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.

I just want customizable primaris Captains. Don’t really care about regular troops having 10 different weapons in the same squad at the same time. For that I have DW.

And I want customizable troops. Intercessors should be able to have more than just underslung grenade launchers. Would be nice if you could swap the two aux GLs for a combiweapon for example. Having them just be bog-standard rifles really limits their use, and marines are all about adaptability.

Martel732 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


You can scoff at the old miniatures, but this is the size comparison I prefer. Tyranid Warriors are better as huge monsters, and marines are better as stalwart but outclassed defenders of the Imperium in comparison. Imo it gives the xenos threat more gravitas, and makes the marine more badass for fighting it. It's just more effin grimdark. I find the classic scale relationship infinitely more compelling from an atmospheric perspective.

Thing is, when those models were made, the Tyranid Warriors were amongst the biggest models in the game. Now this is not even remotely true. So if you want Primaris Marines to face giant hulking alien bugs that completely dwarf them, that certainly can be arranged!

Grimdark is lame and very 90s. 2nd ed models were awful.

Says the guy who plays *Blood* *Angels*. The chapter of vampire marines. With Mephiston aping muscle-armor as seen in Coppolas Dracula. The chapter who are visited with dark visions of their deceased father. The pretty-boy space marines who paint their armor black, add more skulls and adorn it with tear-gems. And you're gonna hate on the 90's!? You might as well show up to the table costumed as Tom Cruises Lestat or Brad Pitts Louis and be rocking The Crow soundtrack. . . ."Someone take these dreams away. . . "

 Melissia wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah. If these new primaris marines come out, and they are a real actual REPLACEMENT for the current tactical squad, in terms of wargear options, customizability, and model character....I am all in on the primaris train.

Agreed. Literally the lack of customization options is what kept me from getting primaris for my BA. If they add customization, I might make a primaris raven guard army.

The lack of customization is a weird one to me, too. I really don't know why GW made that decision. I recall that a lot of people playing Heresy seemed to prefer a lack of customization in units though. If Intercessors did have more choices, they'd really look like they were putting the Tactical Squad out of business. I have mixed feelings about all that.

I do find it funny when people talk about doom and gloom that is in response to the eventual squatting of their entire collections.

(a) that's a totally valid reason to feel bummed out
and
(b) this is a community that is clearly drawn to grim dark, so it kind of fits to take the grim dark view of 9th, or 10th, edition.

I'd say the proof of the viability of "Grimdark" is in the Nolan Batman movies. Heck, Ledgers Joker is practically an avatar of Grimdark, and people love that depiction.

the_scotsman wrote:Slayerfan in this thread:

"People don't like primaris marines for no reason! There is no aesthetic reason to not like them! Therefore they must just be blindly hating them because of their fluff and lying, saying they have aesthetic problems with them!"

Other people:

"No, here are my specific aesthetic problems with them, in my opinion."

Slayerfan:

"THAT IS NOT A VALID OPINION BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH IT! Therefore you dislike Primaris Marines for no reason!"

But that's not what SlayerFan is saying.
They're pointing out that some of the criticisms of Primaris also apply to the normal Marines, and it's a bit skewed to only mention those bits when it's convenient to bashing on the Primaris.

Yes, opinions be subjective and all, and I definitely agree all are valid, but pointing out that some of the arguments about Primaris being inferior also applied to the old sculpts too (not to mention paintjob being down to personal interpretation, not the sculpt at all) isn't saying it's invalid.
It's just asking for specifics. Now, it very well could be that robbienw can't lay down a specific aesthetic reason that doesn't also incriminate the minimarines, but that's not to say their opinion is invalid. It just means that they can't articulate it, or reason it, but the effect the Primaris armour has on them is still there.

(FTR: I completely understand the reasoning behind why GW added all the extra armor plates to the legs of primaris marines and replaced the face grille with a front plate, and I agree with the decision to do so. It adds more hard edges to the parts of the space marine that typically only looked good when carefully layered, meaning that a primaris marine looks better with a basic base coat/wash/drybrush paint scheme that a new player might apply. You can still layer paint them, so a high quality paintjob looks similarly good, but the added hard edges makes drybrush and simple edge highlights look better on the primaris armor.

I've noticed this too, and I think it is very good. GW themselves are also leaning strongly into that with their battle-ready Primaris tutorials (which I *REALLY* like).
I've used both edge highlighting and drybrush techniques, and edge highlighting is so much easier than on older marines, as is drybrushing. They really are great sculpts for beginners in that respect too.

I don't share robbienw's opinion, but that does not mean I don't think he's entitled to hold it. I also do not think slayer isn't entitled to hold his own opinion that primaris-equivalent units are superior to the previous marine designs in every way.)

Agreed. I think the issue here is that Slayer is saying that robbienw's arguments also attack the older marines that they are defending by-proxy, and that it's a bit of a double-standard. It's not to say that robbienw's opinions and feelings aren't justified or real, but that they might be more personal and feelings-based rather than about quantifiable differences.

They don't apply. The relative scale of primaris to the rest of the game cause a real problem.

If you take a marine-centric viewpoint i'm sure their size is fine.

But i play Eldar, and I think the new marines are stupid.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:Slayerfan in this thread:

"People don't like primaris marines for no reason! There is no aesthetic reason to not like them! Therefore they must just be blindly hating them because of their fluff and lying, saying they have aesthetic problems with them!"

Other people:

"No, here are my specific aesthetic problems with them, in my opinion."

Slayerfan:

"THAT IS NOT A VALID OPINION BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH IT! Therefore you dislike Primaris Marines for no reason!"

But that's not what SlayerFan is saying.
They're pointing out that some of the criticisms of Primaris also apply to the normal Marines, and it's a bit skewed to only mention those bits when it's convenient to bashing on the Primaris.

Yes, opinions be subjective and all, and I definitely agree all are valid, but pointing out that some of the arguments about Primaris being inferior also applied to the old sculpts too (not to mention paintjob being down to personal interpretation, not the sculpt at all) isn't saying it's invalid.
It's just asking for specifics. Now, it very well could be that robbienw can't lay down a specific aesthetic reason that doesn't also incriminate the minimarines, but that's not to say their opinion is invalid. It just means that they can't articulate it, or reason it, but the effect the Primaris armour has on them is still there.

(FTR: I completely understand the reasoning behind why GW added all the extra armor plates to the legs of primaris marines and replaced the face grille with a front plate, and I agree with the decision to do so. It adds more hard edges to the parts of the space marine that typically only looked good when carefully layered, meaning that a primaris marine looks better with a basic base coat/wash/drybrush paint scheme that a new player might apply. You can still layer paint them, so a high quality paintjob looks similarly good, but the added hard edges makes drybrush and simple edge highlights look better on the primaris armor.

I've noticed this too, and I think it is very good. GW themselves are also leaning strongly into that with their battle-ready Primaris tutorials (which I *REALLY* like).
I've used both edge highlighting and drybrush techniques, and edge highlighting is so much easier than on older marines, as is drybrushing. They really are great sculpts for beginners in that respect too.

I don't share robbienw's opinion, but that does not mean I don't think he's entitled to hold it. I also do not think slayer isn't entitled to hold his own opinion that primaris-equivalent units are superior to the previous marine designs in every way.)

Agreed. I think the issue here is that Slayer is saying that robbienw's arguments also attack the older marines that they are defending by-proxy, and that it's a bit of a double-standard. It's not to say that robbienw's opinions and feelings aren't justified or real, but that they might be more personal and feelings-based rather than about quantifiable differences.

The language surrounding aesthetics is very difficult and fairly ill-defined. Also, as a guy who works in a creative industry, it takes two to tango. Both parties discussing aesthetic nuances usually have to either immediately "get it" or be very generous with their listening to try and understand what the other person is trying to articulate. Either between two "creatives" or in a "creative"- client relationship. Aesthetics and tastes are tricky to navigate.

"Listening generously" is fairly alien on dakka.

Agreed. I think the issue here is that Slayer is saying that robbienw's arguments also attack the older marines that they are defending by-proxy, and that it's a bit of a double-standard. It's not to say that robbienw's opinions and feelings aren't justified or real, but that they might be more personal and feelings-based rather than about quantifiable differences.

Well he tried to say that, but it was a bit of a straw man attack because he selectivey picked a couple of things that he felt also applied to normal Marines and ignores several other criticisms that aren’t applicable to normal marines.

There is obviously a lot of overlap between classics and Primaris so a lot of their characterisitics are going to be similar. But as I said its also possible to like characteristics of a model and dislike similar characteristics on different model, because of the way they fit into the design, or how they are used on a design.

Ultimately though you are right, these things with models and aethsetics are mainly based on the way you feel when looking at a model. It doesn’t need to be rationalised. I look at a classic tactical and I like it. I look at an intercessor and I think it looks ugly. No justification is required.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The lack of customization is a weird one to me, too. I really don't know why GW made that decision. I recall that a lot of people playing Heresy seemed to prefer a lack of customization in units though. If Intercessors did have more choices, they'd really look like they were putting the Tactical Squad out of business. I have mixed feelings about all that.

I relaly wouldn't care if they replced the tactical squad as long as the replacement could do the same level of customization, or better yet, more customization.

Insectum7 wrote:The language surrounding aesthetics is very difficult and fairly ill-defined. Also, as a guy who works in a creative industry, it takes two to tango. Both parties discussing aesthetic nuances usually have to either immediately "get it" or be very generous with their listening to try and understand what the other person is trying to articulate. Either between two "creatives" or in a "creative"- client relationship. Aesthetics and tastes are tricky to navigate.

"Listening generously" is fairly alien on dakka.

Oh, absolutely. I know myself that trying to explain certain qualities simply doesn't work if the other person isn't connecting on the same level. However, when two things are very similar to eachother, and saying that one is good while the other is bad, even though those parts are pretty much the same, is a bit strange. It's not like it's two totally different things, it's the same thing, just on a different canvas almost - yet all the criticisms of one don't seem to apply to the same thing elsewhere.

robbienw wrote:Well he tried to say that, but it was a bit of a straw man attack because he selectivey picked a couple of things that he felt also applied to normal Marines and ignores several other criticisms that aren’t applicable to normal marines.

Perhaps, and for me, that would imply that Slayer was conceding that those particular things they understood how you could dislike them. The edge on the kneepads, for example, are very much new, with no real design ancestor, so disliking them would make sense.

However, I think there was an insight to be gathered by challenging why you didn't like MiniMarine traits that appeared on the Primaris. It's not to say that you needed a rational explanation, but just pointing out that you do like some of the things on Primaris - just... not on Primaris?

And again, the leather belt wasn't really a sculpt thing at all.

There is obviously a lot of overlap between classics and Primaris so a lot of their characterisitics are going to be similar. But as I said its also possible to like characteristics of a model and dislike similar characteristics on different model, because of the way they fit into the design, or how they are used on a design.

Yes, this is true, but then it's not XYZ characteristics that are the problem (as you seem to imply - "don't like oversized greaves" "cluttered" "top heavy backpack"), but rather a nebulous personal dissonance with the Primaris design overall.

Just a phrasing thing, but the former phrasing doesn't make sense when you imply that the older Marines were fine, even though they had all the same negatives that you espouse Primaris to have.

Ultimately though you are right, these things with models and aethsetics are mainly based on the way you feel when looking at a model. It doesn’t need to be rationalised. I look at a classic tactical and I like it. I look at an intercessor and I think it looks ugly. No justification is required.

Agreed. You can like something without needing to know why. Yes, it's a little awkward to say "look, I just don't like it, I can't say why not, but I don't", but in my eyes, it's far better to do that. It's no less valid in my eyes.

For what it's worth, I see a Tactical Marine, and I like it. I see an Intercessor, and I like it more.

 Melissia wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The lack of customization is a weird one to me, too. I really don't know why GW made that decision. I recall that a lot of people playing Heresy seemed to prefer a lack of customization in units though. If Intercessors did have more choices, they'd really look like they were putting the Tactical Squad out of business. I have mixed feelings about all that.

I relaly wouldn't care if they replced the tactical squad as long as the replacement could do the same level of customization, or better yet, more customization.

I will say that if I were GW, and I had to do what GW did with the release of Primaris (bringing them out alongside existing marine units) I would handle the "squatting" of marines this way:

1) release Primaris Wave 1. Low options, but with new aesthetics. Get newer, younger playerbase interested in primaris marines. Limit the sprue count, so that later on, I can introduce new sprues using the old ones as a baseline.

2) Release Primaris Veteran units, after I complete primaris wave 1. Primaris veterans feature analogues to pieces of equipment that the older marine lines have, even if it's not exactly the same, but ensure that anything you could build out of the old tactical squad box, you can build out of the new Veteran Primaris Intercessors.

3) Release FAQ telling people "OK, now use the new Primaris rules with your existing space marine units. We will no longer be supporting old marine stuff with rules."

4) Any specialist units I'm not planning on updating anytime soon get rules to run them as equivalent to Primaris marines. GK strikes maybe don't get a kit for a while, but they get a new statline with AP-1 storm bolters, A2, W2.

This puts anyone with an oldmarine collection on the same footing as someone who has the old metal wraithguard, or gorkamorka-era orks. All (or at least, most) of the weapon options they could have with those units, they can have with the new rules. Some oddball combinations without model support probably get dropped, but for the most part, everything you can have in regular marine flavor, can now be run with primaris flavor.

Fluffwise, just say that at this point, the Primaris gene-improvements are so universal within the Space Marines that everything is up to their standard, and any old-marines that are left make up for their inferior genetics with their long veterancy and experience, so they fight essentially the same.

Whole lot of extra hoop-la for what is essentially just a model line reboot like any other, but hey, your biggest line requires the most finesse when making changes to it.

 Wyzilla wrote:

The proper course of action would have been to do the exact same thing that was done before with the change of marines back from the RT guys to the larger "modern" marines. No Primaris BS, just announce a new miniature scale, a rules buff to two wounds, and that would be that.

If GW do plan on replacing standard marines then I agree. If what they are saying currently turns out to be true (reinforcements not replacements) then I guess what they have done is okay. Time will tell.

dkoz wrote:
It's fairly clear what GW is planning even if they are saying other wise. Anyone thinking about a marine army should clearly wait a couple of years.

So instead of getting back into the hobby 6 months ago I should have waited? No thanks. If GW are true to their word waiting would have been pointless. If they do go ahead and replace standard marines then I will have been fortunate enough to get the last rules and miniatures for them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The language surrounding aesthetics is very difficult and fairly ill-defined. Also, as a guy who works in a creative industry, it takes two to tango. Both parties discussing aesthetic nuances usually have to either immediately "get it" or be very generous with their listening to try and understand what the other person is trying to articulate. Either between two "creatives" or in a "creative"- client relationship. Aesthetics and tastes are tricky to navigate.

"Listening generously" is fairly alien on dakka.

Oh, absolutely. I know myself that trying to explain certain qualities simply doesn't work if the other person isn't connecting on the same level. However, when two things are very similar to eachother, and saying that one is good while the other is bad, even though those parts are pretty much the same, is a bit strange. It's not like it's two totally different things, it's the same thing, just on a different canvas almost - yet all the criticisms of one don't seem to apply to the same thing elsewhere.

robbienw wrote:Well he tried to say that, but it was a bit of a straw man attack because he selectivey picked a couple of things that he felt also applied to normal Marines and ignores several other criticisms that aren’t applicable to normal marines.

Perhaps, and for me, that would imply that Slayer was conceding that those particular things they understood how you could dislike them. The edge on the kneepads, for example, are very much new, with no real design ancestor, so disliking them would make sense.

However, I think there was an insight to be gathered by challenging why you didn't like MiniMarine traits that appeared on the Primaris. It's not to say that you needed a rational explanation, but just pointing out that you do like some of the things on Primaris - just... not on Primaris?

And again, the leather belt wasn't really a sculpt thing at all.

There is obviously a lot of overlap between classics and Primaris so a lot of their characterisitics are going to be similar. But as I said its also possible to like characteristics of a model and dislike similar characteristics on different model, because of the way they fit into the design, or how they are used on a design.

Yes, this is true, but then it's not XYZ characteristics that are the problem (as you seem to imply - "don't like oversized greaves" "cluttered" "top heavy backpack"), but rather a nebulous personal dissonance with the Primaris design overall.

Just a phrasing thing, but the former phrasing doesn't make sense when you imply that the older Marines were fine, even though they had all the same negatives that you espouse Primaris to have.

Ultimately though you are right, these things with models and aethsetics are mainly based on the way you feel when looking at a model. It doesn’t need to be rationalised. I look at a classic tactical and I like it. I look at an intercessor and I think it looks ugly. No justification is required.

Agreed. You can like something without needing to know why. Yes, it's a little awkward to say "look, I just don't like it, I can't say why not, but I don't", but in my eyes, it's far better to do that. It's no less valid in my eyes.

For what it's worth, I see a Tactical Marine, and I like it. I see an Intercessor, and I like it more.

I think it’s easy to understand though why I don’t like a characteristic on one model but like it on another.

It’s not the characteristic in itself, but they way it is on the model.

For example on the greaves issue, I think the greave area on a tactical marine looks fine. I think the greaves on an intercessor look too big in relation to the rest of the model.

This is not strange at all.

It would be like someone saying they like an intercessors legs but not a tactical marines because the tactical marines are shorter. Then me coming along and saying no you must like the legs on the tactical because the intercessor also has legs. That is strange and makes no sense to me.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The language surrounding aesthetics is very difficult and fairly ill-defined. Also, as a guy who works in a creative industry, it takes two to tango. Both parties discussing aesthetic nuances usually have to either immediately "get it" or be very generous with their listening to try and understand what the other person is trying to articulate. Either between two "creatives" or in a "creative"- client relationship. Aesthetics and tastes are tricky to navigate.

"Listening generously" is fairly alien on dakka.

Oh, absolutely. I know myself that trying to explain certain qualities simply doesn't work if the other person isn't connecting on the same level. However, when two things are very similar to eachother, and saying that one is good while the other is bad, even though those parts are pretty much the same, is a bit strange. It's not like it's two totally different things, it's the same thing, just on a different canvas almost - yet all the criticisms of one don't seem to apply to the same thing elsewhere.

They are "pretty much the same" from one perspective. They are more of less the same idea expressed in two different styles. Like you could take one artists depiction of the xenomorph Alien and compare it to another artists depiction of the Alien, and you'd have two different depictions of the same thing, but potentially very different renditions. Objectively speaking for our Space Marines, as many have pointed out, the Primaris depiction is internally proportioned more realistically. The issue I take is when people make the claim that it makes the model "objectively better." That's a much harder sell from my standpoint (and a much bigger discussion). But I think the old style had it's purpose, and clearly performed its function well, even spectacularly.

An extreme analogy would be Michaelangelos statue of David, which is widely regarded as a superb depiction of the human form. At the same time, you have the characters in the movie The Incredibles, which are "objectively" a very poor rendition of the human form, but serve their purpose 100%, and thus are also "Good". In fact the film wouldn't be as effective if you used correctly proportioned animated characters. In that context, the extreme stylization is "better" than a more "realistic" one.

I'm not trying to prove that makes the traditional Space Marine "better", mind you. I'm actually pretty conflicted on it. I DO think that the older Space Marines look better next to most of the other models in the GW line, but that's more of an opinion than a fact. Personally what matters to me the most is how they look next to my current collection, and in that frame of context I'm not a fan of the new models.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

For what it's worth, I see a Tactical Marine, and I like it. I see an Intercessor, and I like it more.

I totally get it. 100%

 Crimson wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yep, they are scaled to be about seven and half feet tall, which is good size for Space Marines.

We're supposed to assume that a Catachan guardsman is just as strong as an 8 foot tall genetically engineered super soldier. Size matters when determining strength. Primaris are nonsense in size.

How are they nonsense in size when the models are finally scaled to the size the marines are in the fluff?

This is ultimately an issue of the granularity of the game system. Strength runs within a certain scale, that scale is all whole numbers, and the strength scale really doesn't represent all the aspects of strength in a real world context.

You have Strength 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc... Where strength 3 is a typical human and strength 4 is the typical space marine. There is however a spectrum of human strength in between. Where do characters portrayed in cinema by Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone fall on this spectrum? - Because that's ultimately what Catachans are suppose to be. Their portrayed strength is more than average, being fictional, their fictional characters' strength is arguably on the edge human possibility, but just inside superhuman. For GW that's enough to justify it. There are however living individuals stronger than Arnold Schwarzenegger was at his peak, who could also be regarded similarly as Strength 4 humans.

Your hang up though is ultimately a question of what does strength 4 mean when a space marine and a Schwarzenegger analogue are both strength 4? And then what does it mean to be a space marine, if they are "only strength 4"?

To put it in a different context... you have two military jets... both capable of Mach 1.2, this is like our strength value, a threshold line in the sand. One of those jets has to fly with afterburners to achieve that speed, the other can do it just cruising and without afterburners. The aircraft with afterburners will typically have to slow down and turn off their afterburners after an amount of time or risk permanent damage. This is our Catachan. The aircraft flying in cruise can do it until it runs out of fuel or gets shot down. This is our marine... although to continue the analogy this jet not only super cruises its an armored tank with a nearly infinite fuel supply and that is ultimately as much of what makes a space marine super human.


The average soldier performs all the different weight lifting in the ball park of 125lbs to 150lbs; that is what strength 3 represents. Arnold Schwarzenegger at his peak was performing all the different lifts in a weight range of 525lbs to 750lbs. He could be kitted as a fully equipped soldier and additionally carry an average sized soldier equally equipped without necessarily hitting his peak strength. This is easily in the realm of picking up an unladen person and throwing them or knocking them so hard they're catching some air. His workouts were typically 5 hours a day, which speaks to his level of endurance to perform in this generally high domain. The man generally regarded as the strongest man in the world, Björnsson, the man who played "the Mountain" in the Game of Thrones tv show... he is our closest human analogue to a Space Marine, where he's 440lbs 6ft-9in and he performs many of his lifts and challenges at 900lbs+, but deadlifts 1000lbs+ and performs a log carry at 1400lbs+. I will use him as a baseline to ultimately compare how far removed in "strength" a space marine might be.

Space Marines, like normal people vary in size and capabilities, and through fiction have run the gambit... so any comparison has to keep that in mind, and assume much of the most over the top descriptions of marines are extreme outliers. GW's most often stated stats on a space marine is that unarmored they are minimally 7ft tall and weigh in at 700lbs. The weight difference to Bjornsson is 260lbs, but that includes the generally larger scale, their black carapace and other implants, 20 extra organs, their increased bone density, and only after the extra muscle they have over Bjornsson.

Bones for a typical human compose 15% of our overall weight, for a 700lbs normal human that would be 107lbs. Space marines however have increased bone density as part of their toughness... human bone density is typically around 1.24 g/cm^3, while the largest land mammal, the elephant, is 1.7g/cm^3... this is about 30% greater and I think serves as a good approximation for a marine. This makes a space marine's bones roughly 146lbs of their weight... meaning of the 260lbs difference 78lbs of that is additional bone mass.

In a similar way we can account for the added mass of a space marines organs and skin from just being larger... you get an additional 26lbs for the additional skin and 36lbs for the larger, otherwise natural, organs. At this point you have to attempt to account for the implanted space marine organs. Going by their descriptions we can infer the mass of these different organs relative to particular analogous standard human organs; without giving you a spread sheet it ends up coming to about an additional 56lbs. From this we can assume the remaining mass difference of a space marine is pure added muscle, but its really only 64lbs.

When we take the mass of Bjornsson's constituent parts we're left with 200lbs +/-20lb of him is muscle. And if we add up the constituent parts of a space marine he ends up at 264lbs +/- 20lbs of muscle. A space marine has 30% more muscle mass than the strongest man in the world.

We know a space marine receives lots of hormones, but we don't know if their muscles aren't just bigger but different. But just going by this muscle mass a space marine can dead lift and squat a full sized sedan, completely off the ground by himself. Bjornsson can only turn that sedan over on its side. Schwarzenegger can only lift the front end while the rear wheels stay on the ground.

Of a space marine's 700lbs, beyond a normal human a good amount of what makes a marine is going into that toughness 4, but just as much does make it into that Strength 4. But I think the aspect of strength and what makes a marine a marine, isn't as much their peak strength as it is their high endurance. The average Strength 3 guardsmen, can't lift a car but compared to a body builder that soldier can perform at their modest peak level for longer. While a Schwarzenegger or Catachans might be Strength 4 realistically this represents a surge strength, an occasional and concerted effort of peak performance that can't be sustained for as long as a space marine can. So while a marines relative mass and size might make you think they should just be stronger, a lot of the gain is really their endurance and toughness. A lot of it is also peak potential and longevity; at 200 years old a space marine could likely have trained themselves even further beyond that baseline performance, even further beyond human.

So if it helps you think about it, Strength 4 is a bench mark and not a proportional measure of all aspects of strength. If we lined up everything that was Strength 4 in order of strength this Catachan is at one end of the spectrum while space marines are at the other. Strength 4 is "can what this model represent lift a car?" Where strength 5 is a higher threshold that even primaris, despite being stronger than a typical marine can't quite reach... maybe that threshold is to punch a car some distance, I don't know. Its abstract to a degree so you have to give it elbow room.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yep, they are scaled to be about seven and half feet tall, which is good size for Space Marines.

We're supposed to assume that a Catachan guardsman is just as strong as an 8 foot tall genetically engineered super soldier. Size matters when determining strength. Primaris are nonsense in size.

Space marines are 7ft tall.

Chimps are way stronger than humans, pound for pound. Catachans could have a muscle mutation that makes human muscles as effective as chimp muscles, and S4 would be totally plausible.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yep, they are scaled to be about seven and half feet tall, which is good size for Space Marines.

We're supposed to assume that a Catachan guardsman is just as strong as an 8 foot tall genetically engineered super soldier. Size matters when determining strength. Primaris are nonsense in size.

Space marines are 7ft tall.

Chimps are way stronger than humans, pound for pound. Catachans could have a muscle mutation that makes human muscles as effective as chimp muscles, and S4 would be totally plausible.

Arguably you could also chalk it up to how they fight, sort of Krav Maga as opposed to karate. Not the best example but how you approach an enemy can change the outcome.

I mean, I really don't think that Catachans should be S4, but that's kinda another discussion.

The Marines have been described as seven feet (or a bit more) tall in the fluff for ages, so now that we finally have models that are actually scaled to be that tall compared to the normal humans, it is a bit weird that some people think it looks 'wrong.'

Primaris should be scaled to be taller then no?

Given that they are depicted as taller than standard space marines.

 Crimson wrote:
I mean, I really don't think that Catachans should be S4, but that's kinda another discussion.

The Marines have been described as seven feet (or a bit more) tall in the fluff for ages, so now that we finally have models that are actually scaled to be that tall compared to the normal humans, it is a bit weird that some people think it looks 'wrong.'

That depends tremendously on what models you are putting side by side to one another, because GWs "human" scale is all over the place. Terrain is even more bonkers.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yep, they are scaled to be about seven and half feet tall, which is good size for Space Marines.

We're supposed to assume that a Catachan guardsman is just as strong as an 8 foot tall genetically engineered super soldier. Size matters when determining strength. Primaris are nonsense in size.

Space marines are 7ft tall.

Chimps are way stronger than humans, pound for pound. Catachans could have a muscle mutation that makes human muscles as effective as chimp muscles, and S4 would be totally plausible.

Only in a world where space marines are str 6.

robbienw wrote:
Primaris should be scaled to be taller then no?

Given that they are depicted as taller than standard space marines.

Well, that's the awkward part. Thankfully it has never been said in the fluff how much bigger the Primaris are, so maybe it just a tiny bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

That depends tremendously on what models you are putting side by side to one another, because GWs "human" scale is all over the place.

No, not really. Unless we're talking about some ancient metals.

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

That depends tremendously on what models you are putting side by side to one another, because GWs "human" scale is all over the place.

No, not really. Unless we're talking about some ancient metals.

Current models are weird scales. Those Eschers are pretty big, yo. If I recall, Greyfax is super tall, too.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yep, they are scaled to be about seven and half feet tall, which is good size for Space Marines.

We're supposed to assume that a Catachan guardsman is just as strong as an 8 foot tall genetically engineered super soldier. Size matters when determining strength. Primaris are nonsense in size.

Space marines are 7ft tall.

Chimps are way stronger than humans, pound for pound. Catachans could have a muscle mutation that makes human muscles as effective as chimp muscles, and S4 would be totally plausible.

Only in a world where space marines are str 6.

Explain?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Current models are weird scales. Those Eschers are pretty big, yo. If I recall, Greyfax is super tall, too.

Greyfax has like 6" power-heels. She absolutely needs an extra attack for those!

The SoS are pretty tall, though and have fairly modest wedges.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

That depends tremendously on what models you are putting side by side to one another, because GWs "human" scale is all over the place.

No, not really. Unless we're talking about some ancient metals.

Current models are weird scales. Those Eschers are pretty big, yo. If I recall, Greyfax is super tall, too.

I'd say it's a little unfair to use necromunda models as an example.

Greyfax appears tall do to her hat and massive boots. But her head(not hat) comes up to roughly top of a Primaris shoulder pad. So she's probably about 6'2" or 4" without heels/boots.

All the humans got a bit taller around the time non-Primaris marines started getting taller, it just want quite as noticeable until more tall humans arrived. Stuff like greyfax, SoS, necromunda humans, all the humans from Rogue Trader and Blackstone fortress are taller than previous that humans came out before 2015/2016 sort of time. Compare any of the above to a relatively recent scion (2014 release) and you will see what I mean.

I'm really curious as to how large the new Sisters are going to be. Will they look gigantic in comparison to the metals?

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm really curious as to how large the new Sisters are going to be. Will they look gigantic in comparison to the metals?

Thy will probably be about the size of the Escher.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm really curious as to how large the new Sisters are going to be. Will they look gigantic in comparison to the metals?

I am betting on being re-based to 32mm bases like all other Power Armor units. That said, New!Celestine isn't particularly taller than Old!Celestine, though her little friends are a taller than Canonii.