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.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

opponents are causing bs arguments, that's not the system's fault.
Extra charts, really? Is memorising that armor goes from 10 to 14 is difficult for somebody? Is the game supposed to be by infants with no mental capacity?
Excludigng the point of how dumb having no armor values is, they could have still done facings using toughness with like a penalty if you are shooting from the side or rear. But nope, let's just throw the system out of the window, because less tactics is more fun!

You really think thats what im saying?

it is the systems fault for being loosy goosy with the concept allowing the gak situations to happen. same deal with all the abuse cases
Im not saying memorizing charts is hard. its not. but it IS having 2 different systems in a game and trying to balance both properly is a lot of extra work for basically no reward.

they decided the bloat was not worth trying to sift through so they rebuilt EVERYTHING from the ground up gak had to go and im glad they went that route.

Every system is gonna allow gak to happen. Sure, in some situations would have used clarifications but that is not justifying destroying the whole thing.
Oh, wow. More than 1 system is hard. So having psychic phase, saves, to wound, to hit charts, charging and overwatch is fine, but having armor suddenly makes it a broken bloated mess? Yeah sure.

I fail to see how removing one of the few things that forced tactical desicions and actual flanking in a game where 90% of the time units move toward/away or objective is somehow a good thing.
Believing that every moronic decision on GW's part is a part of a great master plan to magically fix everything and therefore justified is a wishful thinking at best. GW in no way deserves the benefit of the doubt, not with their reputation.

tactical decisions? is that why people were spamming tanks in 7th? it was a massive weak link in the system and didnt mesh well glad its gone. and im glad they blew up the whole thing. it had absolutely no redeeming features.

40k's version of going AoS wasn't to blow up the universe, just the rules.

So Guilliman is gonna do "Codex: Astartes 2nd edition". It only took him 10.000 years.

I expect for him to fix the Space Wolves. They are so OP, they only have exceptions to the rules all the others follow.

They left the universe mostly in tact and took the parts they liked from AoS and mixed them with 2nd edition 40k. To get a kind of neat hybrid system. We will have to see it in play to actually make real decision on if it fixed the major issues.

My guess is it will have created new issues and completely killed off the old ones. After the first few months players will have the meta down on what works and what doesn't.

 Galas wrote:
So Guilliman is gonna do "Codex: Astartes 2nd edition". It only took him 10.000 years.

I expect for him to fix the Space Wolves. They are so OP, they only have exceptions to the rules all the others follow.

Still faster then finishing the Game of Thrones series. :p

If you wanted to make vehicle facing simple to determine, you could just use Flame's of war's system, where you draw a line across the front of the tank (or the tips of the wave serpent's prongs, for those of you obsessed with that), in front of that is front, anywhere else is "side", and close combat uses "top". If you wanted to keep the system of toughness and wounds you could simply give vehicles a "threshold" meaning that shooting below a certain strength could not penetrate at all. It would speed up the game, since now you have to sit there and roll a pile of dice to try to put a couple of wounds through. It wouldn't have used more than a page or two.
To be fair, 40K hasn't really ever had that great a tactical system, but this this is a step in the wrong direction.

Youn wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Thank you, Matt !
So, casualities aren't directionnal anymore ? Casualities are choosen by the owner ? It seems less tactical too, doesn't it ?

Actually, that is a huge advantage for the owning player. Remember overflow wounds just kills a model quicker it doesn't overflow to the next model.

Example:
Five man strike squad charge a pack of chaos terminators. They each swing twice and hit once each. A total of 4 wounds get through with a force weapons for 1, 1, 2, 2, wounds. Now, it's the chaos players turn to allocate out those wounds. The chaos player chooses to allocate out those wounds as 1,2,1,2. Then rolls the saves. If he fails all saves his 2 wound terminators take 1 wound then 2 wounds and dies, then the second one takes 1 wound and 2 wounds and dies.

The chaos player only loses two terminators instead of three on those wound because he gets to choose how those wounds are allocated.

That's not gonna work because you won't roll for damage until after saves, just like AoS. So you'll just have 4 wounding hits you'll have to save, won't make a difference which order you take them in. Any wounding hits you fail to save will then do D3 wound.

 kestral wrote:
If you wanted to make vehicle facing simple to determine, you could just use Flame's of war's system, where you draw a line across the front of the tank (or the tips of the wave serpent's prongs, for those of you obsessed with that), in front of that is front, anywhere else is "side", and close combat uses "top". If you wanted to keep the system of toughness and wounds you could simply give vehicles a "threshold" meaning that shooting below a certain strength could not penetrate at all. It would speed up the game, since now you have to sit there and roll a pile of dice to try to put a couple of wounds through. It wouldn't have used more than a page or two.
To be fair, 40K hasn't really ever had that great a tactical system, but this this is a step in the wrong direction.

I disagree. Flame of War doesn't have giant space ants to murderlate, thus doesn't work as a perfect comparison of "better".

We have a weird mix between vehicles and big stompy things and it makes balance more difficult when they have different systems. Giving the big stompy things AV values doesn't work from a logical stand point, so they went the other way.

 kestral wrote:
If you wanted to make vehicle facing simple to determine, you could just use Flame's of war's system, where you draw a line across the front of the tank (or the tips of the wave serpent's prongs, for those of you obsessed with that), in front of that is front, anywhere else is "side", and close combat uses "top". If you wanted to keep the system of toughness and wounds you could simply give vehicles a "threshold" meaning that shooting below a certain strength could not penetrate at all. It would speed up the game, since now you have to sit there and roll a pile of dice to try to put a couple of wounds through. It wouldn't have used more than a page or two.
To be fair, 40K hasn't really ever had that great a tactical system, but this this is a step in the wrong direction.

then again thats only if you are working on killing it with a bunch of chump weapons. it seems like legit anti tank fire will get through it relatively ok. meaning people will have to make though full well balanced lists to cover there bases. not that niche or spam tactics wont work. we dont know that one yet.

Breng77 wrote:
Dumbing down is an idea that stems from the idea that complicated rules mean more meaningful tactical play. I'm not sure I agree, I think the opposite is often true, because the more complex the rules the more winning relies on who has a better understanding of the rules than who plays better.

Dropfleet Commander and SW: Armada show that complexity is not needed for a good game that makes things interesting.

Primaris Marines can be made from preexisting Marines.

So you're saying that the Games Workshop Adeptus Astartes, as a company branch of the Imperium, can phase out standard Space Marines miniatures, over a period of years?

 NivlacSupreme wrote:
I don't have many Blood Angels. Next week I was going to order enough to do a Demi Company. Not any more!

Looking at the BA upgrade sprue the only bits not usable on the spacecasts will be the bodys (assuming the hands stay the same size and you're ok with MK7 heads on MK10 armor). I sort of want to stick the Death Mask, chalice and backpack decoration on that commander guy because he isn't pimped enough for my tastes.

Or they'll release new upgrade sprues (Death Company?) and make nipple armor for the spacecasts which I want really badly.

I miss my Blood Falcons... But alas, my reconstituted Vesh’yo Sept Tau will be amazing. I am doing what you are doing and getting a decent force put together. Getting some Crisis Suits, Firewarriors, some kits (pathfinder+Devilfish sounds good) and maybe a Riptide for funsy.

The whole edition is great so far. Lack of balance drove me away, balance is bringing me bacm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Primaris Marines can be made from preexisting Marines.

So you're saying that the Games Workshop Adeptus Astartes, as a company branch of the Imperium, can phase out standard Space Marines miniatures, over a period of years?

*cough* Upgrade

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

opponents are causing bs arguments, that's not the system's fault.
Extra charts, really? Is memorising that armor goes from 10 to 14 is difficult for somebody? Is the game supposed to be by infants with no mental capacity?
Excludigng the point of how dumb having no armor values is, they could have still done facings using toughness with like a penalty if you are shooting from the side or rear. But nope, let's just throw the system out of the window, because less tactics is more fun!

You really think thats what im saying?

it is the systems fault for being loosy goosy with the concept allowing the gak situations to happen. same deal with all the abuse cases
Im not saying memorizing charts is hard. its not. but it IS having 2 different systems in a game and trying to balance both properly is a lot of extra work for basically no reward.

they decided the bloat was not worth trying to sift through so they rebuilt EVERYTHING from the ground up gak had to go and im glad they went that route.

Every system is gonna allow gak to happen. Sure, some situations a bit of clarification would have been nice but that is not justifying destroying the whole thing.
Oh, wow. More than 1 system is hard. So having psychic phase, saves, to wound, to hit charts, charging and overwatch is fine, but having armor suddenly makes it a broken bloated mess? Yeah sure.

I fail to see how removing one of the few things that forced tactical desicions and actual flanking in a game where 90% of the time units move toward/away of an enemy or objective is somehow a good thing.
Believing that every moronic decision on GW's part is a part of a great master plan to magically fix everything and therefore justified is a wishful thinking at best. GW in no way deserves the benefit of the doubt, not with their reputation.

Armor values didn't force any kind of tactical decision. You simply deep struck a unit behind or to the side of it and melta'd it. There was no more tactics to that scenario then placing your long range heavy weapons on an elevated position in cover. It's just 'what you do'. The reality is, many of the things some people consider 'tactics' in this game are simply the most effective way of dealing with a given situation. Those aren't necessarily tactics. Tactics are when you can bait an enemy vehicle out of a solid firing position that covers his weaker armor so you can effectively deal with it. Or sacrificing a unit to an enemy CC unit to pull them closer to you and further away from them so you can engage them with little fear of reprisal from the rest of his army.

Deep Striking or Outflanking a suicide melta unit into their back lines is not some fantastic 'tactical decision' on your part. It is simply the most efficient way to handle a situation. I mean, I love my hexa-fusion crisis suit bomb as much as the next Tau player, but I don't delude myself that I'm some strategic Einstein because I appear and pop a rhino/razorback or two.

 gainsay wrote:

this was my thinking until pete said on the stream that the other chapter guys can be juiced up to a primis marine. So its obvious they will be updating everything over time. All I am saying if you're going to do it anyways just do it and dont mess with the lore just because you're trying to cover up upsetting customers.

I think you missed the point.


If they updated just a part of the marine range, we're left with armies that are wildly out of scale internally. Giant Tactical Marines and whatever other kits they can squeeze into the initial release, and everyone else still being the current size. And poor Azrael looking even less awe-inspiring than ever before...


By adding the Claytons Marines as a separate unit, albeit with fairly lame fluff (which seems to be par for the course these days anyway) they can slowly drip-feed out upgrades and expansions alongside the existing range without having to completely invalidate that existing range overnight. And then once they've sold through the backlog of existing marine kits, and produced enough of a range of new kits (by which point the majority of players with the older models either have full armies or have left the hobby) they just quietly drop the old stuff and the new embigged guys become the 'standard'.


It's playing the long game, and it's actually a reasonably clever way of going about it.


It's still scale creep, though, so I'm predisposed to hate the models on a cellular level. Same thing killed my interest in starting Infinity, despite some of the cracking sculpts in their range.

 MLaw wrote:
I am actually at a loss. I am looking in my copy of Freebooterz, which I have thought for the longest time was 2nd ed.. and that's how the Dreadnought on p46 is listed. It has a toughness of 5. However, I am seeing for 2nd ed datacards and they are showing armor values per limb. I came in after 2nd ed (late in 3rd) and got into 2nd later.. so this is a bit of a puzzle for me.

Freebooterz was a Rogue Trader book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Flame of War doesn't have giant space ants to murderlate,....

Which seems like a clear and obvious oversight, frankly.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

opponents are causing bs arguments, that's not the system's fault.
Extra charts, really? Is memorising that armor goes from 10 to 14 is difficult for somebody? Is the game supposed to be by infants with no mental capacity?
Excludigng the point of how dumb having no armor values is, they could have still done facings using toughness with like a penalty if you are shooting from the side or rear. But nope, let's just throw the system out of the window, because less tactics is more fun!

You really think thats what im saying?

it is the systems fault for being loosy goosy with the concept allowing the gak situations to happen. same deal with all the abuse cases
Im not saying memorizing charts is hard. its not. but it IS having 2 different systems in a game and trying to balance both properly is a lot of extra work for basically no reward.

they decided the bloat was not worth trying to sift through so they rebuilt EVERYTHING from the ground up gak had to go and im glad they went that route.

Every system is gonna allow gak to happen. Sure, some situations a bit of clarification would have been nice but that is not justifying destroying the whole thing.
Oh, wow. More than 1 system is hard. So having psychic phase, saves, to wound, to hit charts, charging and overwatch is fine, but having armor suddenly makes it a broken bloated mess? Yeah sure.

I fail to see how removing one of the few things that forced tactical desicions and actual flanking in a game where 90% of the time units move toward/away of an enemy or objective is somehow a good thing.
Believing that every moronic decision on GW's part is a part of a great master plan to magically fix everything and therefore justified is a wishful thinking at best. GW in no way deserves the benefit of the doubt, not with their reputation.

No it f****** didn't. All you did was D-shot them out or charge them with Krak Grenades. Vehicles didn't cause tactical decision because they sucked so bad no one used them unless they were FREE.

 MLaw wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 MLaw wrote:

You do know that most of the stuff that has armor values now would've had a toughness value in 2nd edition instead right?

Wasn't it vice versa? Bikes, Wraithguard and even Cyborks had armour values.

I am actually at a loss. I am looking in my copy of Freebooterz, which I have thought for the longest time was 2nd ed.. and that's how the Dreadnought on p46 is listed. It has a toughness of 5. However, I am seeing for 2nd ed datacards and they are showing armor values per limb. I came in after 2nd ed (late in 3rd) and got into 2nd later.. so this is a bit of a puzzle for me.
...which.. actually illustrates my point a bit I think. I'm pretty sure the people who were, at some point use to Dreadnoughts having a T value.. were as miffed about the transition to AVs as I was about vehicles getting Hull Points. Ultimately, IMO.. it's a game.. if the rules are consistent then who cares what you call the number that tells you how hard the armor is to crack?

I totally agree. I started in 2nd edition but bought some (well... all) 1st edition books later. In the Vehicle Manual even the Carnifex/Screamer Killer had armour values. He didn't had those before and lost them in 2nd edition.... I'm okay with the new rules and the idea isn't really that new - Jervis published something like that in the Citadel Journal for 2nd edition.

 insaniak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Flame of War doesn't have giant space ants to murderlate,....

Which seems like a clear and obvious oversight, frankly.

Indeed. I love 40k's variety in the kind of things you can play, fight and murderlate.

Historical based wargames just don't fill that niche in my nerdy little black heart.

Wowza, they're some serious anger being thrown around here!

I mean 'text' anger, but still the temperature is getting up.

As for vehicles, they did allow TACTICS but the main gameplay bonus was maneuvering! That's what the different facings where for, that's what STUNNED and WEAPON DESTROYED where for.

There will now be a large loss of those awesome moments where your single surviving Guardsmen takes out a charging Chaos Defiler with a missile launcher.

With these new rules you have to take something down to a low wound count before using one of your "Damage X" weapons.

It sucks. That's opinion on them, I feel the studio dropped the ball on that one and didn't turn on the landing lights when it came time to land.

@Vyrce: Since when where the vehicle rules considered bloat? Damn, I've played 4 editions of 40k and never heard someone say that the vehicle rules are unnecessary.
But why improve things when you can just throw them out, eh?

It's 5th Edition all over again!

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Flame of War doesn't have giant space ants to murderlate,....

Which seems like a clear and obvious oversight, frankly.

Indeed. I love 40k's variety in the kind of things you can play, fight and murderlate.

Historical based wargames just don't fill that niche in my nerdy little black heart.

Team yankee is silly fun. though wish they would explore more of the what ifs. like a slightly toned down verson of red alert. though this going way OT

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

opponents are causing bs arguments, that's not the system's fault.
Extra charts, really? Is memorising that armor goes from 10 to 14 is difficult for somebody? Is the game supposed to be by infants with no mental capacity?
Excludigng the point of how dumb having no armor values is, they could have still done facings using toughness with like a penalty if you are shooting from the side or rear. But nope, let's just throw the system out of the window, because less tactics is more fun!

You really think thats what im saying?

it is the systems fault for being loosy goosy with the concept allowing the gak situations to happen. same deal with all the abuse cases
Im not saying memorizing charts is hard. its not. but it IS having 2 different systems in a game and trying to balance both properly is a lot of extra work for basically no reward.

they decided the bloat was not worth trying to sift through so they rebuilt EVERYTHING from the ground up gak had to go and im glad they went that route.

Every system is gonna allow gak to happen. Sure, in some situations would have used clarifications but that is not justifying destroying the whole thing.
Oh, wow. More than 1 system is hard. So having psychic phase, saves, to wound, to hit charts, charging and overwatch is fine, but having armor suddenly makes it a broken bloated mess? Yeah sure.

I fail to see how removing one of the few things that forced tactical desicions and actual flanking in a game where 90% of the time units move toward/away or objective is somehow a good thing.
Believing that every moronic decision on GW's part is a part of a great master plan to magically fix everything and therefore justified is a wishful thinking at best. GW in no way deserves the benefit of the doubt, not with their reputation.

tactical decisions? is that why people were spamming tanks in 7th? it was a massive weak link in the system and didnt mesh well glad its gone. and im glad they blew up the whole thing. it had absolutely no redeeming features.

Are you actually taking a piss right now? Tanks were spammed in 7th? Not MC's, not GC's, not psykers/bikes/jetbikes/grav centurions, but tanks? Are we at calling black white point already?
BTW, nice "ur wrong im right" argument.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:


Are you actually taking a piss right now? Tanks were spammed in 7th? Not MC's, not GC's, not psykers/bikes/jetbikes/grav centurions, but tanks? Are we at calling black white point already?
BTW, nice "ur wrong im right" argument.

You ok bud you seem upset.

it took vehicles becoming literally free for them to be used in any sort of non dicking around setting.

what on earth are you even on about.

 RedSarge wrote:

As for vehicles, they did allow TACTICS but the main gameplay bonus was maneuvering! That's what the different facings where for, that's what STUNNED and WEAPON DESTROYED where for.

There will now be a large loss of those awesome moments where your single surviving Guardsmen takes out a charging Chaos Defiler with a missile launcher.

Well, sure... but they've been replaced by those awesome moments where your single surviving Chimera does a backflip and kicks the Daemon Prince in the danglies, so ... woo!

 insaniak wrote:

 RedSarge wrote:

As for vehicles, they did allow TACTICS but the main gameplay bonus was maneuvering! That's what the different facings where for, that's what STUNNED and WEAPON DESTROYED where for.

There will now be a large loss of those awesome moments where your single surviving Guardsmen takes out a charging Chaos Defiler with a missile launcher.

Well, sure... but they've been replaced by those awesome moments where your single surviving Chimera does a backflip and kicks the Daemon Prince in the danglies, so ... woo!

More like spins in place and runs over his small toe claw.

Going to a tournament on the weekend, prob last few 7th games i'm gonna play...

looking over the lists i feel a tiny bit bad for the page after page of rhino - 0pts

We are just returning to somethin like the original Rogue Trader vehicle stats

So then a Land Raider was

Move 20", Transport: 10, Toughness 8, Damage 30, Armour 5+, 2 Lascannons and 1 Bolter

Autodrive and Targeters

 Mr Morden wrote:
We are just returning to somethin like the original Rogue Trader vehicle stats

So then a Land Raider was

Move 20", Transport: 10, Toughness 8, Damage 30, Armour 5+, 2 Lascannons and 1 Bolter

Autodrive and Targeters

My guess is that it will be either T8 with a 2+ save or T9 with a 3+ save. I'm guessing between 15 and 18 wounds (it's got to outclass the Russ's 12 wounds).

Dunno what the new turn radius will be ( )

 insaniak wrote:

 RedSarge wrote:

As for vehicles, they did allow TACTICS but the main gameplay bonus was maneuvering! That's what the different facings where for, that's what STUNNED and WEAPON DESTROYED where for.

There will now be a large loss of those awesome moments where your single surviving Guardsmen takes out a charging Chaos Defiler with a missile launcher.

Well, sure... but they've been replaced by those awesome moments where your single surviving Chimera does a backflip and kicks the Daemon Prince in the danglies, so ... woo!

Nobody remember the history of that Land Raider possesed by his own Machine Spirit that killed hundreds of Orks yelling "FOR THE EMPEROR!" with his speakers? It ended killing the Ork Warboss when he opened hitself simulating his "death", and after the Orks entered inside to loot him, he just closed the door and exploded.

Pedro Kantor recovered his registry and now the Crimson Fist have it as a Empire Hero.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Rynn%27s_Might

Baneblade WS 5+ S9 Wounds? 30? 35? Toughness? ... hmm... 9.. yup, nine!

Destroying weapons on my superheavy? YOU FOOL!

Shake the crew? Stop my constant barrage of Heavy Bolter fire? Nope.

 Vryce wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

opponents are causing bs arguments, that's not the system's fault.
Extra charts, really? Is memorising that armor goes from 10 to 14 is difficult for somebody? Is the game supposed to be by infants with no mental capacity?
Excludigng the point of how dumb having no armor values is, they could have still done facings using toughness with like a penalty if you are shooting from the side or rear. But nope, let's just throw the system out of the window, because less tactics is more fun!

You really think thats what im saying?

it is the systems fault for being loosy goosy with the concept allowing the gak situations to happen. same deal with all the abuse cases
Im not saying memorizing charts is hard. its not. but it IS having 2 different systems in a game and trying to balance both properly is a lot of extra work for basically no reward.

they decided the bloat was not worth trying to sift through so they rebuilt EVERYTHING from the ground up gak had to go and im glad they went that route.

Every system is gonna allow gak to happen. Sure, some situations a bit of clarification would have been nice but that is not justifying destroying the whole thing.
Oh, wow. More than 1 system is hard. So having psychic phase, saves, to wound, to hit charts, charging and overwatch is fine, but having armor suddenly makes it a broken bloated mess? Yeah sure.

I fail to see how removing one of the few things that forced tactical desicions and actual flanking in a game where 90% of the time units move toward/away of an enemy or objective is somehow a good thing.
Believing that every moronic decision on GW's part is a part of a great master plan to magically fix everything and therefore justified is a wishful thinking at best. GW in no way deserves the benefit of the doubt, not with their reputation.

Armor values didn't force any kind of tactical decision. You simply deep struck a unit behind or to the side of it and melta'd it. There was no more tactics to that scenario then placing your long range heavy weapons on an elevated position in cover. It's just 'what you do'. The reality is, many of the things some people consider 'tactics' in this game are simply the most effective way of dealing with a given situation. Those aren't necessarily tactics. Tactics are when you can bait an enemy vehicle out of a solid firing position that covers his weaker armor so you can effectively deal with it. Or sacrificing a unit to an enemy CC unit to pull them closer to you and further away from them so you can engage them with little fear of reprisal from the rest of his army.

Deep Striking or Outflanking a suicide melta unit into their back lines is not some fantastic 'tactical decision' on your part. It is simply the most efficient way to handle a situation. I mean, I love my hexa-fusion crisis suit bomb as much as the next Tau player, but I don't delude myself that I'm some strategic Einstein because I appear and pop a rhino/razorback or two.

Except reliable meltadrop is very uncommon, and outflank can be countered.
Which forces you to to outflank (as in moving units around the board and not the special rule) a vehicle with your units, prefferably several, so you will always have a shot on it's weakest armor or/and fforce the enemy to focus on a less desirable target.

Also, what? Tactics are exactly the most effective way of dealing with a given situation. That's the whole point.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Primaris Marines can be made from preexisting Marines.

So you're saying that the Games Workshop Adeptus Astartes, as a company branch of the Imperium, can phase out standard Space Marines miniatures, over a period of years?

At least they didn't invalidate old Astartes from the get go...

I expect to have alot of people try and "counts as" old SM as Primaris.