Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Crimson wrote:

Silver144 wrote:


Yep, everyone understand that. Should they just release true scale marines - I'll be among the first to buy those kits to expand my army. I always glad to expand my collectiot. But expanding is not replacing.

I really don't understand what's the difference in practice though. If Intercessor models had been called 'Tactical Marines' and wouldn't have had their own datasheet, you would have bought them, and used them along with your older marines? Why does it matter that they have slightly different rules? If you're going to use them with the old marines, doesn't it make more sense if slightly different looking models have slightly different rules?

If they will have the same special and power weapon in every squad and will not have those magic "primaris" keyword that restrict them from using marines vehicles - yep, I'll buy them. But they are not space marine unit, it is some wierd half made "primaris" army, not the one I choose to collect.

Silver144 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Aggressors are pretty much what happens if you fused a Terminator with a centurion.

So, in other words, not a one-to-one replacement of termies. With their current rules, aggressors can't fill the profile of termies, and likely never will. They'll just be different.

The more I look at it, the more I see primaris as just extra bloat. The only thing they added was more imposing marines.

Ok, lets see - plenty s4 no ap d1 shooting and s8 powerfist attacks in melee. Now lets check terminators: s4 no ap d1 stormbolter, s8 powerfists attack. Yeeeah, totally not the same role.

Part of Terminators' thing is being tough, 2+/5++ or 2+/3++. Aggressors being T5 doesn't cut it when they have a worse armor save and no invulnerable, they're much more of a glass cannon compared to something like Storm Shield Terminators.

Silver144 wrote:
But expanding is not replacing.

Unless the creation of new kits eventually leads to the removal of old kits and the rules to use them. Primaris being "something new" is part of that fear.
It also adds to the bloat of the game. Marines had a good variety of units before, they just needed better rules. But creating Primaris Marines did not do this, rather it made it worse because GW needed to differentiate the Nu-Marines from the old. So now we have *too* many units and most of them are in weird places rules/points wise.

For example, Intercessors are too expensive at 18ppm, but Tacticals are too weak at 1W. If 8E had started with Tacticals as 15ppm 2W Marines, with the *option* to be clad in Mark X armour (no in-game difference here) with a Bolt rifle, that would have been better.

Dandelion wrote:
The more I look at it, the more I see primaris as just extra bloat. The only thing they added was more imposing marines.

Agreed. And GW tends to cut out bloat between editions. When that happens for 9E, do you think they are going to cut out all the Nu-marines? No, they would axe the old.
This may not happen for YEARS, but it will happen

-

Dandelion wrote:

Silver144 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Aggressors are pretty much what happens if you fused a Terminator with a centurion.

So, in other words, not a one-to-one replacement of termies. With their current rules, aggressors can't fill the profile of termies, and likely never will. They'll just be different.

The more I look at it, the more I see primaris as just extra bloat. The only thing they added was more imposing marines.

Ok, lets see - plenty s4 no ap d1 shooting and s8 powerfist attacks in melee. Now lets check terminators: s4 no ap d1 stormbolter, s8 powerfists attack. Yeeeah, totally not the same role.

So, you'd be ok running termies as aggressors? Cuz that's what I'm talking about.

No, it will not be an awfull proxy playing. I will not do it myself and will be not very happy to play against such proxy army. Because there is terminators in the game, they are just worse than agressors, because GW wants you to buy whole new army to play marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

meleti wrote:

Silver144 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Aggressors are pretty much what happens if you fused a Terminator with a centurion.

So, in other words, not a one-to-one replacement of termies. With their current rules, aggressors can't fill the profile of termies, and likely never will. They'll just be different.

The more I look at it, the more I see primaris as just extra bloat. The only thing they added was more imposing marines.

Ok, lets see - plenty s4 no ap d1 shooting and s8 powerfist attacks in melee. Now lets check terminators: s4 no ap d1 stormbolter, s8 powerfists attack. Yeeeah, totally not the same role.

Part of Terminators' thing is being tough, 2+/5++ or 2+/3++. Aggressors being T5 doesn't cut it when they have a worse armor save and no invulnerable, they're much more of a glass cannon compared to something like Storm Shield Terminators.

I'm talking only about 2+/5++ terminators, we didn't get melee agressors yet, but there will be, you could be sure. And t4 2+ not so different from t5 3+. To be honest t5 3+ looks much better to me. You still could get 2+ with cover and t5 over t4 is a big thing.

Silver144 wrote:

No, it will not be an awfull proxy playing. I will not do it myself and will be not very happy to play against such proxy army. Because there is terminators in the game, they are just worse than agressors, because GW wants you to buy whole new army to play marines.

So, if aggressors fully replace termies and GW ditches all termies and remove their rules would you then play your termies as aggressors? Because that's what's implied when people say primaris will replace old marines.

Dandelion wrote:

Silver144 wrote:

No, it will not be an awfull proxy playing. I will not do it myself and will be not very happy to play against such proxy army. Because there is terminators in the game, they are just worse than agressors, because GW wants you to buy whole new army to play marines.

So, if aggressors fully replace termies and GW ditches all termies and remove their rules would you then play your termies as aggressors? Because that's what's implied when people say primaris will replace old marines.

They will not remove terminator rules, they will just keep them terrible rule wise. So you will have to buy agressors for the same role, if you didn't want to handicap yourself

Silver144 wrote:


No, it will not be an awfull proxy playing. I will not do it myself and will be not very happy to play against such proxy army. Because there is terminators in the game, they are just worse than agressors, because GW wants you to buy whole new army to play marines.

According to rumor there is a more direct replacement for terminators. In any case, what's the harm in running terminators as aggressors as long as you're not using terminators in your list?

Silver144 wrote:
They will not remove terminator rules, they will just keep them terrible rule wise. So you will have to buy agressors for the same role, if you didn't want to handicap yourself

Which is my biggest issue with this whole thing. I'd happily play against a Marine army using old Terminators as Aggressors or old Tacticals as Intercessors *if* the rules for Terminators or Tacticals were removed (not that I want that).
But as it stands, we have rules for all those units and the old Marines are going to continue to receive sub-par rules to encourage the sale of Nu-Marines

We should all take issue with that.

-

 Luciferian wrote:

Silver144 wrote:


No, it will not be an awfull proxy playing. I will not do it myself and will be not very happy to play against such proxy army. Because there is terminators in the game, they are just worse than agressors, because GW wants you to buy whole new army to play marines.

According to rumor there is a more direct replacement for terminators. In any case, what's the harm in running terminators as aggressors as long as you're not using terminators in your list?

Because it is a proxy army. I pay and paint my marines to play them as good standalone army, not a proxy for something different. It is the same as using tacticals as sister of battle, or fire warriors as imperial guards.

Does everything you buy from GW have to retain it's value forever? How many games/time does it take to get your money's worth out of your models?

Silver144 wrote:

If they will have the same special and power weapon in every squad and will not have those magic "primaris" keyword that restrict them from using marines vehicles - yep, I'll buy them. But they are not space marine unit, it is some wierd half made "primaris" army, not the one I choose to collect.

So you're literally hung up on couple of special weapons and one keyword? Doesn't this seem even a little bit bonkers to you? It is like RT era players having a fit and refusing to buy new models, because their ten man squad could no longer have three special weapons. (And then they weren't even provided an option to continue to use their old squad compositions with their old models if they wanted. I mean think about all those sad beakies with shuriken catapults that had to be shelved!)

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Does everything you buy from GW have to retain it's value forever? How many games/time does it take to get your money's worth out of your models?

I am ok with shelving a unit or two. I'm ok if they release the new Ulric the slayer in the dreadnought and current one will become "legacy". I am not ok with shelving my entire army to buy a new one. I can't understand why it is not obvious to some people.

Silver144 wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

Silver144 wrote:


No, it will not be an awfull proxy playing. I will not do it myself and will be not very happy to play against such proxy army. Because there is terminators in the game, they are just worse than agressors, because GW wants you to buy whole new army to play marines.

According to rumor there is a more direct replacement for terminators. In any case, what's the harm in running terminators as aggressors as long as you're not using terminators in your list?

Because it is a proxy army. I pay and paint my marines to play them as good standalone army, not a proxy for something different. It is the same as using tacticals as sister of battle, or fire warriors as imperial guards.

So no problem? All you're doing here is supporting gakky business practices and helping nobody but GW, which is part of the problem. Nobody should have a problem if anybody proxies anything so long as the proxy is relatively the same size as the intended unit and aren't being modeled for an advantage. Perhaps you should have more wisely spent your money so you don't get mad at people with a better sense of responsible purchasing?

 Wyzilla wrote:

Silver144 wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

Silver144 wrote:


No, it will not be an awfull proxy playing. I will not do it myself and will be not very happy to play against such proxy army. Because there is terminators in the game, they are just worse than agressors, because GW wants you to buy whole new army to play marines.

According to rumor there is a more direct replacement for terminators. In any case, what's the harm in running terminators as aggressors as long as you're not using terminators in your list?

Because it is a proxy army. I pay and paint my marines to play them as good standalone army, not a proxy for something different. It is the same as using tacticals as sister of battle, or fire warriors as imperial guards.

So no problem? All you're doing here is supporting gakky business practices and helping nobody but GW, which is part of the problem. Nobody should have a problem if anybody proxies anything so long as the proxy is relatively the same size as the intended unit and aren't being modeled for an advantage. Perhaps you should have more wisely spent your money so you don't get mad at people with a better sense of responsible purchasing?

I could let my opponent for pickup games play whatever he want. Go ahead and play with cola cup if you want, I am ok as long as they have different colors.

But you can't just go for tournament and say "hey, those terminators actually an agressors".

Whilst I personally wouldn't proxy normal marines as primaris, because I actually want to use the primaris models, I would have no problem with someone doing that. A Space Marine is a Space Marine. If both RT beakie and a current normal marine can represent a Tactical marine, then both current normal marine a primaris can represent an intercessor.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Does everything you buy from GW have to retain it's value forever? How many games/time does it take to get your money's worth out of your models?

I could care less about the "value" of the model. I want any product I buy, regardless of company, to be USEABLE forever as what it was produced as. (assuming it's well cared for and not electronics)
I remember growing up with old board games that my parents had from the 70s. You can still play those, as-is, even though those games have had many, many updates.

That is the core of my objection to how Primaris Marines have been implemented. I'd actually be ok if they were blatantly meant to replace the old models on a one-to-one, but they aren't. They're designed specifically as new units that will not only eventually replace the old models, but prevent the old models from even being used as them, because they are specifically not the same units

If Intercessors were just updated Tacticals and players could use their Tactical as Intercessors, it'd be fine. But Intercessors aren't Tactical. They're certainly replace them evnetually, but it won't be as acceptable to use your Tacticals as Intercessors until Tacticals are "officially" not a playable unit

-

Silver144 wrote:

I am ok with shelving a unit or two. I'm ok if they release the new Ulric the slayer in the dreadnought and current one will become "legacy". I am not ok with shelving my entire army to buy a new one. I can't understand why it is not obvious to some people.

Well, let's be honest. You're insisting that you have to play your army according to its rules instead of using them for counts-as Primaris, and at the same time complaining that your army's rules are not as good as those for Primaris, for pretty much no logical reason. Every time a new edition comes out the meta and rules change pretty drastically. I've had entire armies that were modelled to be fairly optimal according to their codex for one edition, only to have all of that invalidated or moved to the bottom of the heap in terms of effectiveness because of one simple rule or profile change. This stuff happens all the time.

In 7th edition I had a Ravenwing army with a huge amount of Black Knights and bikers with grav guns, because grav guns were ludicrous. The day 8th came out that army went from being somewhat TFGish to being horrible. But hey, I bought them and built them that way to juice the rules of the game when I knew a new edition was coming soon, so that's on me. When the new Death Guard came out people all of a sudden couldn't use their bikes, obliterators, etc. GW is under no obligation to keep your army's rules exactly the same as when you bought them until the end of time, or to never release anything better and more effective. But just because the rules change doesn't mean you can't still use your very same models if you wish, as long as you're not being confusing about it. People proxy stuff all the time without incident.

 Luciferian wrote:

Silver144 wrote:

I am ok with shelving a unit or two. I'm ok if they release the new Ulric the slayer in the dreadnought and current one will become "legacy". I am not ok with shelving my entire army to buy a new one. I can't understand why it is not obvious to some people.

Well, let's be honest. You're insisting that you have to play your army according to its rules instead of using them for counts-as Primaris, and at the same time complaining that your army's rules are not as good as those for Primaris, for pretty much no logical reason. Every time a new edition comes out the meta and rules change pretty drastically. I've had entire armies that were modelled to be fairly optimal according to their codex for one edition, only to have all of that invalidated or moved to the bottom of the heap in terms of effectiveness because of one simple rule or profile change. This stuff happens all the time.

In 7th edition I had a Ravenwing army with a huge amount of Black Knights and bikers with grav guns, because grav guns were ludicrous. The day 8th came out that army went from being somewhat TFGish to being horrible. But hey, I bought them and built them that way to juice the rules of the game when I knew a new edition was coming soon, so that's on me. When the new Death Guard came out people all of a sudden couldn't use their bikes, obliterators, etc. GW is under no obligation to keep your army's rules exactly the same as when you bought them until the end of time, or to never release anything better and more effective. But just because the rules change doesn't mean you can't still use your very same models if you wish, as long as you're not being confusing about it. People proxy stuff all the time without incident.

Oh dear god, go and read what Galef said.
I played long enough to know what the meta shifting is. Today I play with 5 man squads in 7...9 droppods, next year cavalry with 5 characters in single unit, next year this wierd thing with 4++ wolves. It's ok as long as I expand MY army. Today I put my cavalry on the shelf, but tomorrow it will shine again, because meta is shifting.
But now I will have to move all my army to the shelf, because primaris is a totally new thing. My terminators will never see the table again, because they are not the primaris, and the primaris have an agressors. Bikers will be useless with primaris gravi bikes, land raider will never be better than repulsor. Should hellblaster receive lascannon, my long fang will be squatted too.

Silver144 wrote:


Oh dear god, go and read what Galef said.
I played ling enough to know what the meta shifting is. Today I play with 5 msn squads in 7...9 droppods, next year cavalry with 5 charactets in single unit, next year this wierd thing with 4++ wolves. It's ok as long as I expand MY army. Today I put my cavalry on the shelf, but tomorrow it will shine again, because meta is shifting.
But now I will have to move all my army to the shelf, because primaros is a totallt new thing. My jump terminators will never see the table again, because they are not the primaris, and the primaris have an agressors. Bikers will be useless with primaris gravi bikes, land raider will never be better than repulsor. Should hellblaster receive lascannon, my long fang will be squatted too.

Yeah but nothing is really stopping you from running your terminators as aggressors or tac squads as intercessors or anything like that. Most tournaments would even allow you to do so as long as you didn't have "aggressor" terminators and "terminator" terminators on the same table. There are still rules for all of your units and nothing makes them inherently better or worse than Primaris point for point, except for that shifting meta. Maybe next edition Intercessors will be garbage for some reason and tacticals will find one of the many blind spots in GW's rules writing to become much better for the cost. Is your main complaint that GW is releasing better versions of models you already have?

 Luciferian wrote:

Silver144 wrote:


Oh dear god, go and read what Galef said.
I played ling enough to know what the meta shifting is. Today I play with 5 msn squads in 7...9 droppods, next year cavalry with 5 charactets in single unit, next year this wierd thing with 4++ wolves. It's ok as long as I expand MY army. Today I put my cavalry on the shelf, but tomorrow it will shine again, because meta is shifting.
But now I will have to move all my army to the shelf, because primaros is a totallt new thing. My jump terminators will never see the table again, because they are not the primaris, and the primaris have an agressors. Bikers will be useless with primaris gravi bikes, land raider will never be better than repulsor. Should hellblaster receive lascannon, my long fang will be squatted too.

Yeah but nothing is really stopping you from running your terminators as aggressors or tac squads as intercessors or anything like that. Most tournaments would even allow you to do so as long as you didn't have "aggressor" terminators and "terminator" terminators on the same table. There are still rules for all of your units and nothing makes them inherently better or worse than Primaris point for point, except for that shifting meta. Maybe next edition Intercessors will be garbage for some reason and tacticals will find one of the many blind spots in GW's rules writing to become much better for the cost. Is your main complaint that GW is releasing better versions of models you already have?

Nothing is stopping me from running terminators as genestealers either. It's still a proxie. That's the issue. People don't want to take their entire army and "run them as something else", because at the end of the day, the way the rules were written, tactical marines aren't intercessors.

 Mmmpi wrote:


Nothing is stopping me from running terminators as genestealers either. It's still a proxie. That's the issue. People don't want to take their entire army and "run them as something else", because at the end of the day, the way the rules were written, tactical marines aren't intercessors.

Ok, so run them as tacticals, lol. They're your models, you can do whatever you want with them

Being told to run your models as something else is annoying. You shouldn't have to run your models as another unit when it is full within GW's capacity to support them.

Sir Heckington wrote:
Being told to run your models as something else is annoying. You shouldn't have to run your models as another unit when it is full within GW's capacity to support them.

Support them how? They still have their own rules, they're still in the codex and they're still legal options. This is an honest question. Aside from never having made Primaris, what could GW do to make things right for you?

The way I'm hearing this is that people like their old marine models and/or don't want to buy into Primaris (nothing wrong with that) but they wish their old marines had Primaris rules. So playing them with Primaris rules seems pretty reasonable when the only barrier to doing so is that the box they came in didn't say "Primaris" on it when you opened it up.

"I already bought tactical marines and I don't like and/or want to buy Intercessors."

"OK, so just play with your tactical marines."

"But I don't want to because they're not Intercessors."

"OK, so just use them as Intercessors."

"I don't want to, because they're not Intercessors."

"I'm sorry your tactical marines are not Intercessors?"

That is what I'm getting out of this grievance, but if I'm misunderstanding something please help me out. I definitely agree that making Primaris a separate entity in terms of rules and fluff was a dick move on GW's part, but their reasons for doing so are also clear from a business perspective. At least they are still supporting all of the old Space Marine models with rules as their own valid entries in the codex, and that Isn't going to change any time soon. I'm honestly trying to understand what would help improve your situation and enjoyment of the game.

 Luciferian wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Being told to run your models as something else is annoying. You shouldn't have to run your models as another unit when it is full within GW's capacity to support them.

Support them how? They still have their own rules, they're still in the codex and they're still legal options. This is an honest question. Aside from never having made Primaris, what could GW do to make things right for you?

The way I'm hearing this is that people like their old marine models and/or don't want to buy into Primaris (nothing wrong with that) but they wish their old marines had Primaris rules. So playing them with Primaris rules seems pretty reasonable when the only barrier to doing so is that the box they came in didn't say "Primaris" on it when you opened it up.

"I already bought tactical marines and I don't like and/or want to buy Intercessors."

"OK, so just play with your tactical marines."

"But I don't want to because they're not Intercessors."

"OK, so just use them as Intercessors."

"I don't want to, because they're not Intercessors."

"I'm sorry your tactical marines are not Intercessors?"

That is what I'm getting out of this grievance, but if I'm misunderstanding something please help me out. I definitely agree that making Primaris a separate entity in terms of rules and fluff was a dick move on GW's part, but their reasons for doing so are also clear from a business perspective. At least they are still supporting all of the old Space Marine models with rules as their own valid entries in the codex, and that Isn't going to change any time soon. I'm honestly trying to understand what would help improve your situation and enjoyment of the game.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I personally have no issues with Normal Marines/Primaris marines. My situation is fine outside of my grievances with FW right now. I was referencing the hypothetical that tactical marines lose rules.

I got no issue with primaris once they get some options, I got 30k for my old marines.

Gotcha. Well, assuming that old marine models ever do get cut from the codex, I really don't see a problem with using them as proxies, but that will not happen for a long time.

I think most people would like to see more options for Primaris, though.

 Luciferian wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Being told to run your models as something else is annoying. You shouldn't have to run your models as another unit when it is full within GW's capacity to support them.

Support them how? They still have their own rules, they're still in the codex and they're still legal options. This is an honest question. Aside from never having made Primaris, what could GW do to make things right for you?

The way I'm hearing this is that people like their old marine models and/or don't want to buy into Primaris (nothing wrong with that) but they wish their old marines had Primaris rules. So playing them with Primaris rules seems pretty reasonable when the only barrier to doing so is that the box they came in didn't say "Primaris" on it when you opened it up.

"I already bought tactical marines and I don't like and/or want to buy Intercessors."

"OK, so just play with your tactical marines."

"But I don't want to because they're not Intercessors."

"OK, so just use them as Intercessors."

"I don't want to, because they're not Intercessors."

"I'm sorry your tactical marines are not Intercessors?"

That is what I'm getting out of this grievance, but if I'm misunderstanding something please help me out. I definitely agree that making Primaris a separate entity in terms of rules and fluff was a dick move on GW's part, but their reasons for doing so are also clear from a business perspective. At least they are still supporting all of the old Space Marine models with rules as their own valid entries in the codex, and that Isn't going to change any time soon. I'm honestly trying to understand what would help improve your situation and enjoyment of the game.

Ok, I'll try to explain it in your way:

I - "Can my old marines have decent rules too?"

GW - "No, because we release a primaris marines we want to sell you! They are like your old marines, but even more elite and cool! Want to play a matched play games - buy those, or handicap yourself with your old legacy marines."

Giving old marins inferior rules actually IS the stopping their support. The primaris not the side line, all their units clearly have the same roles and clearly intended to replace all current units.

You act as if Primaris have good rules at the moment though...

 Elbows wrote:
You act as if Primaris have good rules at the moment though...

It's already better to take intercessor than tactical and agressor than terminator. Wait for the second primaris wave, CA, primaris strategems and formations, and you will see the raising gap.

Silver144 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Intercessers are already new tacticals. They just have different loadout because GW don't want to let you use your current minimarines, they want you to buy new ones.

Well, what GW wants & what GW will get are two vastly different things.

 Elbows wrote:
You act as if Primaris have good rules at the moment though...

Exactly. Primaris are pretty much what people are already suggesting to "fix marines" - yet you don't see Primaris lists in tournaments for a reason.