up on what "real" Space Marines are.

Pick one.

Go on. Find my definition and quote it. Understand the holistic argument being made. Then you can try this line of attack again.

None of that changes the fact that Intercessors can't bring anti-tank weapons to what is often a tank battle.

@"professional design blah blah blah" don't care. Others have drawn the parallel and will get the point. That you're trying to actually make something of it is a "you thing".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Mr Morden wrote:I still use RT era marines and Primaris in the same army.

Marines are not all the same size.

Same here, last time I checked humans are not the same height.

Very true, although the different styles/proportions don't mesh very well, imo.

It's in the "Primaris bother me" thread where you said real Space Marines carry different weapons to handle different threats, which, when limited to one of each type of weapon and often being mixed amounts of effectiveness, simply doesn't work. Ergo I don't care about your "holistic" views. The Marines simply can't accomplish what you want, ergo they're not flexible, ergo they're not real Marines.
Hence why, based on that conclusion, only the units that are able to buy multiple TAC weapons are the only true Marines. That means Sternguard and Devastators, who can buy multiple Grav Cannons and MLs.

Also two grenade launchers is fine for Anti-Tank if you're utterly convinced bringing one ML suffices for the same task, or one Flamer suffices for anti-infantry. Surprise, neither one does!

honestly it;'s generally accepted that anyone who accuses 40k of ripping off starcraft is just trolling. given where star craft got the majority of thier "inspiration" from.

BrianDavion wrote:
honestly it;'s generally accepted that anyone who accuses 40k of ripping off starcraft is just trolling. given where star craft got the majority of thier "inspiration" from.

And in reality Flamegressors don't actually look like Firebats. Anyone who knows design would know that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
honestly it;'s generally accepted that anyone who accuses 40k of ripping off starcraft is just trolling. given where star craft got the majority of thier "inspiration" from.

And in reality Flamegressors don't actually look like Firebats. Anyone who knows design would know that.

I mean sure they're both suits of power armor with a flamer underslung each hand but I suspect someone who knew various types of sci-fi could find other sources of it as well.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It's in the "Primaris bother me" thread where you said real Space Marines carry different weapons to handle different threats, which, when limited to one of each type of weapon and often being mixed amounts of effectiveness, simply doesn't work. Ergo I don't care about your "holistic" views. The Marines simply can't accomplish what you want, ergo they're not flexible, ergo they're not real Marines.
Hence why, based on that conclusion, only the units that are able to buy multiple TAC weapons are the only true Marines. That means Sternguard and Devastators, who can buy multiple Grav Cannons and MLs.

Marines come in a unit. The unit has Bolters and some other weapons. Bolters are already anti-personnel firepower, so a Lascannon, though itself a specialised weapon, makes the unit more capable of handling multiple types of targets. You not wanting to accept the whole picture does not make it not exist.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also two grenade launchers is fine for Anti-Tank if you're utterly convinced bringing one ML suffices for the same task, or one Flamer suffices for anti-infantry. Surprise, neither one does!

Missile Launcher vs. T7 3+ .666x.666x.666x3.5 = 1.03
2 Krak Grenades vs T7 3+ .666x.333x.5x2x2 = .44

Plus, unless there's a FAQ I'm not aware of, you can't even do it. All the Aux Grenade Launcher does is increase the range of a grenade being used, and a unit can only use one grenade.

BrianDavion wrote:
honestly it;'s generally accepted that anyone who accuses 40k of ripping off starcraft is just trolling. given where star craft got the majority of thier "inspiration" from.

Cross pollination can happen, especially as both companies are decades old. The 'modern' Tyranid Warriors are more Zerg-ey, and Raveners in particular sure have an eerie resemblance to Hydralisks.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Just because the anti tank gun exists ss a choice doesn't mean it's close to good as a choice. You'd need to be able to double down on the flexible weapons like the Grav Cannon and ML (as bad as it is). TECHNICALLY, in your definition from earlier, the only units that can be real Marines then are Sterngaurd and Devastators. Neat, huh?

Thanks for playing.

You mean "Thanks for playing the Slayer-Fan-has-to-make-up-definitions-in-order-to-feel-like-he's-scoring-a-point" game? That's an old and tired game.

It's also telling that you had to resort to other Classic units to try and make that point. Amusingly, it makes mine.

Also Starcraft? They look literally nothing like the Starcraft units, REALLY showing your ignorance in design (ironic since you say you work in design) and the inability to accept a minor change. That's actually kinda fascinating.

Agressors are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethower on each. Firebats are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethrower on each. Good enough for our purposes here.

Also, good luck trying to insult me on a proffessional basis. You don't have a chance in hell of actually landing one.

No, YOU made up the definition for what a "real" Space Marine was. I proved that the only units that can fit your definition are the ones that can take multiple Grav Cannons or MLs, meaning your Tactical Marines aren't real Marines because they can't actually handle different kinds of threats due to how weapons are selected on them.

Also no they don't look like Firebats just because they're big and have Flamethrowers. Also I have no idea what you're talking about with "landing one" but if you legit actually worked in design you wouldn't be making comments that were completely incorrect like the Firebat = Flamegressor one. So either you don't work in design or you're blinded by your nostalgia because you're hung up on what "real" Space Marines are.

Pick one.

Go on. Find my definition and quote it. Understand the holistic argument being made. Then you can try this line of attack again.

None of that changes the fact that Intercessors can't bring anti-tank weapons to what is often a tank battle.

@"professional design blah blah blah" don't care. Others have drawn the parallel and will get the point. That you're trying to actually make something of it is a "you thing".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Mr Morden wrote:I still use RT era marines and Primaris in the same army.

Marines are not all the same size.

Same here, last time I checked humans are not the same height.

Very true, although the different styles/proportions don't mesh very well, imo.

It's in the "Primaris bother me" thread where you said real Space Marines carry different weapons to handle different threats, which, when limited to one of each type of weapon and often being mixed amounts of effectiveness, simply doesn't work.

It may not work well enough in-game currently for Marines, but it certainly does work. In the real world, diverse teams with mixed capabilities/roles/kit are usually more productive than homogenous teams. Both in military application and elsewhere. In warfare, large teams of identical members (typically heavy infantry) haven't really been effective for hundreds of years.

Ergo I don't care about your "holistic" views.

That's fine. Play a homogenous force. Silver Tide. Gaunt swarms. IG infantry. Primaris.

The Marines simply can't accomplish what you want, ergo they're not flexible, ergo they're not real Marines.

So if the rules are bad, then the fluff is wrong! I guess this means that Eldar are the most numerous faction in the galaxy! And there are as many Roboute Gillimans in the galaxy as there are UltraMarine captains!

Hence why, based on that conclusion, only the units that are able to buy multiple TAC weapons are the only true Marines. That means Sternguard and Devastators, who can buy multiple Grav Cannons and MLs.

So being able to buy 4 LCs in a 5-10man unit, where the squad could go with a 10-man with a pair of HB, a GC, and a LC if it really wanted to, means that the unit cannot buy multiple TAC weapons? Really?

Also two grenade launchers is fine for Anti-Tank if you're utterly convinced bringing one ML suffices for the same task, or one Flamer suffices for anti-infantry. Surprise, neither one does!

I missed the rule that said you weren't allowed to use a Lascannon-toting Tac squad to supplement other AT. Didn't realize using multiple units cohesively was banned.

BrianDavion wrote:
honestly it;'s generally accepted that anyone who accuses 40k of ripping off starcraft is just trolling. given where star craft got the majority of thier "inspiration" from.

That's a very disingenuous argument. Influence can go back and forth. Not entering in the merit of the specific comparison, but as it stands, generally speaking, your claim is baseless.

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Just because the anti tank gun exists ss a choice doesn't mean it's close to good as a choice. You'd need to be able to double down on the flexible weapons like the Grav Cannon and ML (as bad as it is). TECHNICALLY, in your definition from earlier, the only units that can be real Marines then are Sterngaurd and Devastators. Neat, huh?

Thanks for playing.

You mean "Thanks for playing the Slayer-Fan-has-to-make-up-definitions-in-order-to-feel-like-he's-scoring-a-point" game? That's an old and tired game.

It's also telling that you had to resort to other Classic units to try and make that point. Amusingly, it makes mine.

Also Starcraft? They look literally nothing like the Starcraft units, REALLY showing your ignorance in design (ironic since you say you work in design) and the inability to accept a minor change. That's actually kinda fascinating.

Agressors are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethower on each. Firebats are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethrower on each. Good enough for our purposes here.

Also, good luck trying to insult me on a proffessional basis. You don't have a chance in hell of actually landing one.

No, YOU made up the definition for what a "real" Space Marine was. I proved that the only units that can fit your definition are the ones that can take multiple Grav Cannons or MLs, meaning your Tactical Marines aren't real Marines because they can't actually handle different kinds of threats due to how weapons are selected on them.

Also no they don't look like Firebats just because they're big and have Flamethrowers. Also I have no idea what you're talking about with "landing one" but if you legit actually worked in design you wouldn't be making comments that were completely incorrect like the Firebat = Flamegressor one. So either you don't work in design or you're blinded by your nostalgia because you're hung up on what "real" Space Marines are.

Pick one.

Go on. Find my definition and quote it. Understand the holistic argument being made. Then you can try this line of attack again.

None of that changes the fact that Intercessors can't bring anti-tank weapons to what is often a tank battle.

@"professional design blah blah blah" don't care. Others have drawn the parallel and will get the point. That you're trying to actually make something of it is a "you thing".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Mr Morden wrote:I still use RT era marines and Primaris in the same army.

Marines are not all the same size.

Same here, last time I checked humans are not the same height.

Very true, although the different styles/proportions don't mesh very well, imo.

It's in the "Primaris bother me" thread where you said real Space Marines carry different weapons to handle different threats, which, when limited to one of each type of weapon and often being mixed amounts of effectiveness, simply doesn't work.

It may not work well enough in-game currently for Marines, but it certainly does work. In the real world, diverse teams with mixed capabilities/roles/kit are usually more productive than homogenous teams. Both in military application and elsewhere. In warfare, large teams of identical members (typically heavy infantry) haven't really been effective for hundreds of years.

Ergo I don't care about your "holistic" views.

That's fine. Play a homogenous force. Silver Tide. Gaunt swarms. IG infantry. Primaris.

The Marines simply can't accomplish what you want, ergo they're not flexible, ergo they're not real Marines.

So if the rules are bad, then the fluff is wrong! I guess this means that Eldar are the most numerous faction in the galaxy! And there are as many Roboute Gillimans in the galaxy as there are UltraMarine captains!

Hence why, based on that conclusion, only the units that are able to buy multiple TAC weapons are the only true Marines. That means Sternguard and Devastators, who can buy multiple Grav Cannons and MLs.

So being able to buy 4 LCs in a 5-10man unit, where the squad could go with a 10-man with a pair of HB, a GC, and a LC if it really wanted to, means that the unit cannot buy multiple TAC weapons? Really?

Also two grenade launchers is fine for Anti-Tank if you're utterly convinced bringing one ML suffices for the same task, or one Flamer suffices for anti-infantry. Surprise, neither one does!

I missed the rule that said you weren't allowed to use a Lascannon-toting Tac squad to supplement other AT. Didn't realize using multiple units cohesively was banned.

1. We aren't talking about real life so why does that matter. It's bad in the game and doesn't fit his definition of flexible.
2. What does those armies have anything to do with what I said?
3. Once again you forgot about Insectum's absolutely hilarious definition of what makes a "real" Space Marine. It doesn't even have to do with the fluff but rather some concept he created in his head that he refuses to let go of.
4. Actually per his definition the 4 Lascannon squad can't be Space Marines because they aren't well equipped to handle infantry as they only have 6 Bolters, and that's clearly not enough. They'd have to strictly be Grav Cannons and MLs.
5. Yeah you forgot about Devastators for that. Thanks for playing!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It's in the "Primaris bother me" thread where you said real Space Marines carry different weapons to handle different threats, which, when limited to one of each type of weapon and often being mixed amounts of effectiveness, simply doesn't work. Ergo I don't care about your "holistic" views. The Marines simply can't accomplish what you want, ergo they're not flexible, ergo they're not real Marines.
Hence why, based on that conclusion, only the units that are able to buy multiple TAC weapons are the only true Marines. That means Sternguard and Devastators, who can buy multiple Grav Cannons and MLs.

Marines come in a unit. The unit has Bolters and some other weapons. Bolters are already anti-personnel firepower, so a Lascannon, though itself a specialised weapon, makes the unit more capable of handling multiple types of targets. You not wanting to accept the whole picture does not make it not exist.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also two grenade launchers is fine for Anti-Tank if you're utterly convinced bringing one ML suffices for the same task, or one Flamer suffices for anti-infantry. Surprise, neither one does!

Missile Launcher vs. T7 3+ .666x.666x.666x3.5 = 1.03
2 Krak Grenades vs T7 3+ .666x.333x.5x2x2 = .44

Plus, unless there's a FAQ I'm not aware of, you can't even do it. All the Aux Grenade Launcher does is increase the range of a grenade being used, and a unit can only use one grenade.

BrianDavion wrote:
honestly it;'s generally accepted that anyone who accuses 40k of ripping off starcraft is just trolling. given where star craft got the majority of thier "inspiration" from.

Cross pollination can happen, especially as both companies are decades old. The 'modern' Tyranid Warriors are more Zerg-ey, and Raveners in particular sure have an eerie resemblance to Hydralisks.

1. And once that unit grabs a Flamer instead of the ML, they're no longer the flexible unit you keep toting they are! Wowzers! Sounds like you would need more AT to go in the squad instead, which is too bad because you can't double up on that same AT weapon unless you're SUPER unfluffy and only fielding 5 man squads!
2. I'm of course fielding 5 man squads so that's not an issue, and that's just one target, against free weapons on top of that. You PAID for that ML. How does that make you feel?

 Galef wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Frankly, people who would have a problem with old marines being used as primaris in such a situation would be dicks.

I don't disagree with you, but as Ishagu notes, this is a visual game and even I would expect some kind of alteration to the model to make them fit in. Rebasing Tacticals on taller 32mm bases would be enough for me, but I'm known for being quite liberal with conversions

-

I think the strongest argument against this is that old marines still have rules and they are different from one another. Anyone playing WYSWYG should have a problem with this. Whether you accept your opponent doing this or not, its undeniable that they cross that line into proxying and should expect the skepticism and uncertainties that comes with it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Just because the anti tank gun exists ss a choice doesn't mean it's close to good as a choice. You'd need to be able to double down on the flexible weapons like the Grav Cannon and ML (as bad as it is). TECHNICALLY, in your definition from earlier, the only units that can be real Marines then are Sterngaurd and Devastators. Neat, huh?

Thanks for playing.

You mean "Thanks for playing the Slayer-Fan-has-to-make-up-definitions-in-order-to-feel-like-he's-scoring-a-point" game? That's an old and tired game.

It's also telling that you had to resort to other Classic units to try and make that point. Amusingly, it makes mine.

Also Starcraft? They look literally nothing like the Starcraft units, REALLY showing your ignorance in design (ironic since you say you work in design) and the inability to accept a minor change. That's actually kinda fascinating.

Agressors are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethower on each. Firebats are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethrower on each. Good enough for our purposes here.

Also, good luck trying to insult me on a proffessional basis. You don't have a chance in hell of actually landing one.

No, YOU made up the definition for what a "real" Space Marine was. I proved that the only units that can fit your definition are the ones that can take multiple Grav Cannons or MLs, meaning your Tactical Marines aren't real Marines because they can't actually handle different kinds of threats due to how weapons are selected on them.

Also no they don't look like Firebats just because they're big and have Flamethrowers. Also I have no idea what you're talking about with "landing one" but if you legit actually worked in design you wouldn't be making comments that were completely incorrect like the Firebat = Flamegressor one. So either you don't work in design or you're blinded by your nostalgia because you're hung up on what "real" Space Marines are.
Pick one.

Go on. Find my definition and quote it. Understand the holistic argument being made. Then you can try this line of attack again.

None of that changes the fact that Intercessors can't bring anti-tank weapons to what is often a tank battle.

@"professional design blah blah blah" don't care. Others have drawn the parallel and will get the point. That you're trying to actually make something of it is a "you thing".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Mr Morden wrote:I still use RT era marines and Primaris in the same army.

Marines are not all the same size.

Same here, last time I checked humans are not the same height.

Very true, although the different styles/proportions don't mesh very well, imo.

It's in the "Primaris bother me" thread where you said real Space Marines carry different weapons to handle different threats, which, when limited to one of each type of weapon and often being mixed amounts of effectiveness, simply doesn't work.

It may not work well enough in-game currently for Marines, but it certainly does work. In the real world, diverse teams with mixed capabilities/roles/kit are usually more productive than homogenous teams. Both in military application and elsewhere. In warfare, large teams of identical members (typically heavy infantry) haven't really been effective for hundreds of years.

Ergo I don't care about your "holistic" views.

That's fine. Play a homogenous force. Silver Tide. Gaunt swarms. IG infantry. Primaris.

The Marines simply can't accomplish what you want, ergo they're not flexible, ergo they're not real Marines.

So if the rules are bad, then the fluff is wrong! I guess this means that Eldar are the most numerous faction in the galaxy! And there are as many Roboute Gillimans in the galaxy as there are UltraMarine captains!

Hence why, based on that conclusion, only the units that are able to buy multiple TAC weapons are the only true Marines. That means Sternguard and Devastators, who can buy multiple Grav Cannons and MLs.

So being able to buy 4 LCs in a 5-10man unit, where the squad could go with a 10-man with a pair of HB, a GC, and a LC if it really wanted to, means that the unit cannot buy multiple TAC weapons? Really?

Also two grenade launchers is fine for Anti-Tank if you're utterly convinced bringing one ML suffices for the same task, or one Flamer suffices for anti-infantry. Surprise, neither one does!

I missed the rule that said you weren't allowed to use a Lascannon-toting Tac squad to supplement other AT. Didn't realize using multiple units cohesively was banned.

1. We aren't talking about real life so why does that matter.

So if it's not how the game currently works, it's not how the game should work? That's remarkably reductive, even for very well written systems

It's bad in the game and doesn't fit his definition of flexible.

It doesn't fit *your* definition of flexible. It's bad for how *you* think the game should be. So those of us who want to play that way should shove off and our toys should be mothballed?

2. What does those armies have anything to do with what I said?

Those are armies that can play the way you're saying we should play - with lots of the same unit, mostly armed with the same kit. So, if you don't *want* to play units that have flexible loadouts, our units having flexible loadouts don't stop you.

3. Once again you forgot about Insectum's absolutely hilarious definition of what makes a "real" Space Marine.

You may find that his view is more in line with others' views than you seem to think.

It doesn't even have to do with the fluff but rather some concept he created in his head that he refuses to let go of.

When did they retcon it? Primaris are "Marines too. And bigger and better!". But Primaris didn't *invalidate* "RealMarines" (from a fluff perspective).

4. Actually per his definition the 4 Lascannon squad can't be Space Marines because they aren't well equipped to handle infantry as they only have 6 Bolters, and that's clearly not enough.

That's remarkably shortsighted. Those 4 Lascannons, 6 Boltguns, and 10 fists are going to do a lot more against infantry than a LasPred.

They'd have to strictly be Grav Cannons and MLs.

You're pigeonholing "flexible" into "Uses a tool good against everything". It can also be "Has different tools for different jobs". Which is more flexible? A guy with a swiss army knife or a guy with a fully stocked toolchest? Sure, that swiss army knife is more flexible than any tool in the toolbox. But that toolbox is certainly more flexible than the single knife.

5. Yeah you forgot about Devastators for that. Thanks for playing!

If I have 5 squads that are each only 25% as good at AT and 25% as good anti-infantry as each of your 4 super-specialist squads, it's still a net win. The individual generalist squad doesn't *need* to be as good at AT as a specialist squad, because there's more of them. Even per point, as they pull double-duty.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. And once that unit grabs a Flamer instead of the ML, they're no longer the flexible unit you keep toting they are! Wowzers! Sounds like you would need more AT to go in the squad instead, which is too bad because you can't double up on that same AT weapon unless you're SUPER unfluffy and only fielding 5 man squads!

Is there even an argument there? No.

2. I'm of course fielding 5 man squads so that's not an issue, and that's just one target, against free weapons on top of that. You PAID for that ML. How does that make you feel?

Superior.

Well. It seems like many of the questions in this thread have just been answered. Apparently, the answer is something called Warhammer Legends. So absolutely everything that's been left behind in the indices is going to be given a one off points value which won't be reviewed. Two things I take from this are:

When Games-Workshop say "forever," they probably mean, "this edition," because a datasheet can't possibly maintain validity if there are major core rule changes, and

not being subject to points reviews, there is the distinct possibility that these models are going to go slowly out of balance as other models are re-balanced while these remain the same. Hence the "we won’t be recommending Legends units for competitive tournaments," get out of jail free clause.

The only question now is, how long will it take for the entire oldmarine range to become "Legends?" How do you feel about Games-Workshop abandoning balance reviews for these units, and effectively disqualifying them from future tournaments?

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Well. It seems like many of the questions in this thread have just been answered. Apparently, the answer is something called Warhammer Legends. So absolutely everything that's been left behind in the indices is going to be given a one off points value which won't be reviewed. Two things I take from this are:

When Games-Workshop say "forever," they probably mean, "this edition," because a datasheet can't possibly maintain validity if there are major core rule changes,

No, they were stressing the FOREVER quite strongly. It will be to foreseeable future. If a new edition changes the rules sufficiently that they need to adjust them they will.

and

not being subject to points reviews, there is the distinct possibility that these models are going to go slowly out of balance as other models are re-balanced while these remain the same. Hence the "we won’t be recommending Legends units for competitive tournaments," get out of jail free clause.

The only question now is, how long will it take for the entire oldmarine range to become "Legends?" How do you feel about Games-Workshop abandoning balance reviews for these units, and effectively disqualifying them from future tournaments?

Well, I think old marines will end up in this Legends category sooner or later. The points not being reviewed is a bit crap. I hope they at least review them with the edition changes, if not annually. The wannabe competitive tryhards absolutely will try get this stuff banned not only from tournaments, but from casual pick up games as well. I will personally be glad to play against any legends stuff, and will advocate for them being allowed as widely as possible.

TOs have various logic chains for their restrictions.

I still don't think this means anything to most old marines at least not yet. Sounds more like a stop gap as people don't all have access to indexs anymore and some of the units were in them.

In all honesty unless the points are done so awfully that they are unworkable I don't see any issue with the one stop placement. Unless you're playing in the most hardcore of engagements you can afford a little poor point balancing on some loved units for style or fun.

All in all sounds a bit lazy of them, but then why would you expect from the one of the most mailed it in companies in the world eh ?

Hey, bright side though, they did confirm once more sisters first drop in November, I'm fired up. Ready to have a very small sisters force just to do my part and support their rebirth. Hope most of us will do so after so long. Haven't been this fired up since the Dark Eldar actually got models that didn't make me gag.

Get fired up sisters players.


Saying it again, I don't think old marines will end up in legends at least no time in the close to near future, I think that is basically a place for index options because not everyone got them or still has them. If anything it may be an update to them points wise then placed up there for those no longer in the codex options which is fine.

I don't think its at all a taste of things to come so lets simmer down now haters.

Oh and that second pic of an old marine and nu marine looks great. Honestly the old marine looks great ! Just a smaller version of mr mc meaty thigh to his left. Lovely pic, great models.

And now GW have an official way of mothballing units, the "Legends" malarkey.

Guess which units are going to go on that list the next time SM codex gets a refresh?

You do know, anyone can make wild guesses and when they don't turn out to be correct, well no one remembers anyways, so a win win I guess.

Even if you get called out on being wrong, you could not even be here or take credit for being totally wrong. I get you want to poke the bear as it were but unless you can see the future you have no real clue as to what will be there or if its in fact more of a place for index options as I surmise as that was the units mentioned exactly int he article.

If you need logic, heres some logic, why get rid of units that serve different purposes ? Why not keep pressing double lines of marines, keep both on track and get double the units sold. The old models are all profit aside from storage and pumping them out.

Keep up both, and take in money in both hands, sounds good to most companies. Until they actually stop producing the models which hasn't happened yet you can't say what their full plan is, you can only guess and at the pace of their releases so far, it'd be at least another 4 or 5 years before the primaris will be as exhaustive as old marines for them to legend them.