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.

 THE_LIST_MASTER wrote:
I just meant that the "old" marine plastic kits are not in fact that old by GW standards so I doubt they will stop producing them anytime soon..

Most of them are are older than the current Aspect Warrior models. And they're all based on a marine kit that was made for 3rd edition, 20 years ago.

Age of the kit is far less relevant than how well it is selling, and the direction chosen by the company to drive sales. And as the Primaris range expands and GW continues to make it harder to buy oldmarine kits, oldmarine kit sales will continue to decline.

With the Primaris vs. Old Marines thing, there was really no way to please everyone. They obviously wanted to upscale Marines and redo the range with a newer aesthetic. They did a few experiments with Deathwatch and some other contemporary Marine kits that pushed the scale up without any background justification, and I guess either too many people noticed and didn't like it or it just wasn't far enough.

So, assuming "true scale" Marines is the end goal, how do you go about doing it? Option 1 is to simply release new versions of the old units with significantly larger Space Marines and pull the old, "they've always been this way" trick. That works okay for single units (like Terminators), but instantly rendering entire collections of their most popular army invalid or, at the very least, unfashionable is probably not going to do them any favours.

Option 2 is to come up with some background reason for all Space Marines to be replaced with newer versions but, again, you run into the same problem of old collections. If the size difference is noticeable, people aren't going to want to mix the new and the old. Instant invalidation.

Option 3 is to have brand new Primaris Chapters. New livery, new background. Older Chapters have all the original gear and weedy little Marines, new guys get all the 41K toys. But then you've basically created a whole bunch of new armies that you can't necessarily support. Plus if all new Marine stuff is Primaris, the Big Four will never get any new models.

So they went with Option 4, which is that Primaris Marines are basically added to existing Chapters piecemeal. There are also the new Chapters from Option 3. That way, you can add the new stuff to your existing army if you like, or just play a brand new 'pure' Primaris Chapter and not worry about the mixed aesthetics. The background implication is that eventually Option 2 will come into play as older Marines die off and new Primaris recruits replace them, and now (though it was always said to be possible...) we've got old Marines being upgraded too.

So really, there was no way to do it that wouldn't annoy someone. The way it currently works is a little awkward from a narrative perspective: what, Cawl just had a million super-Marines sitting in stasis this whole time and thought his original agreement with a seemingly dead guy trumped any requirement the Imperium might have had for such a formidable force during its 10,000 year history? Really could have used those fellas during the Age of Apostasy and the Tyrannic Wars, my dude...

But it's the least bad option if you absolutely, positively have to introduce bigger Space Marine models.

 cole1114 wrote:
Wait, do people really not like that grey knights/deathwatch have their own armies? I can almost get that for GK because they've got a history of being poorly balanced, but the deathwatch models are fantastic and add a lot to the game IMO.

A different color of marine = whole different book
A different color of Xenos = different faction trait, in the same book

That’s the problem - one faction gets 10+ books because they paint their armor a different color; while some factions barely get a single book for all of their differently colored klans.

Imagine if each Klan/Dynasty/HiveFleet/Craftworld got their own book; man, wouldn’t that be something?

It is if you’re a space marine.

 CaptainBetts wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I'm confused. Would there be any reason to expect armies that are not taking part in the campaign to receive new material as a result of that campaign...?

There'll be other campaigns.

From what I understand the general worry with these campaign books is this:

1) There are more campaign books coming.
2) With every campaign book armies featured within it get a load more rules, stratagems and formations.
3) Imperium are in every campaign.
4) Armies like Necrons might only be in one.
5) Some armies won't have any appearance in campaign books (this was actually stated in the seminar, I was there).

There's the worry that some armies (or soup umbrellas) will get many more rules, stratagems and formations than others, which has the potential to lead to the army with more versatility and choice becoming stronger.

I don't hold too much of an opinion on the matter yet though (I'm waiting until we see what these rules are like).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I am curious if the new special rules for Space Marines will be Chapter Specific. Like, will those special rules leave certain chapters out in the cold because they aren't Toilet Seat Marines? I certainly hope not.

I am curious to see what these special rules are too. I can't imagine 1CP before the game begins should be able to produce something too powerful.

I got the impression at the seminar that the special rules would cost more than 1CP, significantly more perhaps.

NOTE - THIS IS IN NO WAY A FACT, I JUST ASSUME THIS WILL BE THE CASE.

This is fairly typical GW pigeonholing. They know from long years of experience that despite all the bluster, only a minority of the playerbase actually plays narrative games and of those only a small percentage actually buy narrative supplements. They need matched play dollars or they'll never make money off of these. The fact that they always end up creating massive issues or being banned/nerfed by the community never really seems to concern them.

Campaign books were what eventually ended up putting the final nail in the coffin for seventh. Angels of Death was so supremely broken that a psyker power had to be community nerfed and another power had to be banned before the book even hit shelves and by the time the Magnus book came out the game was unplayable.

fe40k wrote:

 cole1114 wrote:
Wait, do people really not like that grey knights/deathwatch have their own armies? I can almost get that for GK because they've got a history of being poorly balanced, but the deathwatch models are fantastic and add a lot to the game IMO.

A different color of marine = whole different book
A different color of Xenos = different faction trait, in the same book

That’s the problem - one faction gets 10+ books because they paint their armor a different color; while some factions barely get a single book for all of their differently colored klans.

Imagine if each Klan/Dynasty/HiveFleet/Craftworld got their own book; man, wouldn’t that be something?

It is if you’re a space marine.

Different colors of xenos use the exact same units. World Eaters, Blood Angels, Thousand Sons, etc all have several different units focusing on various other aspects with limitations on selections to boot.

Aye with any army that isnt marines the different subfactions are basically a suggested paint scheme and some traits that give a benefit. Typically those traits are also focused on a specific type of tactics; so if you went ranged you'd go with one subfaction, but if you went heavy close combat you'd pick a different one.

Which makes them more like an upgrade which is why most people who collect other factions just paint them however they want and pick the subfaction for the army list



With marines its a whole different line of models, upgrade parts, heroes and unique units, Spacewolves aren't just marines with a bonus in close combat; they are a totally different army.

Of course in one way its neat, in another its somewhat like getting a lot of army bloat; so I'm ok that there are not 10 different Tyranid Hive fleet armies with 10000 different models and upgrade parts and niche units in one swarm but not another etc...

 Sersi wrote:

 MothCult wrote:


So anyone think that the harp guy is a clear indication of mortal Slaanesh units and how they'll look.


Hes completely out of place with all current Slaanesh models.

Maybe, but from the different view it looks like it might be a captive Eldar/Elf. Then again it appears to be wearing Slaanesh's symbol. I'm more concerned about the rules, having a basically immobile model in an army focused on speed is an odd choice.

Could be a sort of long range buff/de-buff unit, bit like a farseer on steroids.

Or the harp guy just shuffles on his knees real fast, like the good boy he is.

Thommy H wrote:

But it's the least bad option if you absolutely, positively have to introduce bigger Space Marine models.

Frankly, I think option 1 would have annoyed far, far fewer people.

It would have worked even better if they hadn't gone so much bigger with them. It's making them so much larger and differently proportioned that they look out of scale with the existing range that is really the main problem with them being intended for use alongside them. This would be less of an issue if they had been explicitly branded as replacements instead.

They've been doing Option 1 for awhile now. And while there's always a bit of grumbling, in time, that fades because OOP models always inevitably take on the sheen of novelty.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Dirt bikers and this awesome guy. Wish they were for guard.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

fe40k wrote:

 cole1114 wrote:
Wait, do people really not like that grey knights/deathwatch have their own armies? I can almost get that for GK because they've got a history of being poorly balanced, but the deathwatch models are fantastic and add a lot to the game IMO.

A different color of marine = whole different book
A different color of Xenos = different faction trait, in the same book

That’s the problem - one faction gets 10+ books because they paint their armor a different color; while some factions barely get a single book for all of their differently colored klans.

Imagine if each Klan/Dynasty/HiveFleet/Craftworld got their own book; man, wouldn’t that be something?

It is if you’re a space marine.

Different colors of xenos use the exact same units. World Eaters, Blood Angels, Thousand Sons, etc all have several different units focusing on various other aspects with limitations on selections to boot.

They use the same units because GW hasn't bothered to give them their own books with their own unique units in. There is nothing stopping them doing this for other factions.

I don't mind Necrons not being a part of the Campaign. Sure sucks we don't get new rules, but we can get past that. If they don't, however, put in the effort to change the current issues with the army aswell with Chapter Approved, then we have a pretty serious issue.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Besides which, lets get real - the actual reason why we won't get an Imperial Agents codex is that in order to do the concept justice, the rules need to be flexible and highly customisable, which is completely alien to GW's present mode of thinking, which would limit you to Greyfax with whatever weapons are on the model and no more.

I think the main reason we won't see such a codex is because GW has deemed that the codex and associated models would not be profitable for their cost. A stance I agree with honestly.

Yuh-huh. Like Dark Eldar. And Sisters. And GSC.

Or, alternatively; people like good models and fun rules, and if you give Agents those they'll sell as well as anything else that isn't Marines.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

fe40k wrote:

 cole1114 wrote:
Wait, do people really not like that grey knights/deathwatch have their own armies? I can almost get that for GK because they've got a history of being poorly balanced, but the deathwatch models are fantastic and add a lot to the game IMO.

A different color of marine = whole different book
A different color of Xenos = different faction trait, in the same book

That’s the problem - one faction gets 10+ books because they paint their armor a different color; while some factions barely get a single book for all of their differently colored klans.

Imagine if each Klan/Dynasty/HiveFleet/Craftworld got their own book; man, wouldn’t that be something?

It is if you’re a space marine.

Different colors of xenos use the exact same units. World Eaters, Blood Angels, Thousand Sons, etc all have several different units focusing on various other aspects with limitations on selections to boot.

Hive Fleet OuroBoris and Tiamet are perfect candidates to get the "Full Codex, single army" treatment like BA and SW. Tiamet is literally doing the exact opposite of most Hive Fleets and could have a purely defensive roster of unique units. While Ouroboris is said to be made up of creatures from the Imperiums Dark Past, creatures of myth and legend, with very barbaric and rudimentary biomorphs. Clearly a CC focused roster of specialized creatures to resemble ancient monsters would do them fine.

Both are also differently colored, and as of yet have no rules, but are present in the Codex as fluff pieces.

It'll happen.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Besides which, lets get real - the actual reason why we won't get an Imperial Agents codex is that in order to do the concept justice, the rules need to be flexible and highly customisable, which is completely alien to GW's present mode of thinking, which would limit you to Greyfax with whatever weapons are on the model and no more.

I think the main reason we won't see such a codex is because GW has deemed that the codex and associated models would not be profitable for their cost. A stance I agree with honestly.

Yuh-huh. Like Dark Eldar. And Sisters. And GSC.

Or, alternatively; people like good models and fun rules, and if you give Agents those they'll sell as well as anything else that isn't Marines.

The proof of the pudding is in its eating. Buy more Imperial Agents and prove that there's a market if you want new models. Start a petition to get them new models and rules. I'm sure if you (and other fans of Imperial Agents) took steps to prove that there is a market GW will follow the money.

Mr.Church13 wrote:
Unfortunately they seem to be slipping back to that 7E mentality with this formation idiocy.

Honestly I hope groups and tourneys both insta ban them on launch.

Actually it really depends. While I agree this is slippery ground, it is also potentially a way for them to give fluffy builds that are less commonly seen a boost. Take for example an all custode strike team, hot trash ATM from a competitive standpoint and largely do to lacking the CP needed (screening is another issue but chaf is another issue) but if they make a custode battalion formation and lets say it only required 1 HQ and troop but also required say 1 elite or FA (just spitballing) but still granted them a normal battalions CP then maybe folks would take it and stop using the loyal 32.

What killed formations before was giving out free transports and gear, free points. If they keep them restrained and use the focus for fluffy builds I could see it being a good thing. Like a nemesis SF with set requirements that lets them get CP and come in from reserve on turn 1 again. It's definitely something they need to be careful with though and I'd rather they focus on getting the detachments we already have sorted out before adding more of them to the game, but I'll at least keep an open mind for now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I couldn't agree more with GW with their stance on Imperial Agents. The codex should never have existed in the first place and should, at best, be wrapped up in another codex. They have no place on the battlefield. They'll no doubt give them a mini codex like the Gellarpox Infected which should suffice.

They should roll them back into grey knights, it would fix a lot of the problems that book gained since they removed them.

As they are detachments, I guess they'll still be limited by the rule of three. This means you won't be able to take 5-8 of them to maximise every unit in your army (as apparently each detachment only benefits a very specific type of unit).

If these detachments cost 4-5CP or more (which seems to have been implied in my opinion), you might only see one or two in a list at the very most.

If you read the reddit post a generous user linked to some pages back, it sounds like they just don't like the idea of certain Imperial Agent type units on a full fledged battlefield. They were specifically referring to Rogue Traders, but they said something along the lines of they make what they think is cool and they don't think dudes/dudettes with rapiers and dueling pistols belong in that context.

To me that sounds pretty much that Imperial Agents are now Kill Team's domain so won't get a codex. They'll probably get 40K rules though, but probably more limited than what they can do in the smaller squad level games (less special kit and fancy rules).

 Luciferian wrote:
If you read the reddit post a generous user linked to some pages back, it sounds like they just don't like the idea of certain Imperial Agent type units on a full fledged battlefield. They were specifically referring to Rogue Traders, but they said something along the lines of they make what they think is cool and they don't think dudes/dudettes with rapiers and dueling pistols belong in that context.

rogue traders probably but inquisitions literally sanction entire guard regiments or space marines to invade or reconquer entire planets.. and considering inquisitors pulls pretty much whatever they want including a huge assortment of imperial agents it’s not that hard to design a codex that focus on small elite detachments.

 Luciferian wrote:
If you read the reddit post a generous user linked to some pages back, it sounds like they just don't like the idea of certain Imperial Agent type units on a full fledged battlefield. They were specifically referring to Rogue Traders, but they said something along the lines of they make what they think is cool and they don't think dudes/dudettes with rapiers and dueling pistols belong in that context.

That was me who made the massive reddit post. That's pretty much correct - they said models like inquisition, rogue traders, assassins etc. don't fit very well at all. They used Inquisitor Eisenhorn as their main example actually.

To be honest it makes sense. I can see them shifting it so that they might appear as one or two special characters in armies, where an assassin works; but for the greater part armies are supposed to be huge, not the kind of place you get your handful of assassins.

That they've now got several games where they can put such characters into and they will fit really well I think means that GW sees a chance to make more models and fit them into games that better suit them.

Thats where they belong honestly. Having rogue traders be a fully fledged military force would have been strange and they really would have had to stretch it in order to get a playable army.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Thats where they belong honestly. Having rogue traders be a fully fledged military force would have been strange and they really would have had to stretch it in order to get a playable army.

Except Rogue Traders command forces far exceeding what can be fielded in a typical 40K army...

 Kirasu wrote:
They'd sell more models if they ditched the incredibly stupid segmentation. A military force should all be able to use the same transports as Primaris can fit fine inside the same ones marines use and vice versa.

The chapter master can't request his own ride, lol such dumb fluff.

This is a "be careful what you wish for" situation.

We once wished that GW would produce models for all the things they wrote rules for. Then Chapterhouse happened. Then GW did end up with models for everything it wrote rules for... except to achieve this they got rid of all the rules for anything that didn't have a model. We got what we wanted, technically, but not in the manner we wanted.

So we may very well get to a point where there's no segmentation, just as you desire, but it will come about because there are no regular Marines.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

So we may very well get to a point where there's no segmentation, just as you desire, but it will come about because there are no regular Marines.

That's fine.

Sooooo... does this means now that Calgar has a new body he can duke it out vs the swarmlord again? :-)

 Red Corsair wrote:
Thats something I feel gets glossed over the most. Not that primaris lack options, but that it had to be intentional.

Of course it was. Can't let the evil third party bits makers win.

Did BOLS have a picture of a grey knight primaris?

 Niiai wrote:
Sooooo... does this means now that Calgar has a new body he can duke it out vs the swarmlord again? :-)

Adding +1T/+1W/+1A for him being a primaris in Gravis... no. He does 3.889 damage to the swarmlord versus the swarmlord doing 6.018 on average. Even if Calgar went first and got his average both times, meaning the swarmlord regressed 1S/1A, it would still do 5.046 damage which would kill Calgar. It's an improvement on the swarmlord just outright killing Calgar in one turn like it does now on average, but still not a win.

Or at least I hope that's all true, I don't know how well mathhammer sites do with D6/D3/etc damage.