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.

NurglesR0T wrote:

Indeed. In my much younger years I remember building a box of tacticals and excited by all the weapon options. Ended up with a unit that had every weapon available. Thought it looked cool until I realised it wasn't usable in a game

I remember doing this when I first started too. Fortunately in 2nd is was usually completely legal
I was so pissed when 3rd came out and I had to chop off all the weapons and redo them. Only played 1 game of 3rd.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That can't be objective. I'm not buying Primaris (everyone else is Mk2-5, so I'm using the FW Boarding Shield Mk3 for my Intercessor entries) but they're undeniably THE nicer models. It's like no contest. If they didn't have that blasted aquila on the chest I'd be sold.

That's not a bad idea! using FW marines as Primaris to keep the scale more consistant but yet having a different look than the normal marines

That’s false.

They have been designed with the same tech as the tactical marines and other recent marine kits. Remember the tactical kit only came out 4 years before the intercessors kit. The tacticals were CAD designed.

GW has been using CAD modelling and laser cut molds for over 10 years now. It’s hilarious that people still think it is a new thing :lol:

The first CAD kits came out around 2007/2008, the first full cad stuff to come out we’re things like the ravenwing sprue, the baneblade and the SM drop pod.

The quality of the design is absolutely not objectively better.

robbienw wrote:
That’s false.

They have been designed with the same tech as the tactical marines and other recent marine kits. Remember the tactical kit only came out 4 years before the intercessors kit. The tacticals were CAD designed.

GW has been using CAD modelling and laser cut molds for over 10 years now. The first CAD kits came out around 2007/2008, the first full cad stuff to come out we’re things like the ranvwnwing sprue, the baneblade and the SM drop pod.

They are not objectively better in this way.

If you want to believe that then fine. But their techniques, technology, and design skill are constantly getting better and I firmly believe you can see this in the models.

You might not personally like the direction or resuly though, which is totally valid. But there are clear objective improvements none the less.

kaotkbliss wrote:

NurglesR0T wrote:

Indeed. In my much younger years I remember building a box of tacticals and excited by all the weapon options. Ended up with a unit that had every weapon available. Thought it looked cool until I realised it wasn't usable in a game

I remember doing this when I first started too. Fortunately in 2nd is was usually completely legal
I was so pissed when 3rd came out and I had to chop off all the weapons and redo them. Only played 1 game of 3rd.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That can't be objective. I'm not buying Primaris (everyone else is Mk2-5, so I'm using the FW Boarding Shield Mk3 for my Intercessor entries) but they're undeniably THE nicer models. It's like no contest. If they didn't have that blasted aquila on the chest I'd be sold.

That's not a bad idea! using FW marines as Primaris to keep the scale more consistant but yet having a different look than the normal marines

You could even do the same for Hellblasters by just giving those Boarding Shield dudes some Plasma Guns. There ARE ways to represent the different unit entries for sure.

I'm still thinking up ways to take care of Aggressors and maybe at some point Inceptors, but that's part of the fun I suppose.

Yeah, I flirted with the idea of getting theses guys:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/horus-heresy-mark-IV-space-marines-2018

That way they could be either Tacs or Primaris, with the Tacs having the special/heavy weapons and the Mark IV being the Primaris
But the price of that box turned me off.

-

It’s not about what you or I believe stux.

It’s a fact that they have been using CAD modelling for a long time, it is not new and it has not been exclusively used on Primaris marines.

There is nothing objectively better about Primaris over tacticals in this way. They have comparable levels of surface detail, posing and fitting. Tacticals have more poseability. Intercessors are bigger, but again it’s subjective wether you like this or not. I prefer my models to be miniature :lol:

robbienw wrote:
It’s not about what you or I believe stux.

It’s a fact that they have been using CAD modelling for a long time, it is not new and it has not been exclusively used on Primaris marines.

There is nothing objectively better about Primaris over tacticals in this way. They have comparable levels of surface detail, posing and fitting. Tacticals have more poseability. Intercessors are bigger, but again it’s subjective wether you like this or not. I prefer my models to be miniature :lol:

CAD software improves though, and people get better at using it.

Using CAD for the past 10 years means they've got experience and get better at it. Meaning newer designs can have that "skill" applied more than the first few attempts.
If I use that same paint and paint brush for 10 years, that does not mean that my application of those tools does not get better with time. On the contrary you would expect my painting to be far better.

But I certainly agree with preferring models being "miniature". I do not like the scale creep as of late.

-

 Galef wrote:
Using CAD for the past 10 years means they've got experience and get better at it. Meaning newer designs can have that "skill" applied more than the first few attempts.
If I use that same paint and paint brush for 10 years, that does not mean that my application of those tools does not get better with time. On the contrary you would expect my painting to be far better.

But I certainly agree with preferring models being "miniature". I do not like the scale creep as of late.

-

Just look at GW studio painting from the past compared to now! Night and day, the improvement in the studio standard is staggering.

Indeed they have got better at using it. You can see some of the earlier CAD kits like the cadian command squad aren't as well done as current kits.

But there is less time difference between the sculpting of the tactical kit and the intercessor kit. They are only just under 4 years apart. The tactical was not one of the first CAD kits from 2007.

The Intercessor kit is not objectively better than the tactical one as i said in my earlier post. The surface detail level between the kits is similar, as is the part fitting and poses. The tactical have better poseability. The Intercessors are just bigger and differently proportioned, which is subjective as to whether this is better or not.

The assumption that everything is better just because it was designed later is false

The users of the system will reach a skills plateau were they can't really achieve much better. The software will plateau in terms of improvement. You will have newer people coming in designing the kits who don't have as much experience as the people who started on it in 2006, so may not be able to get as much out of it as more experienced uses. Then you will have people who are just better at it anyway because of natural talent who may have left the team.

I love how people always bring up the poses argument like it holds any meaning.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I love how people always bring up the poses argument like it holds any meaning.

It's has plenty of meaning since it means to change how a model looks will require a lot of knife work and a lot of players don't want to do that. GW has been trending more and more to static mono pose models and that's a shame. There is so many combos I can come up with the tactical marine kit, not to mention the insane amount of combos since all the older marine kits are entirely cross compatible. The Primaris kits lack those little details.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I'd take the Primaris because I love the sculpts and they're generally more viable than Tacs.

What the hey is going on in your local meta that Tacs aren't blatently the better choice? Not trying to troll, I just see too many D2 weapons to want to go all Primaris and I also see way to much armor to not have anything better than Krak Grenades on my basic troops.

Intercessors getting a price cut in the upcoming Chapter Approved will matter more than Tactical Marines getting a price cut because of density of wounds. Even assuming D2 weapons, Intercessors wouldn't give up that many more points.

Plus it's silly that, once melee is even slightly more viable with Orks on the rise and Tyranids getting supposed cuts, all your offense from Tactical Marines will be gone. Intercessors will hold their own slightly more.

Again, what the hey-ha is going on in your local meta that viability in melee is even remotely a consideration? Everything slaughters Tacs and Intercessors in melee, I swear they might as well be training dummies for all the good they ever do in close combat. [/obscure Robin Hood, Men in Tights reference]

Also, if the point cost reductions go the way it looks like they're going to go then Intercessors and Tac Marines are going to stay at roughly the same price relative to each other.

I'd hate Primaris a lot less if I could take a 10man, give them one PG, and one ML.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I love how people always bring up the poses argument like it holds any meaning.

It's has plenty of meaning since it means to change how a model looks will require a lot of knife work and a lot of players don't want to do that. GW has been trending more and more to static mono pose models and that's a shame. There is so many combos I can come up with the tactical marine kit, not to mention the insane amount of combos since all the older marine kits are entirely cross compatible. The Primaris kits lack those little details.

Plastic Trimmers are your friend. For those who don't know, that's a tool that looks like a wire cutter but the cutting surface is completely flush. They make stuff like removing the alignment pegs Intercessors so the arms are more poseable completely trivial.

I also don't get the accusation that Primaris don't have the level of detail that regular marines do. Mine have at least as many pouches and icons as my Tac marines and I didn't even use everything on the sprue. I got pretty darn close but I did have left-over bits.

Bharring wrote:
I'd hate Primaris a lot less if I could take a 10man, give them one PG, and one ML.

Agreed. GW was actually clever to not do this just to keep the overall community divided on their preference for Tacs over Intercessors.
If Primaris cold be equipped the same as regular Marines, you'd also see a lot of "counts as" with older collectors just saying all their existing Marines were now Primaris.

If you could add special or heavy weapon option to Primaris Marines, I never would have started this thread, for that exact reason

-

 Galef wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I'd hate Primaris a lot less if I could take a 10man, give them one PG, and one ML.

Agreed. GW was actually clever to not do this just to keep the overall community divided on their preference for Tacs over Intercessors.
If Primaris cold be equipped the same as regular Marines, you'd also see a lot of "counts as" with older collectors just saying all their existing Marines were now Primaris.

If you could add special or heavy weapon option to Primaris Marines, I never would have started this thread, for that exact reason
-

Agreed. I don't like Primaris much but it's sure easy to see why thye exist, and why GW did it the way that they did.

For the record, I'd go with Tacticals but I'm very biased. Plus it's not clear what the future will hold for Tacticals, anyways. I doubt they'll be squatted, but it also might be that they'll get a new kit with a slight up-scaling to the proportions that the Chaos models have been going. They are a more fun kit to build though, which should count for a lot at your stage.

 Stux wrote:

robbienw wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

robbienw wrote:
Well obviously it is down to personal taste. I just find intercessors (and indeed all Primaris infantry) to be ugly. Look at their massively oversized greaves and boots for example, it looks like they are wearing giant ski boots :lol: Tacs are a lot nicer looking.

That can't be objective. I'm not buying Primaris (everyone else is Mk2-5, so I'm using the FW Boarding Shield Mk3 for my Intercessor entries) but they're undeniably THE nicer models. It's like no contest. If they didn't have that blasted aquila on the chest I'd be sold.

It’s entirely subjective. It’s your opinion that they are nicer, it’s not undeniable.

There's certainly a subjective element, but I'd say there are some objectively better features to them, especially proportions.

No, that's subjective as well.

I can't stand huge models, and Primaris are simply too big for being basic infantries and not monsters with several wounds of superheroes. IMHO a huge model is something like a dread or ghaz Basic dudes should be way smaller and I prefer tacs for that reason. Actually I prefer grey hunters because they have a lot of bare heads. Customization is mandatory for me, I hate having two identical models, even if they're troops. In fact I have 150 boyz and not a single pair looks completely identical. My 30 grey hunters are quite unique. I can't say the same for Intercessors, they look like tyranids, necrons or AM troops, a repetition of the same model. WIth also the downside of being too big.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I'd hate Primaris a lot less if I could take a 10man, give them one PG, and one ML.

Agreed. GW was actually clever to not do this just to keep the overall community divided on their preference for Tacs over Intercessors.
If Primaris cold be equipped the same as regular Marines, you'd also see a lot of "counts as" with older collectors just saying all their existing Marines were now Primaris.

If you could add special or heavy weapon option to Primaris Marines, I never would have started this thread, for that exact reason
-

Agreed. I don't like Primaris much but it's sure easy to see why thye exist, and why GW did it the way that they did.

For the record, I'd go with Tacticals but I'm very biased. Plus it's not clear what the future will hold for Tacticals, anyways. I doubt they'll be squatted, but it also might be that they'll get a new kit with a slight up-scaling to the proportions that the Chaos models have been going. They are a more fun kit to build though, which should count for a lot at your stage.

There is that. You can trim everything of a Tac sprue and it's mostly obvious where the pieces go. The arms are in pairs but if you get them mismatched it's not the end of the world. Primaris go together one and only one way, get the parts mixed up and you'll have an awful time putting them together.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I love how people always bring up the poses argument like it holds any meaning.

It's has plenty of meaning since it means to change how a model looks will require a lot of knife work and a lot of players don't want to do that. GW has been trending more and more to static mono pose models and that's a shame. There is so many combos I can come up with the tactical marine kit, not to mention the insane amount of combos since all the older marine kits are entirely cross compatible. The Primaris kits lack those little details.

It means that the kit doesn't make as many poses as you think it does. That's more the point I'm saying.

If I was in your position I would get intercessors. My reasoning is based on the fact that your kids are just learning to paint. I find primaris marines to be easier to paint because of the large flat areas. You can put your focus on getting the shading and highlights right.

In regards to budget you are right about being able to get cheap primaris marines but I think it’s also possible to get really cheap normal marines if you are patient and get them used.

I started a Primaris collection for Killteam initially, but now it's starting to grow into a decent small force in itself. I recently sold off my Space Marine bike force, and only kept a few scouts and flyers. There's no going back to basic marines for me.

But also note I play Open War games, narrative battles, or just thematic lists rather than competitive. And for that, Primaris seem pretty cool.

Also, to put in perspective, I also play Chaos Space Marinea, and I've been selling them off as well in favor of the new Death Guard stuff.

 Galef wrote:
What DOES make them objectively better is that they've been designed from the ground up using more up-to-date modeling techniques, as opposed to older Marine models that had to adhere to the aesthetics of other techniques.

The quality of their design, and more importantly execution of that design, is better just based on the tech available now (CAD).

So we can subjectively say we don't like the design itself, but they were made with better techniques, which objectively resulted in a better model

-

The same technology was used for both kits. The current tactical squad is not hand sculpted, its cad design. Why do you not think the tacticals were designed "from the ground up"?
There is no objectively better one of them. Just alot of BS.

What in all GAK is this argument about sculpts being objectively better just because 4 years have passed. They might even be made by different artists. Can the same be said about any other artform? Are all new songs objectively better than any 4 years older tracks? No!

Gitdakka wrote:

 Galef wrote:
What DOES make them objectively better is that they've been designed from the ground up using more up-to-date modeling techniques, as opposed to older Marine models that had to adhere to the aesthetics of other techniques.

The quality of their design, and more importantly execution of that design, is better just based on the tech available now (CAD).

So we can subjectively say we don't like the design itself, but they were made with better techniques, which objectively resulted in a better model

-

The same technology was used for both kits. The current tactical squad is not hand sculpted, its cad design. Why do you not think the tacticals were designed "from the ground up"?
There is no objectively better one of them. Just alot of BS.

What in all GAK is this argument about sculpts being objectively better just because 4 years have passed. They might even be made by different artists. Can the same be said about any other artform? Are all new songs objectively better than any 4 years older tracks? No!

No, but Intercessors are objectively better designed. Look at a side-by-side comparison if you don't believe me.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
No, but Intercessors are objectively better designed. Look at a side-by-side comparison if you don't believe me.

Spoiler:

To be fair, you shouldn't compare the Easy-to-Build Marines because:
A) They are older and are clearly inferior. They do the job of bulking up someone's force, but they are pretty awful.
B) The Primaris Easy-to-Build, but contrast as leaps and bounds better designed and even have more variety in the 3 poses available.
C) The Tactical box has far more options compared to the Primaris box and both are relatively new

That said, Primaris Marines have more armour plates and curves/details, while the Tac Box has a lot of older designed parts just ported over from older sprues.
Whether both used CAD is less relevant that were the design originates.
Tac Marines were probably just scanned and tweaked for their CAD, while Primaris were specifically designed with CAD in mind.

I recently got a Landspeeder that had to have been CAD because the pieces fit together perfectly. But having built one years before CAD, I can tell is the same sprue they just scanned in and cleaned up.
CAD made it a ton easier to build and it looks great, but it you put it next to and older version of the same design, you might not be able to tell the difference.
There are plenty of detail differences between Tacs and Primaris

-

They clearly didn't just scan in the marines and 'tweak them a bit', they are a full CAD kit. As are the newer assault and devastor kits and the sternguard and vanguard. They would need to have been fully redone in CAD, to take advantage of the better detail afforded by laser cut molds. Otherwise you would still have the poor fuzzy details of the old kit.

There is a variety of new parts in the tactical set that have no equivalent in the old version as well. There are, for example, 10 unique leg poses compared to 3 unique poses in the old set. The details across the parts, such as chest eagles are sharper and better defined, and you can see the details are not exact ports close up. The helmets are again similar, but have different dimension (smaller front grills), as do the bolters.

They just look similar because they are based on the same design.

You find this with other plastic core kits that were redone in CAD compared to their 90's/early 2000's versions. Like the chimera and the leman russ. Very similar, but better more refined details, full done in CAD.

Even the Intercessor squad has a lot of elements from regular marine kits anyway. The bolt rifles are very similar to marine bolters for example, just lengthened a bit with a few details moved around. I would bet they were modified from existing CAD bolter models.

The tactical squad has a comparable level of surface detail and sharpness of surface detail compared to the intercessor kit.

There is nothing objectively better about them. Comparing them to rubbish clip fit starter marines is disingenuous. Slayers-Fan123's claim they are objectively better seems to only be based on the fact they are larger. And as we all know, people have different size preferences for their miniatures, thus this is a another subjective difference

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:

 Galef wrote:
What DOES make them objectively better is that they've been designed from the ground up using more up-to-date modeling techniques, as opposed to older Marine models that had to adhere to the aesthetics of other techniques.

The quality of their design, and more importantly execution of that design, is better just based on the tech available now (CAD).

So we can subjectively say we don't like the design itself, but they were made with better techniques, which objectively resulted in a better model

-

The same technology was used for both kits. The current tactical squad is not hand sculpted, its cad design. Why do you not think the tacticals were designed "from the ground up"?
There is no objectively better one of them. Just alot of BS.

What in all GAK is this argument about sculpts being objectively better just because 4 years have passed. They might even be made by different artists. Can the same be said about any other artform? Are all new songs objectively better than any 4 years older tracks? No!

No, but Intercessors are objectively better designed. Look at a side-by-side comparison if you don't believe me.

Spoiler:

Ive seen both models before, or why would I even be joining this discussion? I don't think you even know what "objectively" means. I'm looking at your picture (easy to build marine exluded) and I prefer the tactical marine design, even in that standard pose. If it was a matter of objectively better design, it would not even be possible for me to find the classic marine more aestethically pleasing, yet here we are.

The primaris design is cluttered with strange design decisions like: weird extruding kneepads, no cool vox grille, questionable hip pads, backpack with plain profile and needlessly long bolter. It's not an objective improvement, it's an entirely different design. Liking it is a subjective matter.

robbienw wrote:
They just look similar because they are based on the same design.

But that's my point. Tacs, CAD or not, were restricted by their older design. No matter how well they turned out using CAD, they still had to adhere to the "classic" design of a Space Marine
Primaris had no such limitation in their design process. That should count for something.

I'm no longer trying to say either is "objectively" better than the other, but I do feel Primaris should be recognized as less limited in their design, thus allowing for more freedom of use in CAD techniques.
Whether that resulting in a BETTER design is certainly subjective, I agree.

-

Gitdakka wrote:
If it was a matter of objectively better design, it would not even be possible for me to find the classic marine more aestethically pleasing, yet here we are.

That's not true at all. Something can be objectively better in design but not as aesthetically pleasing to an individual. Design encompasses many aspects, some objectively quantifiable, not just aesthetics.

 Stux wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
If it was a matter of objectively better design, it would not even be possible for me to find the classic marine more aestethically pleasing, yet here we are.

That's not true at all. Something can be objectively better in design but not as aesthetically pleasing to an individual. Design encompasses many aspects, some objectively quantifiable, not just aesthetics.

You did not specify any design quality. You just said primaris was objectively better design. Had you said cheapest to produce or something then there might be an objective answer. But since you were so general in your statement you were objectively wrong


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Primaris are objectively bigger, is this what you meant?