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.

Keep playing them? I've already got several battle companies worth of both Primaris and Firstborn, and I don't care much for rebuying and repainting all the Firstborn. If they get axed from the game in terms of rules, then I can homebrew my own rules as best I can, or just play count as, or play previous editions.

But, until that happens, I see no trouble using them. Both Primaris and Firstborn are fine ranges IMO.

Formosa wrote:Ithey need to mix up the Mks like real marines.

Eh, I don't like that on my regular squads. It's fine on Veterans, but I'd rather my Tacticals stay largely all Mark 7.

Would you call my Battle Company "not real Marines" simply because I don't mixed armour marks?

jeff white wrote: restartes are heresy plain as day.

Is that heresy in universe? Because, as I hate to bring up, it's not.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

jeff white wrote: restartes are heresy plain as day.

Is that heresy in universe? Because, as I hate to bring up, it's not.

Plain as day? Maybe not.

It outright isn't. The people who largely get to choose what is and isn't heresy in-universe haven't declared it so, and any characters in universe who do are misguided.

That doesn't mean people aren't allowed to dislike them outside of the fictional universe.

Insectum7 wrote:*Woooosh*

Explanation? (I know what r/woosh means, but I'm missing it's relevance here?)

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:Isn't the Bolt gun the most iconic of the space marines' weapons? I don't how having more variations of their most iconic weapon makes Primaris lesser space marines. I will admit the chainsword thing was missed opportunity on Rievers, but hardly difficult to convert and is mechanically the same thing anyways. That is what I did with mine. As for Intercessors, it isn't like they can have any less chainswords than Tactical marines.

This is what I keep saying. Bolters are more iconic than chainswords, IMO, and even then, unless you played a (admittedly) deviant Chapter like the Space Wolves or Black Tempars or unique Chapter, your core Tacticals didn't have chainswords either. Sure, I'd like Primaris Marines to have chainswords in the sprue (without needing an upgrade pack), but if you were a Space Marine players beforehand, you probably had dozens of spare chainswords anyway.

space marines have a fairly complete roster of stuff.

Very true. While I love Primaris, I can't help but think that literally any other faction should have had a revamp first.

The Newman wrote:The Reiver serg wants a Power Axe from both a rules and an aesthetic perspective. (A short-handled tactical axe, obviously.)

I'd love for the whole squad to have tactical axes, facaltas or kukris.

Roknar wrote:They made marines...rounder, softer. On top of removing all the bling.

In all fairness, a lot of people, including long-term 40k fans, didn't like how blinged up basic Marines were getting. As users in this thread have said, they would cut off the bling on older models. As I see it, it's a lot easier to add bling to an unblinged model than to carve it all off. If you like your Marines fancy and blinged up, there's nothing stopping you adding that detail in.

jeff white wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

jeff white wrote: restartes are heresy plain as day.

Is that heresy in universe? Because, as I hate to bring up, it's not.

Yes it is... what you read is just imperial propaganda. Anyone with faith in the emperor knows it to be true.

Is this supposed to be in-character or something? We literally have direct proof that the Emperor is completely okay with what Guilliman is doing. Unless you're implying that Guilliman fabricated an entire story for only himself in his own head, or that the Custodes are all traitors and heretics?

Cawl clearly has tapped the powers of chaos to turn 10k years of imperial rot into flying tanks and GI SuperJoes.

Anyone who doesnt see the truth in this is obviously equally tainted.

You know this isn't a roleplaying thread? We have more than enough evidence from an OOC perspective to know that all of that isn't true. That's not saying that characters in universe can't have that belief, but we, from an outside perspective, surely know this isn't the case?

Any loyal Sisters of Battle will follow Girlymans flying tanks? Mine wont...

See, i get to choose. So do you.

Well, yes. No-one said that you weren't allowed Your Dudes. But at the same time, if GW say that many, if not most, Sisters follow Guilliman, that's canon. Ignore that, headcanon it, do what you will, what you do with your headcanon is none of my business. Sure, YOUR Sisters might not follow Guilliman, but if GW says/implies that most do, well, that's what it is.

jeff whiteTL;DR - Why do you keep complaining like you're a character in the 41st millenium? It's okay just to talk about your dislike of Primaris like Insectum does, without using words like "heresy" and "corruption".

Insectum:

Changemod:

 Mr Morden wrote:
If you compare the various Marines over the years you can see that they have and maintain a basic asthetic, in fact the extra bits and pieces hark back to the original models.

Absolutely. If you watch Goodwin breaking down his designs and talking about the design philosophy of the Primaris Marines, you see that the Primaris designs aren't really that different from Space Marines of old.

I was actually looking at a project someone had done where they had painted a single Space Marine of each armour Mark and put them next to eachother, and I had the strangest realisation - the Mark 7 helmet is actually the most odd-one-out, aside from Mark 1 Thunder pattern. Why? It's the only one with an exposed face grille. Mark V, which technically has one, isn't really a proper standardised Mark, and so I didn't include it, but every other proper power armour variant has an enclosed grille except, Aquila pattern.

Similarly, for all the hate Phobos gets (and I understand that), it looks far more Space Marine-y than Scout armour does. In terms of design philosophy, I think having *all* Marines in power armour works well to unified aesthetics.

As a pet project of mine, I'm going to take an Aggressor and give it a more Terminator-styled power fist and storm bolter loadout, and see just how different Terminator and Gravis armour really are - because I don't think it'll be much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:
Heresy can only be judged from the perspective of a religion because it’s an inherently religious concept. The emperor and gulliman are both atheists who want as little to do with the imperial cult as possible.

Eh, when heresy is used in both religious and non-religious manners in 40k, I don't think the inherently religious perspective works. After all, the Word Bearers are called the First Heretics long before the Imperial Cult is established. Heresy seems to just be simply "you don't do what the Emperor commands/expects, and work against him". Unless you're also calling the Emperor, his Custodes, and every non-Imperial Cult Space Marine a heretic? In which case, as long as you're being consistent, that's cool.

From an out of setting perspective I can’t fairly say that the primaris aren’t a heretical concept, because the more level headed voices in the room don’t have any use for or investment in the concept of heresy. Instead, I can only judge by taking the imperial cult in general terms, looking at what things they tend to hate, and recognising that Primaris fit the bill of heretics very thoroughly.

Again, if you want to use the Imperial Cult's definition of heresy, that's fine, as long as you also accept that you'd also be calling every single Primarch, non-Cult Space Marine, all the Custodes, and the Emperor himself a heretic.

changemod wrote:
In as long as they safely aren’t there, especially those who are dead or isolated on life support, then they can avoid heretic status by being grandfathered in as pre-cult figures the cult has formed opinions on... Poor history and cognitive dissonance can patch up any pesky little inconsistencies and let you shove words in their mouths they’d never agree with.

Being around and active, taking actions and stating opinions contrary to cult doctrine? That’s going to give the ecclesiarchy a lot more headaches.

However, if the cult is based upon those people, wouldn't Imperial citizens be more likely to trust in those beings they've been told are divine ever since birth, rather than the preacher who has now suddenly changed tune and called them heretics? That rather more sounds like the preacher is the one telling falsehoods.

Basically, by basing their cult around people who they felt confident couldn't (or wouldn't) disagree with their beliefs, they've undermined their own influence and authority against those people. They've helped legitimise and ensure that the Primarchs are all universally venerated and considered demi-gods - that's propaganda they can't easily take back.

My way to tell if models share an aesthetic - show them to someone who has no understanding of the setting, and ask them to put models in categories. I can guarentee that Primaris Marines and regular Marines would be put together more frequently than regular Marines and Scouts would.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:It isn't like the Raptors chapter didn't set an example of tacticool well before Primaris. I don't really see much inherently techo-barbarian about anything Ultramarine or any number of chapters, and medieval knight equal parts lore and units armed with some sort of power weapon and boarding shield/storm shield or anything Dark Angel.
...
Point is, if someone wants Primaris to be techno-barbarians, medieval knights or CoD modern warriors as modelers we have the bits to make it happen as Primaris are largely a blank canvas and there is a wealth of space marine bits out there that still work for them with varying degrees of effort.

QFT. There are so many different design aspects to Space Marines that they're all viable and all supported in GW's style. Ultramarines aren't tacticool, but the Raptors are. The Raptors aren't techno-barbarians, but the Space Wolves are. The Space Wolves go into battle without helmets and with ornate runic armour and totems, but the Minotaurs don't.

The reason that Space Marines are so popular is because they're such a blank slate. You have have super minimalist Marines, like the Raptors, who fight using more modern tactics and styles. You have the super-religious barbarians like the Black Templars, charging in directly with chainswords and flamers decked out in full tabards and chains and votive papers. You have Chapters that are little more than a historical aesthetic clad in power armour (White Scars, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Ultramarines).

Anyone claiming that "REAL Space Marines are knightly/techno-barbarians/tacticool" is missing the point of Space Marines being what they are. The CORE of what a Space Marine is is:
- Power Armour with big bulky shoulder pads and a large vented backpack
- Bolt weaponry
- Genetically engineered
- Flat angled vehicles with layered armour

Me, I went low effort and steered into the tacticool look and happen to think it makes my Primaris army look really sharp. You are free to disagree and think my army is that cringe-worthy CoD pandering. Do understand when you denigrate and snub 'tacticool' Primaris, you are criticizing my personal army. You don't have to like what I did, but understand that their are a good number of players enjoy that aesetic.

Exactly - there are people who have collected armies very similar to what the Primaris are for years, if not decades. Saying that "tacticool Marines aren't allowed" is both a blatant mistunderstanding of Space Marine historical lore/history as a faction, and also a massive slap in the face for players who have enjoyed their tacticool Marines long before Primaris showed up.

And as mentioned, Space Marines can have just about any aesthetic a person wants if they want to put in the effort.

I think that's why I like the fact that Primaris Marines are so minimal in their basic design - they truly are more of a blank slate to work with. You can keep them bare, even trimming off the chest Aquila if you so want, or you can lace them with purity seals, pouches, pendants, reliquaries and shields that the sprues are festooned with. I mean, look at Aggressors versus basic Terminators! Basic Aggressors all have some kind of rope holding a relic or holy icon over their waist - what do Terminators have? A small shield? Maybe the occasional device on their knee pad. By that logic, Terminators aren't "true" Marine units.

Primaris are a perfect blank slate to do whatever you want with. You like gothic OTT trinkets and pendants and badges? There's enough room for them.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:They are committee designed, marketing informed, blandified fan-marines.

Is that such a bad thing if they are?

Yes.

Why? If you were to find out that other factions (including, more than likely, older, more "classic" versions of Space Marines and other such "grimdark" factions) were designed by a committee, would you similarly pan them?

Otherwise, it just sounds like you have a problem with Primaris in particular, not committee design.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And come on, we aren't saying that EVERY model, Space Marine or not, isn't committee designed and marketing informed, surely? You're only saying that with Primaris Marines because they're not identical to the Marines you've come to know and recognise.

What comes out of a comittee shows you where the deciding priorities lie.

But if the committee produced something you liked, you wouldn't be complaining, I'd bet.
I'm not denying that Primaris Marines probably had a good deal of analysis and teams working on producing a good image. But you're deluded if you don't think that all of GW's new sculpts have been done in the same manner. So does that mean that you hate all of GW's new sculpts? Sisters, Ossiarch, Genestealer Cult, Admech, etc?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

And sure, in your opinion, they're not proper Space Marines. But for many other people, and by GW's own admission, they empirically *are*.[/spoiler]

Companies can squander their own IP, it's totally within their perogative. But that doesn't make it a smart move.

All you have to do is look at GW's profits. Haven't they gone up quite well with Primaris being released? Hasn't their player base significantly increased, with a great many playing Primaris?

By all means, if you don't like what they've done, you're welcome to that, but I don't think it's been a bad business choice, whichever way you slice it.

Brutus_Apex wrote:The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.

The Raptors Chapter say hi. Try again?

They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy.

Shame.

If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.

40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.

It still is. If your idea of "fantasy in space" is so fragile that something as tame as Phobos armour could break it, I honestly feel bad for you missing out. Please, what other universe would a Phobos Marine fit into? Halo? Not really - the armour's too plate-like, bolters too chunky, backpack too large. Mass Effect? Certainly not - far too bulky. Star Wars? Yeah, nah.

In fact, Phobos Marines are far more "Marine-y" than Scouts ever were! Did sniper scout marines also put you off? What about things like the Raptors Chapter?

40k is still unique, still very much fantasy in space. But if you're still not convinced, I hope you find something else you're after.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Brutus, seeing as you posted some pictures of "proper Space Marines", what's your opinion on this one?

As you can see, no purity seals, no skulls, no scrolls, banners, pendants, nothing! Well, except for the chest aquila (which most Primaris have) and a teeny scroll on his bolter (which, again, most Primaris have).
So, I guess this isn't a "real Space Marine"?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Like I said, none of the Primaris line outside a couple of Phobos is Tacticool.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but anyone saying that Tacticus or Gravis armoured Primaris look tacticool really need to learn what tacticool means. Phobos being more tacticool? Yeah, I can get where that's coming from - but I'd also like to point out that they look more "Space Marine-y" than Scouts. Like, please, for all the people hating on tacticool Marines, what was your opinion on Scout Squads? What about the Raptors Chapter?

If you're going to complain about tacticool models, at least ONLY talk about the Phobos Marines, not the rest of the range. That's be like me saying "I hate Space Marines because Scouts look dumb".

godardc wrote:There are really people here thinking primaris don't have a more streamlined and generic sci-fi design than the marines ?

Yeah. Between these two pictures, are you really telling me you don't think the Intercessor is the more blinged up and "gothic/ornate/grimdark/insert-buzzword-here" of the two?

Tabard, purity seals, decorative shield, something hanging from his shoulders? If you believed 40k was all about the walking cathedral aesthetic, the Intercessor has it. The Tactical? Aside from the chest aquila, and a few studs on his helmet, they're pretty much smooth and unmarked. Strange, that seems to be the reason given for why people dislike the Primaris. It's almost like streamlined Marines were already a thing.

Just because before we had one example of "modern" warfare marines (raptors / rg successors) isn't an excuse, it was an option left amongst hundreds of "medieval" chapters (like UM, BT, BA and most of the successor chapters who are definitely not generic sci-fi).

But for anyone to say "Real Space Marines aren't tacticool" is being wilfully ignorant. Yes, no-one's denying that the Raptors aren't the be-all-end-all of Chapters, but they prove that not all Chapters were blinged out. And, as my picture above shows, it's hardly like EVERY Space Marine in the more traditional Chapters (like Ultramarines) were all decked out in trinkets.
As you said, being tacticool was an option, just like how giving all your Marines trinkets and seals and tabards was an option. There's no definitive version of a Space Marine beyond big power armour with curved shoulder pads, a chunky rectangular bolter, and being genetically engineered. Primaris don't break that.

And yes, technically, every hobbyist can convert his models and blablabla. But the reality is they don't have even paint their models so no, the fact one in ten guys will convert their models isn't an excuse for GW laziness / lost of ip / whatever.

I don't see how. Again, I've posted a picture of an old Marine who has less ornamentation on him than most new models earlier in this thread. Does that mean GW lost their IP already?

Sorry, but if you're going to complain about GW's models not being exactly how you like them, and not put in any work yourself, that's on you. I want my Marines to already come pre-painted in the custom Chapter colour of my choice - it's GW's fault for not doing that! /s

And in addition it's badly executed: the scope is BEHIND the picatinny rail and marines have never needed them because they have scope and sensors in their helmet to hit target at normal range (have you seen Ultramarines movie ? The Dawn Of War Dark Crusade intro (against the necrons) ? ).

I have, yes. Isn't the Ultramarines movie widely panned? Also, in the Ultramarines movie, Brother Verenor *has a bolter with a scope behind the sight*. So the movie which you use as evidence of "Marines shouldn't have scopes" HAS A MARINE WITH A SCOPE.

So what, primaris helmets are just inferior ?

Inferior by what metric? Also, I'd like to point out that they share more in common with older Space Marine designs than even the Mark 7, both in-universe and out of it.
In-universe, they're a callback to Mark IV 'Maximus' plate (to the point where I've seen people outright using Mark IV helmets on Primaris and the difference being negligible), and out of universe, their flat shape and lack of a grille is closer in design to the original beaky Marines.
Like, sorry to say it, but Marines having mouth grilles is the exception, in terms of their historical armour.

Vankraken wrote:Most of the phobos stuff is too much Call of Duty like with stuff like the Eliminators... sniper scout 2.0 having bloody G36s for the front half of their snipers. Same issue with reavers... (The spooky Skelly Boyz) as they look like some "special" forces BS you see in a sci fi themed COD game.

Eh, CoD isn't nearly as heavily armoured. But I see what you mean with the front of bolt snipers (las-fusils are safe though?). As far as Reiver skull masks go, wouldn't Chaplains suffer similarly?

The jump pack guys and the centurions 2.0 are not tacticool or whatever but are just weak design in general.

Is that an objectively weak design, or just your opinion?

The stealth dread or whatever the gak it's suppose to be looks like the Walker mechs from Avatar

Like, kinda? But Dreadnights also have the same. And again, it's ONE vehicle. By all means, criticise that one vehicle, but it's not the entire Primaris range. Otherwise, that'd be like me saying "Orks are dumb and unoriginal GW are just copying Mad Max because look at the grot strapped to the front of that buggy", or some other stupid argument.

while the redeptor dread has a very Tau looking plasma cannon (similar weapon silhouette to a crisis suit/ghostkeel Ion Weapon).

How does it look Tau? It looks the same as practically any Dreadnought plasma cannon, especially the Contemptor design:

In general though the Primaris line shifts away from the sci fi fantasy knights (often with ornate stuff similar to stuff seen in ceremonial gothic armor) to a more sci fi COD or Master Chief look.

Alright, I'm curious. I'm seeing CoD and Master Chief thrown around a lot in terms of "what the Primaris look like". If you have the time, I'd REALLY appreciate if you can pull up a picture of Master Chief and a Primaris Marine, and show me what the similarities are that older Marines don't also have. Because I've been looking, and I cannot see a single new feature.

Also, just going back to the whole "sci-f fantasy knights (with ornate stuff...)" comment - in this same post, I've shown a Tactical Marine who is barely ornamented, and an Intercessor dressed to the nines. Rather defeats that line of logic, no?

It clashes a bit when they are in the same faction that has WW1/WW2 looking gear and vehicles for regular troops. Not to mention all the "definitely not the Catholic Church" forces that exist in the fluff.

Isn't clashing/contrasting designs always been a thing for 40k? I mean, you're telling me that even amongst the Guard alone that they all have a unified look? Catachans, Cadians, Tallarn, Vostroyan, Death Korps, Elysians, Armageddon, Scions, etc? In any other miniatures game, these would all be opposing factions!
Even between Space Marines, there's clashing aesthetics (Raptors with sleek, camouflaged, stripped down armour, compared to ostentatious Black Templars, rune-covered Space Wolves and robed, winged Dark Angels).

jeff white wrote:Smudge. Phobos is not gothic. Historically this style means something. It seems you are oblivious to this ...

Interesting - the actual *GOTHIC* armour posted by Slayer-fan is much closer in design to the Primaris Tacticus Armour, not Mark VII Aquila.

I'm also not saying that Phobos are exceptionally gothic. But Phobos Marines also aren't all Primaris Marines. By that same logic, old Marines aren't gothic, because Scouts have no gothic parts on their armour.

Also your rationale for restartes not better fitting in ANY sci fi universe are surface shallow aesthetics. Back paks too large for Halo? WTF srsly?

No, come on. If you're going to claim that Primaris Marines look like Halo or any other sci-fi setting more, show me another sci-fi setting, and how the Primaris Marines (the entire range, don't forget, because they're more than any single unit!) would fit in there better. Visual diagrams would be appreciated, ty.

Missing out? On what? The cheapening of what had been able to capture so much from so many myths and fantasies in a parody future fantasy, turning it into Halo with bigger backpacks? Yeah.

Still waiting for someone to elaborate on Primaris being closer to Halo than 40k, but do go on.

Well I avoid also participating in the burning of books out of principle.

Nice dogwhistle there.
If you think that Marines getting slightly bigger is akin to erasing entire cultures, I think you need to step away from the keyboard for a bit and breathe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Has the Halo franchise started producing minis?

Har-dee-har. Which version of MJOLNIR Armour does that look like? I don't think it does- oh. It's almost like people just cry out "it looks like Halo" without backing up that claim.


Just to repeat myself:
What are the gothic aesthetics for Space Marine Scouts?
What about the artwork of Tactical Marines I've posted that have no ornamentation?
What are the similar design features between Halo's Spartans and Primaris Marines *specifically*?

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Vankraken wrote:Most of the phobos stuff is too much Call of Duty like with stuff like the Eliminators... sniper scout 2.0 having bloody G36s for the front half of their snipers. Same issue with reavers... (The spooky Skelly Boyz) as they look like some "special" forces BS you see in a sci fi themed COD game.

Eh, CoD isn't nearly as heavily armoured. But I see what you mean with the front of bolt snipers (las-fusils are safe though?). As far as Reiver skull masks go, wouldn't Chaplains suffer similarly?

Reivers aren't based on CoD, they're a rip off of Terror Squads. So once again going back to an example of the older armour designs (though infuriatingly so for Night Lords players) not based off of out of universe designs.

I've said as much in the past, but nope, apparently that's still not "Space Marine-y".

"No mouth grille!" - But what about Mark 2, 3, 4, and 6 armour?
"No squad special weapon!" - But what about 30k Tactical Squads?
"No bling and ornamentation!" - But what about both 30k and 40k Tacticals who have very little decoration?
"Shouldn't have power armoured snipers!" - But what about Legion Recon Squads?
A lot of the things that "aren't space marine-y" are things that the Legions did. Are we now saying that those weren't Space Marines?

jeff white wrote:There is more to the term than armor of a period. There is the historical era before science rose when faith reigned... high vaulted stained glass ornate etc... with organs and ritual upon ritual.

Okay - where's all the ornate high vaulted stained glass with organs and rituals on this model?

Marine armor in its glory has these elements. Scouts not so much but this makes sense as they are not yet decorated.

Soooooo, Scouts aren't Space Marines then? They're not gothic, they're not ornate, they're more like - *gasp!* - TACTICOOL!!

Double standards much?

Restartes have no such era. No call back to history in the aesthetic.

Wrong on both counts of IRL and within 40k's own background - within their own background, you can clearly see inspiration from previous armour marks (Mark IV especially), and I'm sorry, but you're blind if you can't see the same pauldrons, the same backpack, the same and breastplate. I mean, in my above picture, what are these "call backs to history in the aesthetic"? Please, highlight them, be comprehensive.

Anyways your strawman is dead now.

You've not even touched it! In fact, you've just made the opposing argument stronger by outright admitting Scouts have a widely different aesthetic!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

There is more to the term than armor of a period. There is the historical era before science rose when faith reigned... high vaulted stained glass ornate etc... with organs and ritual upon ritual.

Marine armor in its glory has these elements. Scouts not so much but this makes sense as they are not yet decorated.

You'll have to point out to me where marine armor has stained glass and pipe organs.

The Sisters of Battle have that covered.

Oh, yes, but jeff here is implying that that's a Space Marine feature.

jeff white wrote:Smudge GW must pay you to produce straw men and bad faith arguments... cuz they are as bad as current background.

If my arguments are so bad, why can't you disprove them? Because so far, your efforts have been less than stellar.

Gothic names an era 400years long. Armor existed in different styles. One constant was the role of faith in art culture architecture and limited tech burdened by ritual ... where are the sacred bolter rounds in a restartes bolter? Litanies? Yada? Zilch. Heretics.

Um, what? Where have we been told that their bolt rounds are produced any differently to the ones by normal Astartes? Where have we been told anywhere that the Primaris arsenal isn't similarly meticulously blessed, prayed over, etc etc? I mean, for christ's sakes, they have Chaplains! The Aggressor Squads are sculpted with reliquaries and sacred bones on their belts! Purity seals are freely supplied in the kits, alongside various trinkets and badges!

Where on earth are you getting this "Primaris Marines don't bless their bolters" nonsense from?!

Here is an example of gothic era armor in historical context:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4e/08/1a/4e081a85f23f9fe3295b0267712a9909.jpg
Note the 13th century...

You mean the 1200s?
Now, looking at the *14th* Century to the 16th Century - well, I don't know about you, but that armour looks like it would be perfect for both Tactical Marines and Intercessors.

and that if you had to place restartes anywhere herein they look most like a modern cop.

How? Please, point to your breakdown of the design, as comprehensively as possible.
Obviously, the Primaris don't look anything like a modern police officer. But you know what do?
Scouts. I mean, look - cloth armour on the limbs, exposed neck, even a more exposed face!

So, just to confirm, you would agree then that Scouts aren't PROPER Space Marines, and they'd be more at home in any other sci-fi setting, yes?

Another dead strawman...

You've answered literally nothing. It's not even a strawman argument!

 jeff white wrote:
Not every soldier is decorated. He prays says his ritual things goes through his ritual motions... asks for his bolter to be blessed.

Well, that concept makes a bit of a mockery of "SPACE MARINES ARE SOOPER GOTHIC AND RELIGIOUS AND ORNATE AND SO FAITHFUL" when you're also saying that they... don't all have ornate armour? Weren't you also complaining that Primaris Marines don't have ornate armour? If that's the case, why can't we assume that that particular Primaris is decorated?

I'm not asking much from your argument, but I do expect a basic level of consistency.
You said you disliked Primaris because their armour was plain and had no decorations (in itself a false statement, as proven by artwork above). Then, when faced with a non-Primaris Marine with no ornamentation, you say that it's okay?

Again, what's your source for Primaris not being religious/doing their daily devotions? They have Chaplains, Masters of Sanctity, wear purity seals, reliquaries, badges of honour. What's your source for them not doing all the same?

Oh, yeah. You don't have any.

Restartes check their social media. Magic cards. Moms credit card... and time to play GI Joe wannabe

Har-dee-har.
Now, if you're done being childish, where's your ACTUAL argument?

Not widely different ... not decorated.

Pardon? As YOU said, you disliked Primaris because their armour was bare. Why don't you complain about that bare Tactical Marine?

Gothic means most had nothing.

No, it's not. Read a dictionary, get a basic grasp of gothic art, and then tell me that with a straight face.

K Smudge. Bad faith is the game i guess bug i dont play that.

Bad faith? I'm the one citing sources, elaborating on my points, and highlighting your double standards. Your contribution to the intelligence of this debate can be summed up as "Restartes check their social media. Magic cards. Moms credit card... and time to play GI Joe wannabe".

Do you actually *have* an argument beyond blind dislike?

Authenticity trumps poseur off table and on where I game.

If your comments in this thread are any indication of "authenticity" in your local area, thank god I'm not playing there.

 jeff white wrote:
No Smudge i have.

Where.

The era is not represented in primaris units. Simply isnt. Many of us are saying this and you act like it is an argument you can win right or wrong ... it isnt.

You can't just say "it isn't" - give me sources. Give me artistic analysis. Give me detailed breakdowns.

Otherwise, your point has as much weight behind it as a puff of mist. "It isn't" is countered just as easily by a flimsy "it is" - and I've provided far more than such a basic rebuttal.

The move to a new era of heretical science should be proof enough but you want to look at two pictures and squeal "but scouts"!..

Yeah - because your whole point has been "tacticool=bad, marines need to be wearing ornate decorated armour all the time lul" - which, sorry to tell you, but Scouts don't fill that!
You're just repeating the same old memes and untruths without backing anything up with an argument beyond "Restartes BAD DURR" - give us SOMETHING with more substance, for the sake of the people who also dislike Primaris! Right now, you're doing them a disservice with your lack of an argument.

Go on then Smudge. Love your restartes. I wont be buying any. Lower demand means more for you for less.

All the more for me - I'm sure GW won't miss your purchases?

Removed - Rule #1 please

Bellerophon wrote:For the most part, I'm not a Primaris fan... But I'm not going to try to argue that something about the designs are inherently un-space marine, just that I personally don't like a large proportion of them.

I appreciate your reason. You've clearly stated why you don't like them (I may disagree, but that's not really important), and made it very clear that it's just your opinion, and that you'd never just say that they're not Space Marines because you don't like them.
I'm not overly keen on many "classic" Space Marine things (I actually don't really like Bikes, and have a tenuous relationship with Land Speeders - similarly, I'm not massively keen on Tartaros Armour, and not even fond of beaky helmets!), but I'd never say that they're "not Space Marine" just because I personally don't like them.

jeff white wrote:Let me restate.
You are a supremely unpleasant fanboi.

I am glad to never speak with you and certainly i couldnt stomach a game with you.

Enjoy your restartes Smudge.

Thank you for your contribution, though I'm not sure this is particularly within forum rules?

jeff white wrote:There is the diminishment of the background as parody on contemporary empty ritual and excess.

Okay - where? Where does it say anywhere in the modern lore that Primaris Marines don't take part in the same rituals and practices as their Firstborn brethren?

jeff white wrote:Oh you are not trying to be pleasant Smudge. You are trying to pick a fight. Be honest about this at least... or now does bad faith make you play victim?

Why would I want to pick a fight? I'm trying to understand your dislike of Primaris and blatant double standard you hold them to.

You dislike Primaris for being plain-armoured, but don't dislike normal Marines when they have less ornamentation.
You hate Tacticool, but are fine with Scouts.
You claim that Primaris Marines don't observe proper rituals and rites, but can't/don't provide any evidence to support it!
Why on earth would I care so much to pick a fight?

You seem to be a troll. Shifting points around.

What points have I shifted around? What goalposts have I moved? I've only been asking you questions, and asking why you don't seem to have consistent opinions.

The era is no longer gothic once it advances into a new Renaissance with flying tanks and super thunder I-marines...

Why isn't it Gothic any more? Were tanks even a *part* of the Gothic era? Why would having flying tanks suddenly be the deciding factor? What about the flying speeders and other anti-grav units the Space Marines had? And what do flying tanks have to do with an Intercessor?

If you only hated the tanks, by all means, say that - but not every Primaris Marine is a flying tank. If you have a problem with all of them, point us to the problem, without also incriminating the Firstborn Astartes you claim to love.

jeff white wrote:This is the diminished background imho. A loss imho.

Okay - what part of the background is dimished? Can you point to explicit parts where you feel it is diminished?

flying tanks

Space Marines have had Land Speeders since their inception. The AdMech now also have skimmer tanks. The Custodes have them too. Are they all now heretics and besmirch the lore?

and plasma that doesnt kill you

EVERYONE, including old plasma guns, have this function now. That's not a "Primaris weapons don't overheat" thing, that's a "the game rules now let you fire safe plasma regardless". If Primaris Marines had come out in 7th, their plasma guns would overheat just like everyone else's.

and so polished new restartes shininess when the empire has been on a knifes edge and fading for so long just screams mary sue when the old aesthetic was dirty space crusade with patched ip armor and stretched supply lines or broken due the rift...

Hang on, so now you're saying the old aesthetic WASN'T ornate and majestic and embellished, but was actually "patched up and supply stretched thin"? Those sound like two VERY different things to me.
This brings me to my point - CONSISTENCY. You aren't being consistent.
What is the old aesthetic? Is it dirty, patched up armour? Is it ornate quasi-religious walking churches? Is it okay to be plain armoured? Is it okay to have less armour and wear cloth padding and no helmet, with tacticool pouches and supply kits?

Gadzilla666 wrote: The whole religious angle is bull gak. Many chapters are atheistic. They know that the Emperor was a man, not a god, and don't worship him or pray to their guns. The non cult legions are mostly the same, they don't worship chaos, they merely use it as a tool.

Eh, yes and no. While most Chapters aren't subservient to the Imperial Cult, they are religious. However, their religion comes from more internal Chapter cults and beliefs, and in the form of catachism and in the Emperor and Primarch. They might not see the Emperor as a God, but they do venerate and essentially ask for his blessing. Otherwise, how would Chaplains work? We see plenty of times Space Marines applying oils and unguents and prayers as they prepare their weaponry - ritual actions. Even the most logical and "rational" Chapters still abide by this - even though they don't worship the Emperor as a God, as such.

And no, before anyone say anything, there is no indication that Primaris Marines break this tradition in any way.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nevelon wrote:

 Bellerophon wrote:
I guess I also find it harder than most to let go of the idea that a 40k-era marine battle company is 6 Tactical Squads, 2 Assault Squads and 2 Devastator squads. It's probably better for GW to leave that behind, because the more uncertain chapter organisation we've got now is better for making your collection what you want it to be, rather than what the Codex Astartes wants it to be. Although, I personally wouldn't mix Firstborn and Primaris units. I just think it looks weird. So my Salamanders army is entirely Firstborn. I've got the Primaris from Dark Imperium and Wake the Dead - coincidentally the Primaris sculpts that I like better, so that's handy. But when I finally get around to working on them I'm not going to add them to my Salamanders, I'll make them a different chapter entirely. My Sallies can be slightly historical pre-Gathering Storm, and whatever chapter I pick for the Primaris can be 'current'. But it might be a while, because even though they're my favourite of the Primaris sculpts they don't excite me as much as my other projects.

I feel you on the loss of the coherent battle company. I was shuffling minis around the other day to see what it would take to get a second (mixed) company on the shelf, and the project just kinda petered out. The old format gave you solid goals to strive for. Did I need 6 tactical squads? No way. It’s a rare list that I use 3, and that’s going all the way back to 3rd ed. But do I have 6 on the shelf? Yes. OK, that’s a bit of a lie, I have 9, but 6 are ranked up with the rest of my battle company. But when thinking about what I’d need to buy and build to get another company? No goal, no prize. And no purchases planned. My primaris will just grow organically, unit by unit. If and when I get 100ish guys in roughly a 3:1:1 ratio of basic/fast/shooty they might get moved to their own shelf.

My Primaris homebrew still typically sticks to the Battle Company formula, but in a variant way when it comes to the reserve companies.

I base the Companies on the standard 6x Battleline, 2x Close Support, 2x Fire Support method, and so my Battle Companies are typically your standard Intercessor/Infiltrator core, Inceptor/Reiver/Suppressor Close Support (I count Suppressors as Close Support, given their jump packs), and Aggressor/Hellblaster/Eliminator Fire Support. Nothing too special, that's largely what the Codex outlines.
My Reserve Companies, however, still stick to the general 6:2:2 formula. In my 10th Company, I have it ONLY with Phobos Armour, so 6x Infiltrators, 2x Reivers, and 2x Eliminators. Then, my 8th and 9th Companies take similar approaches, but with the armour type being the determining factor. So, my 9th Company would be 6x Hellblasters, 2x Eliminators and 2x Aggressors, having a mix of Tacticus, Phobos, and Gravis armours.

 jeff white wrote:
It is the fact that science has made plasma foolproof that is further evidence of a Cawlian Renaissance that pushes context out if gothic era.. space crusader aesthetic diminishes as a result... not clear?

EVERYONE'S plasma is safe now. Including Chaos Marines, who Cawl has had no way of helping. It's not some kind of "every plasma gun has been fixed, from plasma pistols to plasma cannons, how dare Cawl do this" - it's just GW changing the rules of their game, in the same way that Overwatch was added between 5th and 6th. There wasn't some kind of revelation between 999.M41 and 999999.M41 where soldiers suddenly realised they could shoot at charging enemies. It's just a sweeping change to the whole ruleset, like how Blasts and Templates don't exist, or how models have Move stats, but no Initiative.

But there is nothing especially ritual holy warrior seeming about tacticool restartes now is there?

It's no different than the bare Tactical Marines or Scouts I've mentioned earlier. We only know those particular models/units are ritualistic holy warriors because we've read the background. Primaris? There's no reason not to believe that they follow all the same conventions - and considering that many Primaris, even Phobos units (like Eliminators), have various trappings and votive markings on them, it's further reinforced that they follow the same creeds and practices as their older brethren.

Private religious practice is difficult to represent and maybe this is why tacticool looks so not space crusadey at all and very techie I-marine instead...

Again, I redirect to the Silver Templars artwork posted in this thread, of an Intercessor decked out in tabards, seals, and hanging bits. That artwork looks more "space-crusadey" than many of the Tactical Marine artworks I've seen.

If your issue is with Phobos not looking "space crusadey", then please understand that Phobos Marines are not the entirety of the Primaris range, and are more akin to Scouts. You wouldn't judge all of the Firstborn from their Scouts. If you have an issue with only the Phobos Marines, make it clear that your issue is with them, and them alone.

Brutus_Apex wrote:

Also, Brutus, seeing as you posted some pictures of "proper Space Marines", what's your opinion on this one?

As you can see, no purity seals, no skulls, no scrolls, banners, pendants, nothing! Well, except for the chest aquila (which most Primaris have) and a teeny scroll on his bolter (which, again, most Primaris have).
So, I guess this isn't a "real Space Marine"?

Personally I do not like it. Way way too bland. And although I recognize that it is an iconic space marine model, I personally would never field one like that. Not in 40K anyway.

Right, thank you. I appreciate your consistency and honesty, and I'm glad you didn't try and excuse this bland Marine just because it's older.

However, I do need to point out that, even though it's bland, it *is* still a Space Marine, and the perfect example of Space Marines not needing to be dressed up to the nines and embellished. In fact, the vast majority of Space Marines core units (Tacticals, Devastators, Assaults, Bikers, etc) have been like this, maybe with a small purity seal here or there, but your basic Space Marines have nearly *always* been like this model. It's only been Veterans and explicitly more blinged up Chapters (like the Black Templars) who go all out on the decorations and ornate markings. Expecting Primaris to suddenly buck that trend when historically Space Marines core units have been on the under-blinged side feels like a strange expectation.

Deathwing knights are more of what I'm looking for.

TBH it's always been a bit of a disappointment to me that standard marines carry bolters instead of chainswords and stormshields.

I highly dislike most of generic space marine range until you start getting into the super ornate stuff. In the past I've used sternguard/vanguard marines just for my basic guys because they have more stuff on them.

Honestly, it sounds more just like you don't really like any outside of Space Marines being ornate, Primaris or not. So when you comment "I hate Primaris, they're not ornate", that's not *really* a Primaris problem, that's just a Space Marine design problem across the majority of the range.
I'm not saying you're not entitled to your own preferences, you absolutely are, and where's the fun in 40k if you can't make and paint and play your models the way you like - but it would be like me saying "I hate the Tau, they don't have any melee, and they're not a human faction".

Basically, Primaris Marines aren't the problem. Your problem is that Space Marines across the board aren't more ornate, but unfortunately, Space Marines do, and have, come in a wide range of styles, from fully embellished to 'tacticool', and GW strike a middle ground in their core Space Marine designs, leaving Marines as empty as possible so players can convert to their hearts content.

The new Primaris stuff is proportionally better, I'll give it that. But there's nothing exciting about them at all. They're so bland.

Again, they're just taking design cues and styles from existing Space Marines. It's not like they're suddenly more bland than everything else. And, as you've said, you feel the same way about bland Firstborn Marines.
It's not a Primaris problem, it's a Bland Marine problem, in your eyes.

I feel like they knocked Sisters of Battle and Custodes out of the park, they just nailed the 40K aesthetic for me there. To see Marines get the opposite treatment has been a huge disappointment for me.

Custodes and Sisters have always been depicted and shown in model form to be ornate. Space Marines, on the other hand, have always had a wide range of looks, from heavily embellished Black Templars, to tacticool Raptors, and GW has consistently depicted their basic units with less ornamentation. At the risk of repeating myself, Primaris don't do anything new here that hasn't already been done. Your problem isn't with Primaris explicitly, it's with Space Marines in general that aren't how you believe they should look.

BaconCatBug wrote:The problem with Primaris is that they are toyetic. Rounded edges, smooth lines. A Mark VII helmet screams brutality, viciousness, and terror. A Mark X helmet (while being a cynical "throwback" to Mark IV I am certain was just coincidence) just isn't the same.

Primaris Marines have all the same smooth lines and rounded edges as regular Mark VIIs. Like, the shoulder pads are the same, arms can be reused with no issue, the general lines and everything simply just in different proportions. I mean, look back at the ETB Tactical Marine I posted earlier - you're telling me that doesn't also have the same edges and lines?
And again, look at this Mark IV Marine - certainly not a million miles away from being a Primaris Marine, yet I don't remember the uproar of "these aren't PROPER Space Marines!!"

Brutus_Apex wrote:

Spoiler:

Honestly, it sounds more just like you don't really like any outside of Space Marines being ornate, Primaris or not. So when you comment "I hate Primaris, they're not ornate", that's not *really* a Primaris problem, that's just a Space Marine design problem across the majority of the range.
I'm not saying you're not entitled to your own preferences, you absolutely are, and where's the fun in 40k if you can't make and paint and play your models the way you like - but it would be like me saying "I hate the Tau, they don't have any melee, and they're not a human faction".

Basically, Primaris Marines aren't the problem. Your problem is that Space Marines across the board aren't more ornate, but unfortunately, Space Marines do, and have, come in a wide range of styles, from fully embellished to 'tacticool', and GW strike a middle ground in their core Space Marine designs, leaving Marines as empty as possible so players can convert to their hearts content.
The new Primaris stuff is proportionally better, I'll give it that. But there's nothing exciting about them at all. They're so bland.
Again, they're just taking design cues and styles from existing Space Marines. It's not like they're suddenly more bland than everything else. And, as you've said, you feel the same way about bland Firstborn Marines.
It's not a Primaris problem, it's a Bland Marine problem, in your eyes.

I feel like they knocked Sisters of Battle and Custodes out of the park, they just nailed the 40K aesthetic for me there. To see Marines get the opposite treatment has been a huge disappointment for me.
Custodes and Sisters have always been depicted and shown in model form to be ornate. Space Marines, on the other hand, have always had a wide range of looks, from heavily embellished Black Templars, to tacticool Raptors, and GW has consistently depicted their basic units with less ornamentation. At the risk of repeating myself, Primaris don't do anything new here that hasn't already been done. Your problem isn't with Primaris explicitly, it's with Space Marines in general that aren't how you believe they should look.

I get that Marines throughout the ages have been different, from spartan to ornate. Throughout 4th and 5th GW really amped up the ornateness in a lot of those models and I started to really like what they were doing. Then they pulled the rug out from under me and gave me Primaris which I think are bland to the point of not looking like they belong in 40K. I thought they might go in the direction they had been heading for about a decade.

Well, I think it just goes to show that there's a lot of different interpretations of what 40k should be, and no real way to appeal to authority on it. Again,look at it the other way - you say that GW pulled the rug out from under you, yet plenty of other people would feel the rug pulled out from them if GW had gone full walking churches aesthetic. End of the day, I maintain that 40k is an excellent IP because of the range it allows. You like tactical, elite, no-nonsense Astartes (like the titular animated work)? That's supported. You like ornate, detailed walking churches and chainswords, like in Death of Hope? That's also supported! With GW taking the more minimal approach with their models, they've given the modelling fans out there a chance to lean whichever way they prefer. Again, it's much much simpler to add to a model than to remove it.

I really want GW to release more of the aesthetic I like, so here's me complaining online in hopes that they will see that some of the community has a taste for that kind of thing.

I mean, fair enough, but in the same vein, there's also a lot of people, myself included, who prefer the cleaner aesthetic, especially on the core infantry.There isn't really a "right" look for Space Marines, beyond them having big round pauldrons and thick vented backpacks and so on, and understandably, I'm going to have a bit of an issue with anyone claiming that there's some kind of "real Space Marine", given how broad that is.

And in my defence, I dislike Primaris for more than just looks. I think they were shoehorned into the fluff badly, and their very existence trivializes the old marines and the HH as a whole.

Their initial explanation? Handled badly, but modern fluff is far more detailed and forgiving.

 techsoldaten wrote:
I don't think GW emphasizes this much with NuMarines, it's not just engravings. We don't see many purity seals in the sculpts, we don't see much parchment or zealous declarations anymore. Seem like we've sacrificed the faith-based part of the lore to pure aspirational science fiction, which is part of why NuMarines don't do it for me.

What about these? I'm sure if I looked, I'd also find plenty of Firstborn Marines with very little devotional scripts and parchment.

techsoldaten wrote:To those saying gothic armor was not part of the brand - sure, there's examples that don't incorporate it. There's also examples that do. It captured my imagination at an early age and it's still part of how I think about Space Marines.

Just because it's not part of every model doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The style seems to be absent from NuMarines and I feel like that's a loss.

By that same logic, all the plain armoured Marines, just because it's not part of every model, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't say "well not all Space Marines have gothic armour BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT STILL EXISTS", when the same argument can be used to support blank armour.

Sorry, but it's an argument in bad faith if you're just going to cherry pick from the VAST range of what Space Marines have been depicted as. Space Marines are elite, tactical supersoldiers, with high tech equipment and equipment pouches. Space Marines are also robed, hooded knights with shields and power swords. Space Marines are also runic barbarians, helmetless and bearded with feral glory. Space Marines are also fiercely religious and impractical. Space Marines are also tactically gifted and have the capability to attack in multiple styles depending on the most tactically efficient route.
Are these contradictory? YES! But that's what being a Space Marine *is*, and for anyone to claim with any degree of authority beyond their own biases what a "Real Space Marine" is beyond the very basic core ideas (that being power armour, genetically enhanced, and incredibly skilled and brave warriors) is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You can't claim that one single feature or even aesthetic is core to the Space Marines when you also admit that not every Space Marine HAS that feature or aesthetic. I appreciate that you have a favourite, that the gothic armour captured your imagination - but that doesn't mean that your narrow view of Space Marines defines it for everyone else.

BaconCatBug wrote:This is 40k.

Spoiler:

This is an Marvel Comic Supersoldier with Mary Sue powers.

Spoiler:

It might be hard to put into words, but the difference is there.

What about these two Marines? They have far more in common with Mr "Mary Sue" over here than Blanche's work. What say you on them?
Conversely, what about these pictures?
Full of religious iconography, menacing, with foreboding landscapes and skulls and ruins afoot. Compared to the artwork and models I've posted earlier, in what good conscience can you say that these are any less 40k?

Also, are you actually familiar with Marvel Comics? Because that Primaris Marine looks nothing like a Marvel-styled anything. In fact, it doesn't look like anything other than a 40k design. Like I've asked plenty of people before you, do a DETAILED breakdown of the Primaris aesthetic that makes it more like other IPs than 40k (as in, not more modern relative to other 40k designs, but actually closer to non-40k designs than it is itself to 40k). I'll wait.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Amazingly there was this thing called "Worldbuilding" and "Imagination", before GW decided that not only was it No Model, No Rules, it was No Model, No Artwork.

Strange, how do the Silver Templars covered in all their robes and decorations and suchlike have models?

If you were trying to disprove Primaris Marines as literally Toyetic, you did a bad job there.

Come on, you've not explained how Mr Squat Marine with his clean, featureless armour isn't exactly as toyetic as the Primaris.

I'm not making any comment on if the Primaris are toyetic or not. I'm making comment that any design feature or complaint you can level at the Primaris, I can apply to the old marines too (save for one, proportion - and even then, the SM Heroes range takes steps to alleviate that too).

BaconCatBug wrote:Also, did you miss the part where I said 40k used to embrace world-building and imagination rather than click together duplo toys? 40k is not meant to be easy-to-build Mary Sue Marines, but sadly that is what GW have turned it into in the drive for profit.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you know that ETB Space Marines (and in fact many factions, such as Cadians, Eldar, Tyranids, Ork and Chaos) have existed LONG before Primaris? I know, about a third of my Cadians are made up of those snap-together models.
Huh. Would you look at that - aside from ONE MODEL with a purity seal, they have absolutely no parchment, no skulls, no chains, ropes or any kind of decoration!

Consistent arguments please!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Come on, you've not explained how Mr Squat Marine with his clean, featureless armour isn't exactly as toyetic as the Primaris.

I'm not making any comment on if the Primaris are toyetic or not. I'm making comment that any design feature or complaint you can level at the Primaris, I can apply to the old marines too (save for one, proportion - and even then, the SM Heroes range takes steps to alleviate that too).

It's the Stewart Test.

"I know it if I see it"? So, completely subjective, and entirely useless at the level of debate I expected from you?

Try again.

jeff white wrote:Some posters focus on the models and from there the game as if the only evidence is in physical models.

If that wasn't the concern, why would you make comments about the models then?
Don't bring something in to the argument if you're not going to defend it. Either the models ARE relevant, or they're not.

Anyways where do my dudes fit into this context? They see restartes for what they are. Heresy.

Your dudes seeing Primaris as heresy? You're welcome to it. But the whole "for what they are", like you can definitely prove that they are heresy objectively? You've been utterly unable to prove your argument beyond empty gestures to some perceived authority and superiority.

Vaktathi wrote:I think the issue may not be so much in the accessorizing.

The old marines look like something out of the Heavy Metal animated movie, they're much more animation and comic art given form.

Really? Look at the pictures I've been posting here - can you really tell me that the squatting Marines I've just posted have more animation and comic art than some of the Primaris art and sculpts? If that really is the case that you feel that way, fair enough, but I don't share that opinion at all.

The Primaris marines on the other hand, by dint of being more realistically scaled, have less of that fantastical edge (they're still very fantastical, don't get me wrong), and a lot of the game art has gone this route as well. With the shift in GW's art styling over the last few years, new generations of artists and significantly more (almost exclusively) computer assisted depictions, coupled with the scale change and more realistic stylings, it kinda gives everything a different flavor. Less proudly defiant striking metal-band poses, more "tacticool" poses.

Again, look at the oldMarines I've just posted, and been posting repeatedly - where are these "proudly defiant metal band poses"? On a select handful of models, sure, but not the whole range! And again, there's been plenty of similarly posed Primaris heroes!

I'm not saying Primaris are flawless. I'm saying that any sins the Primaris are guilty of (barring being better proportioned) the old Marines are too, and it feels like an argument in bad faith to ignore that.

We can use these earlier examples to illustrate it

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
What about these two Marines?

Spoiler:

Conversely, what about these pictures?

Spoiler:

The very bottom pic could basically be a thinly reskinned Call of Duty game cover

How? And, more importantly, why not this one too? Please, like I've asked plenty of other folks, how me a CoD cover and compare them side by side. They look nothing alike! And, at the same time, show how the other art I've just posted wouldn't also fit that.

and it's not really due to anything different about the marines equipment or decoration. The more realistic interpretation, as expressed in both the art and the models, definitely changes the flavor. There's often either significantly less color or a wash of one and fewer contrasts, and a darker tone in general. (I actually quite like that Space Wolves picture however)

But there's plenty of Firstborn Marine art that shares that same colour style and "realistic" art design. At the risk of repeating myself it's not exclusive to Primaris.
If someone has a problem with, say, art design post 1990, SAY THAT, not "Primaris suck". If someone has a problem with Space Marines not being walking cathedrals, SAY THAT, instead of "Primaris suck". That way, we all get a better idea of where the problem lies, and know it's not just some irrational hatred of models that otherwise barely look any different from classic Astartes.

Using some of the previous examples, we can look at this same trend with videogames, Duke Nukem 3D and CoD

Spoiler:

I think a lot of us underestimate how much of the classic Space Marine look and feel was tied to that fundamental 80's/90's Blanchian aesthetic. Whether that is good or bad is going to be entirely subjective. I enjoy the larger scale of the Primaris marines in many ways, the models themselves are marvelous from a technical perspective, but at the same time, they really do feel less "40k" in some hard to explain way (and their hamfisted background is awful, but we'll ignore that for now).

I don't see anything of Blanche in those squat monopose blank armoured Space Marines. But they're still Space Marines, still recognisably so, and despite not looking like that classic artwork, I don't hear any kind of uproar about "NOT REAL MARINES".
If I did hear that, I'd actually have a lot more sympathy and respect for the people who so vocally oppose Primaris, because they'd at least be consistent. So, when Brutus actually said that they didn't like blank Marines, Primaris or not, I finally understood their point better, because they were being consistent and not just pointing at Primaris alone and being blind to everything else. And so even though I may have disagreed with them on how blinged up a Space Marine should look, at least I know that they're being consistent.
And, as for the examples, aside from the red background, I don't see any artistic similarity to Nukem on that first Space Marine, and aside from a similar pose, I don't see any similarity between the Primaris and CoD. Could you break the analysis down further on them, because I'm not seeing it.

the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, so if I want to make a primaris marine that looks like a classic marine all I have to do is

step 1 - buy a classic marine kit

step 2 - buy a primaris kit

it's really that easy! DDDDDDDDDDDDDD

If you like classic Marines, odds are you already had some. If you already had some, you almost certainly have spare bits. If you don't have spare bits, you almost certainly know someone else who does, given the popularity of Space Marines. If you don't even have that, Primaris Marine kits come with plenty of purity seals, alternative shoulder pads, shields, and hanging relics. And if that doesn't work for you, there's always bits sellers.
But, more on the idea of "GW should make the kit contain everything I want to fulfil all my personal aesthetic desires perfectly!", does that mean that I should have loads of human heads and lasgun arms in a Tau Fire Warrior box, in case I want to make Gue'Vesa?

Templarted wrote:
Only people invested in the hobby could tell the difference between old tactical marines and new primaris. Also what’s wrong with ETB models they’ve been around forever.

I would be super interested to do some kind of social experiment where people who've never seen 40k before and have no real idea of the setting/lore and see just how many of them actually notice major differences between the old marines and Primaris, and more importantly, if they can identify that the Primaris comes from 40k, instead of things like Halo or CoD.

Also why are people so terrified of the aesthetic changing (except it hasn’t) 40k? The only major difference is putting scopes on weapons and giving them proportions that don’t make them look stumpy.

Even the scopes have been around longer than Primaris! There were removable scopes on 5th edition Tacticals, and units like Sternguard Veterans have scoped bolters too!

 techsoldaten wrote:

By that same logic, all the plain armoured Marines, just because it's not part of every model, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't say "well not all Space Marines have gothic armour BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT STILL EXISTS", when the same argument can be used to support blank armour.

"By that same logic"

I see no logic to what you have said, just attempts to change the subject and make it look like you have some point by insulting everyone until they no longer care to talk to you.

Changing the subject? I've been consistently asking questions that no-one has answered, and instead move the goalposts. Don't accuse people of changing the topic when you won't answer questions I've consistently been putting in your court.

Gothic armor has been part of the brand since the earliest days of 40k. This is not an argument, this is a fact.

I'm not denying that. But tell me what's gothic about the ETB old Marines I've been posting.
Flat, curved armour. No ornamentation. The same complaints levelled at Primaris Marines. Care to explain why?

All I'm asking for is a degree of consistency. Show me why flat, easy build, unadorned old Marines are widely accepted, but Primaris Marines, who have plenty of their own ornamentation and "gothic" art aren't.

Here are early examples many people recognize as gothic armor. I can pull hundreds more from various editions and tie them to specific models.









No one is arguing this is the only style of armor. You are making that up.

Disagree. Check my spoiler tag.
That's a lot of people saying that certain armours supposedly aren't valid. Gothic styled armour is but one of several. So, as much as you can link to art styles that support gothic, there's plenty of art styles that support plainer Marines and even Primaris styles.

Everything else you said is garbage. Stop wasting everyone's time.

Answer my questions first. Shouldn't be hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blood reaper wrote:I treat different marine models like armour marks. My squads have models that range from second edition to eighth mixed together - Warhammer is not a clean universe and given its scale and scope, Marines will almost certainly vary radically given the length and breadth of their combat and experiences. It makes the units way more fun to look at, and feels almost 'historical'.

Exactly. There's isn't a single definitive "true" Space Marine design, beyond chunky bolters and big curved pauldrons.

Also feth spending £35 on ten models with less options than the previous, cheaper kit.

Now THAT'S a take I can understand. Although, in all fairness, the Tactical Squad kit before the current one was also cheaper than the current one.

techsoldaten wrote:"And yet the models from the same era are plain and unadorned except for the Tac-cool items some people donl tlike on the new models" - no. This is not true.

You are overgeneralizing to pretend to have a point and clearly know very little about the Rogue Trader era. Look at the World Eaters from Realm of Chaos, look at the color pages from the original 40k book for examples of ample adornment.

All well and good, but there's been decades since RT. What about all those Tactical Marines I've been posting earlier in the thread who has no ornamentation?

It's almost like there's a great range of aesthetics, of which RT is one of several.

the_scotsman wrote:Marines are and always have been a starter army. By your logic, female imperial guard armies are not needed because people should have plenty of female heads they can use from their bits box.

There's a very big difference between the sheer numbers of spare scrolls, seals and trinkets from a Space Marine kit and spare female heads. In fact, can you actually name a kit with *spare* female heads? Sisters of Battle, perhaps, but they don't easily fit guardsman bodies. And, unlike just getting Space Marine bits from other Space Marine boxes, Sisters are a totally different faction to Guardsmen.

the_scotsman wrote:You've attached a picture of the assembly instructions for what, if I remember right, was the 2nd edition starter kit? From like 20+ years ago. VERY damning evidence that modern kits were non-poseable

Then what about the snapfit Space Marines that, up until recently, were still available all through 7th? They were literally three pieces, IIRC - the body, the backpack, and the gun. The ones I posted earlier?

Easy building kits has been around long before Primaris, and long after 2nd edition.

To me, it's the fact that Primaris have gone from an imperial style special and heavy weapons and sergeant weapons option scheme to more of a necron-style "all the guys have the same gun" upgrade scheme, and that they all wear the same armor mark, have the same helmets, etc.

They have shoulder pad differences, just like the Tacticals. The basic Tactical Squad kit only has a beaky head or two, alongside the vast amount of Mark VII helms, with no trace of older Marks. And sure, you have some chest variation and legs (only really Marks IV and VI though, nothing older than Mark IV), but that's also a relatively new addition. In the Tactical Squad kits I remember prior to this current one, there wasn't even Mark IV parts, only a majority of VII and a single Mark VI here and there. The vast majority of Tactical Squad bits have been Mark VII, so it's not like squads were this super varied mix. More than Primaris? Yes, but not THAT much.

Also, what about Legion Marines? They had mono-gun loadouts - were they not Space Marines?

Space Marines have always had some models and ranges that looked basic and clean, some that looked modern and tactical, and some that looked gothic and grimdark.

Absolutely, and anyone saying that any of those aesthetics was wrong (looking at everyone who's complained about basic and tacticool "not being Space Marine-y) just isn't correct.

The argument here is that OUT OF THE ACTUAL KITS GW HAS RELEASED FOR PRIMARIS, not kitbashes with older classic marine kits, not with custom-made greenstuff bits or 3rd party 3d printed stuff, you will have a very difficult time making gothic, barbaric or grimdark looking primaris space marines.

Perhaps. But at the same time, in previous kits, Marines have also been very bare. Look at the 2nd ed stuff: and the Tactical I remember from around I started weren't particularly gothic, barbaric or grimdark either. It's almost like GW has never really matched the aesthetic of many of their art styles, and have nearly always settled on a more basic, stripped back look for their core Marines.

If your complaint extends to those models too, to those snapfits and bland looking Tacticals I've mentioned above, then I appreciate the consistency and willingness to complain about the old Marines too. This isn't a Primaris exclusive problem.

They have released a couple of models that fit that look, I think the primaris chaplain was shown earlier and there are the two dudes that come with Calgar,

People who got into marines for that aesthetic are going to be annoyed at the removal of chainswords, storm shields, lightning claws, robes and tabards, power mauls, etc from the marine range.

Primaris have chainswords, which can be bought from upgrade packs. And again, most of those features weren't present on tactical squad kits, or assault squads or similar, for that matter. If you wanted your Tacticals with robes and tabards, you needed to go elsewhere beyond the main box. If you wanted lightning claws, power mauls and storm shields, you needed dedicated kits for it, because, as many people have said, the core Space Marine units have historically been very bland. And while I do recognise that those weapons don't show up on Primaris units (at least, in any regularity), saying that they were readily available on old ones is a misrepresentation.

Mr Morden wrote:Lets be polite here: Say they go against the design paradim for marines is misleading at the very best as has been proved numerous times trhougout this discussion.

Absolutely, 100%.