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.

 Galef wrote:

 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

-

I view my Blood Angels like you view your old board games. My current army was purchased for 5th edition and they remain legal for that edition. It's great I got the extra mileage out of them. I've definitely gotten my money's worth out them.

I just get a feeling from a lot of people on here, they only value the plastic and not the fun.

We have a different sense of fun I guess. I have no fun in squatting my army to buy a new one, but this seems fine to you. Well, why not, some folks just love buying.

Silver144 wrote:
We have a different sense of fun I guess. I have no fun in squatting my army to buy a new one, but this seems fine to you. Well, why not, some folks just love buying.

Well It can do a lot with how good a painter or converter your are. If you put 400-500hours in to your army, doing free hands etc I guess you wouldn't be happy to get your army squated. On the other side of the spectrum there are people like me, I don't like painting, but if GW suddenly squated GK, I wouldn't be happy either. I just cant afford a new army. Then there are people who buy a new army every 2-3 months, who just wouldn't care if one of their armies suddenly end up without matched play rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:


I view my Blood Angels like you view your old board games. My current army was purchased for 5th edition and they remain legal for that edition. It's great I got the extra mileage out of them. I've definitely gotten my money's worth out them.

I just get a feeling from a lot of people on here, they only value the plastic and not the fun.

That is a lot of true in this. I guess if someone had fun with an army for a few years, and wants to switch up things, then a rebuying of an army wouldn't be that bad. But not everyone has to luck to have a fun army to play with. I had maybe 2 fun games in a year plus of playing. It feel even more like wasted money, if GW suddenly went and just removed GK. I wouldn't even have the option to resell. GK are too different from other marines, and unlike good old edition markets I doubt there is a huge resell market for GK.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 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.

When people try and fix marines they try to make a balanced unit. That's why they aren't going to enter tournaments. Tournaments aren't about taking the balanced units they're about taking the unbalanced ones.

Karol wrote:

Well It can do a lot with how good a painter or converter your are. If you put 400-500hours in to your army, doing free hands etc I guess you wouldn't be happy to get your army squated.

Nah. Every model in my old marine army was extensively converted, they were painted in highest standard I could possibly manage. Weathering and free hand markings on every model. I did all this because I wanted my army to look best it could, and it is for that exact same reason I'm switching to Primaris.

Silver144 wrote:
We have a different sense of fun I guess. I have no fun in squatting my army to buy a new one, but this seems fine to you. Well, why not, some folks just love buying.

Except there's no evidence whatsoever that the plan is All Primaris, All The Time going forward. Not a shred.

So far, it's all speculation based on anecdotes.

But consider this. The Regular Marines aren't exactly crying out for many resculpts. Barring the Bikers, they're all fairly modern kits, and the range is almost entirely plastic, barring the odd special character. So what needs doing there? What could GW release that would actually tempt sales from those with existing armies, regardless of the size of collection?

As someone who once had one, once you've got a full, Codex Compliant Battle Company, anything barring an entirely new unit is a really hard sell. Nowt wrong with my existing models. And if there's the odd new gun (like Grav), I can just bitz site the odds and ends I might want.

But Primaris? Each fulfils a different role to Regular Marines. And the models are really nice. They offer me new tactical options as a player that simply didn't exist before.

Sure, Regular Marines may yet go the way of the Dodo at some point. But it's not going to be for a long, long time.

Its true there aren't many resculpts needed and the range is largely complete, but there are a couple of key ones left over, and its annoying they didn't get them out before the advent of primaris.

Bikes, as you mention, and perhaps most importantly standard codex terminators (regular and assault version), both need the modern CAD update.

Not as important but an updated standard dreadnaught, command squad, plastic techmarine with servitors and a plastic thuderfire cannon would have been nice as well.

Definitely enough for 1 more major release of standard marines.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 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.

Except what people are suggesting isn't just Primaris, it's the Primaris statlines + Bolt Rifle with Tac/Dev/Assault squad gear options added on.

If Intercessors had the same gear options as a normal Tac squad I'd already be using all my existing Tacs and Devs as Intercessors.

Silver144 wrote:
We have a different sense of fun I guess. I have no fun in squatting my army to buy a new one, but this seems fine to you. Well, why not, some folks just love buying.

My army isn't a pile of models, it's a on going project. It gets better as I go, the painting in better, the conversions are better, GW releases better models, etc.. When I play I want my best looking models on the table. That's fun.

Some of my stuffs going on 20 years old now it's not hard to update paint jobs to your current standard.

I'm not a collector, not a hobbyist either I don't buy things just to paint or convert, I buy them to use in game.

So telling me my collection is now defunct won't go down well.

Hate or upset? Maybe less that and more confusion and irritation.

First we had metal marines around the Rogue Trader and 2nd-3rd edition, they seemed good alongside metal guard.

I agree the plastic Cadians made it look like they were a match for marines in an arm-wrestle when they came out.

The metal grey-knight terminators got upscaled which lead to our present plastic terminators.

So then it was decided that marines should go from a 25mm to 32mm base which lead to some decision making on how to continue one's army (mind-you their feet did come very close to hanging off the edges). I found this bit oddly irritating in the extreme.

So then we have Primaris.
They are the tallest normal trooper out there, I suppose they should be.
I "think" the size is not a big as deal so-much, people have been making "true-scale" models on the side for quite some time.
They do have a clean futuristic look to them, I really like how they look, funny how the head scale is exactly the same and the arms seem a close match, they just have these massive basketball legs.

The main problems:
- "Normal" marines are pretty much frozen, nothing new coming out for them.
- Primaris is pretty much "mono-squads" there is not the special and heavy weapons of the tactical squads (we have grenade launchers!!!).
- They seem to be trying to figure out how these guys are deployed: they have one "true" means of transport which is a super-fancy-expensive piece of kit.
- I have old metal scouts, compare the scale for the plastic ones. I use the plastic scouts as my "Primaris" army scouts to keep a similar scale. Mixing a couple generations of models IS rather jarring.
- There really is precious little point in changing the scale if you wanted to change the look of the space marines (Oh look! Cawl made the fancy Iron Armor Mark XXX which is WAY better), it really seems to indicate "replacement".
- They just cant seem to create the right spin or event to involve them further. Say the super mutated nurgle virus kills marines dead like nothing, but Primaris is oddly immune!
- Points to capability: They are an odd mix. You could very hesitantly say they are "balanced" since nothing seems like an "auto-include" but makes them victims for those other armies that are not as carefully costed.
- They REALLY lack character. They are newer than the Tau. Everything in 40k is incredibly, insanely ancient and these guys are like a bunch of cookie-cutter boy scouts got drafted into the long war. Developing named characters will be a beginning that they have hesitantly started.

My two cents from playing since Rogue Trader.

 Talizvar wrote:

So then we have Primaris.
They are the tallest normal trooper out there, I suppose they should be.

Tyranid Warriors hold that honor. Which is why I built my all Tyranid Warrior collection as a middle-finger to Primaris. I don't want marines to be the biggest-bestest normal guys around.

I understand not wanting your armies squatted, and as I mentioned quite a few pages ago proxying is a thing if you want. I understand not wanting to, as the scaling is different.

But, I gotta say, ya'll are acting like GW is going to can them tomorrow.

Just saying.

Well it wouldn't be a problem if marines were good or even mid tier armies. It is one thing to have fun for a few years and then having your army squated, and another having 0 fun playing a bad army, and then getting GW removing it instead of fixing it.

If GW suddenly removed eldar and replaced them with some primaris elf race, there would be an uproar, but eldar were great for what 30 years? But if someone started an army at the start of 6th and it kept being bad since then, seeing it squated would imo generate more anger.

People dislike new-marines because their fluff is silly,they are a technological innovation which goes against a core tenet of the setting, being that the Imperium is technologically and culturally stagnant unable to advance in any way and only gets new stuff when they find an STC they can just plug into a factory, the kits themselves are greatly simplified (or more focused, depending on your point of view) in terms of options, and most of all-and this is related to the fluff-they de-value "regular" marines. Primaris are, in fluff and on the table simply better than "normal" Astartes, who themselves are "supposed to be" the pinnacle of what the Imperium has to offer on the battlefield. Creating a better version is just, well, lame, and makes those armies many of us have put huge amounts of time and effort into essentially obsolete. Our marines aren't awesome anymore. Primaris herald a new direction or the game, much like Abrams "Trek" vs. everything prior to that, and not everyone is happy about that.

Even then they're not the best the imperium has to offer, as we have a full-on Custodes army now.

Space Marines never have been the pinnacle of what the imperium as to offer. They became that by circumstance after the Horus Heresy. They where the line troops of the Great Crusade, a feasible weapon that the Emperor could mass produce with his current technology and resources.


Thunder Warriors thought they where the pinnacle too.

Karol wrote:
Well it wouldn't be a problem if marines were good or even mid tier armies. It is one thing to have fun for a few years and then having your army squated, and another having 0 fun playing a bad army, and then getting GW removing it instead of fixing it.

If GW suddenly removed eldar and replaced them with some primaris elf race, there would be an uproar, but eldar were great for what 30 years? But if someone started an army at the start of 6th and it kept being bad since then, seeing it squated would imo generate more anger.

We should see what happens with Chapter Approved before jumping to the conclusion that GW is purposefully making Space Marines bad in order to sell Primaris. As people pointed out earlier in the thread, Space Marines, including Primaris, haven't been doing so hot this edition. I do recall seeing some Regular Marine stuff make some top 10 lists for various tournaments, but I don't recall seeing anything Primaris related (unless you REALLY want to count Guilliman).

As far as my own experience, the only people I'm seeing buying Primaris are getting them for the aesthetics, not because they're actually any good. I have yet to see a full Primaris force win a game at my FLGS.

That was a friends idea, that GW is making the old marine armies feel bad to play, so when they do an AoS switch to the marine line, no one is going to miss them, because they are going to be pissed about 2-3 years of old marines being unfun.

Not my idea. And I don't know GW good enough, to know if they could do something like that.

What I do know is that the only explanation to GK being the way they are in 8th ed is either total incompetance on the design studio size, which would mean fixing GK could be unachivable, or GW not wanting people to play GK, which per se aint bad in itself, unless you happen to have a GK army.


I hope that primaris end up good. The very idea of bad units is something that irks me a lot. People should want to buy all GW models, and not just 2-3 per codex, unless they happen to be playing eldar of some sort.

Karol wrote:
People should want to buy all GW models, and not just 2-3 per codex, unless they happen to be playing eldar of some sort.

Eldar actually have a lot of terrible units too, it is just that their good stuff is very good.

I understand why people are upset, no one likes having models or armies change drastically, but let's be honest here: Space Marines are supposed to be the poster boys, and the "beginner's army". Unfortunately years of new rules and units have made them anything but accessible for new players. Mixed units with different equipment options are confusing for new players, unit bloat with so many units stepping on each others' toes also befuddles folks who are new to the game. Which fast attack option do you take? Hell if a new player is going to be able to decide since there are so damn many, and they haven't a clue which are actually any good.

I am honestly kind of excited for a Primaris Only marine codex. Each model is exactly what a marine needed to be for 8th edition: tough. Not to mention the models are really cool. I am pretty sure the folks upset by oldmarines being changed will still be able to use their models as either proxies or as an index-based list.

 Crimson wrote:

Karol wrote:
People should want to buy all GW models, and not just 2-3 per codex, unless they happen to be playing eldar of some sort.

Eldar actually have a lot of terrible units too, it is just that their good stuff is very good.

Their bad stuff is also good, it is just worse then the best eldar can take. I can imagine that if melta were a good weapon something like firedragons could be really good. By the way I don't think it is a bad thing to have multiple good options in a codex. In fact ,if anything at all books should be as close to what eldar have as possible. Then armies would less hurt by sudden FAQ or CA changes, it would also be great at non tournament level of playing. Right now there are armies that are limited to either being a non entity or having a tournament list, and nothing in between.

Unfortunately years of new rules and units have made them anything but accessible for new players.

how hard is it to do the math on plasma vs other weapons? I can do it, and I am not math genius. In fact am a bit of an anti talent in that field.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Even then they're not the best the imperium has to offer, as we have a full-on Custodes army now.

It baffles me to see custodes. The only instance in which I could imagine them it would be as a single part of the retinue of an inquisitor.
But then again, this would not be a good way to sell models in Spamhammer 40k.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Even then they're not the best the imperium has to offer, as we have a full-on Custodes army now.

It baffles me to see custodes. The only instance in which I could imagine them it would be as a single part of the retinue of an inquisitor.
But then again, this would not be a good way to sell models in Spamhammer 40k.

I know. It kills me a little on the inside each time I see them played, and I see them often. What hurts worse is the ever popular 3 shield captains. How rare are those supposed to be? Don't they have some section of the imperial palace to stand in, somewhere? I suppose they're supposed to be mobilized anew for the current age, but still.

Thankfully I can take solace in eating them with Nids, most of the time. See that hero of the emperor? That champion of champions wielding the finest of the finest armour and wargear? He's going to die spending his last moments killing a few drones that are borne in the billions. Nomnomnomnom.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Even then they're not the best the imperium has to offer, as we have a full-on Custodes army now.

It baffles me to see custodes. The only instance in which I could imagine them it would be as a single part of the retinue of an inquisitor.
But then again, this would not be a good way to sell models in Spamhammer 40k.

From a fluff and setting perspective I would agree with you. But from a model and gameplay perspective I couldn't be in a bigger disagrement. Adeptus Custodes not only are stuning as models and as an army, but they actually feel like a true elite army in 40k.
Personally for me, the second is more important. And personally I don't see that big of a problem that sometimes 10-15 Custodes go somewere and kill things. At least not in the game where Guilliman can face a wombo combo of Mortarion+Magnus.

But even if you add those in the same sack, I have never had a problem with special characters like chapter masters being present in every single battle. I have a big mental separation between Warhammer 40k the setting and Warhammer 40k the tabletop wargame.

And Insectium7, I'll add that Shield-Captain means nothing. Nearly all Custodes are equal, the captain title is just temporal, they just follow one of them for a given mission. So is not more rare to see 3 shield captains that to see 3 normal Adeptus Custodes, thats more a Tabletop separation than a fluff one.

^really? Are they a flat heirarchy organization or something?

Yeah, just like the Inquisition, the only difference between an Inquisitor and a Lord Inquisitor is that the second has more respect from others and more power.

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, just like the Inquisition, the only difference between an Inquisitor and a Lord Inquisitor is that the second has more respect from others and more power.

Huh. Imo that makes the Custodes appearance on the tabletop even weirder.

Personally I think they should make the old marines have the same stats as primaris and then make the new primaris pay small amount of points for weapon upgrades over basic bolter. That way the units arent competing against each other and people can mix old and new models.

 Smirrors wrote:
Personally I think they should make the old marines have the same stats as primaris and then make the new primaris pay small amount of points for weapon upgrades over basic bolter. That way the units arent competing against each other and people can mix old and new models.

And what do you propose for Aspect Warriors in that scenario?