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.
Insectum7 wrote: Sure. Go out there and do better, popularize it, and take all of GWs market share. Be my guest.
Ah yes, the classic "if you can't build a billion dollar game company you can't criticize GW" argument. Do you also believe that you can't leave a 1-star review for a restaurant unless you first go out and start your own restaurant that takes over their market share?
I believe, based on your reasoning, that you are not qualified to rate the restaraunt in question. Your criticisms appear to come from a strictly design mechanics viewpoint, which while in itself is a valid lens, the fact that you can't seem to expand your perspective beyond that narrow framework renders discussion pointless. 40k as a game has more dimensionality than you appear to be capable of accepting.
In this case, you are rating the restaraunt one star because they put the forks in the wrong order in the table setting.
Insectum7 wrote: I believe, based on your reasoning, that you are not qualified to rate the restaraunt in question. Your criticisms appear to come from a strictly design mechanics viewpoint, which while in itself is a valid lens, the fact that you can't seem to expand your perspective beyond that narrow framework renders discussion pointless. 40k as a game has more dimensionality than you appear to be capable of accepting.
In this case, you are rating the restaraunt one star because they put the forks in the wrong order in the table setting.
Sorry, but that's a nonsense argument. We're talking about mechanics, not fluff, so of course we're talking about a strictly mechanical viewpoint. You can have all the opinions you like about things like the merits of being able to pose a model as you like vs. the superior detail of monopose kits and how those choices impact your enjoyment of the hobby. You can spend all the hours you can find on painting your miniatures and I'll be happy to look at your gallery images. But none of that has anything to do with how the rules should be designed.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Came in rightly expecting salt. Found yet another Peregrine vs 40K thread. Yawn. Think I’ve seen this one already.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/16 22:32:51
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
Insectum7 wrote: I believe, based on your reasoning, that you are not qualified to rate the restaraunt in question. Your criticisms appear to come from a strictly design mechanics viewpoint, which while in itself is a valid lens, the fact that you can't seem to expand your perspective beyond that narrow framework renders discussion pointless. 40k as a game has more dimensionality than you appear to be capable of accepting.
In this case, you are rating the restaraunt one star because they put the forks in the wrong order in the table setting.
Sorry, but that's a nonsense argument. We're talking about mechanics, not fluff, so of course we're talking about a strictly mechanical viewpoint. You can have all the opinions you like about things like the merits of being able to pose a model as you like vs. the superior detail of monopose kits and how those choices impact your enjoyment of the hobby. You can spend all the hours you can find on painting your miniatures and I'll be happy to look at your gallery images. But none of that has anything to do with how the rules should be designed.
Fluff would be the equivalent of the person finally accomplishing their dream of opening the restaurant because that was their father's dying wish.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
JohnnyHell wrote: Came in rightly expecting salt. Found yet another Peregrine vs 40K thread. Yawn. Think I’ve seen this one already.
We've all seen it, any one who's been on Dakka for longer than a week has seen it.
Peregrine hates 40k BaconCatBug hates 40k yet they keep putting up the same post again and again
JohnnyHell wrote: Came in rightly expecting salt. Found yet another Peregrine vs 40K thread. Yawn. Think I’ve seen this one already.
We all have.
You know, it wouldn't be so bad if he had anything at all insightful to say, but unfortunately he does not have an exceptionally strong grasp of the game, and as such is as limited by his understanding as he is by his blinkered one-sided perspective on the game design. Casual players with so much to say about a ruleset competitively generally boil down to having encountered hurdles elsewhere and needing a scapegoat.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/16 23:42:46
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Why do you guys have to make this so personal? Peregrine has brought up some very valid points on game design regarding 40k. Yet you have collectively wrote 1 page now how much you think he personally hates or does not "understand" 40k. That gak is off topic and honestly seems kinda rude.
Insectum7 wrote: I believe, based on your reasoning, that you are not qualified to rate the restaraunt in question. Your criticisms appear to come from a strictly design mechanics viewpoint, which while in itself is a valid lens, the fact that you can't seem to expand your perspective beyond that narrow framework renders discussion pointless. 40k as a game has more dimensionality than you appear to be capable of accepting.
In this case, you are rating the restaraunt one star because they put the forks in the wrong order in the table setting.
Sorry, but that's a nonsense argument. We're talking about mechanics, not fluff, so of course we're talking about a strictly mechanical viewpoint. You can have all the opinions you like about things like the merits of being able to pose a model as you like vs. the superior detail of monopose kits and how those choices impact your enjoyment of the hobby. You can spend all the hours you can find on painting your miniatures and I'll be happy to look at your gallery images. But none of that has anything to do with how the rules should be designed.
The experience of the game encompasses more than mechanics. Thus, judging the merits of semi-redundant choices strictly by mechanics is erroneous.
First, I agree with the topic, sucks old marines are being all kinda discarded for primaris that feel kinda dull and meh. Sure the models look clean and pretty but I still love my old marines as well.
As for the 40k hate, any long term vet has plenty of reason to dislike 40k. I had plenty of dislike for 40k in 6th and 7th edition to be sure. 8th at least felt like a better step at first. However that said, if you just fundamentally hate something is there any gain to making sure everyone knows that hate at all times ? The game has glaring problems but it really isn't even the topic of the thread is it ?
Edit: Yeah on re reading the beginning bashing GWs design choice in rules design really is totally off topic of disliking marines transition towards Primaris power. Though I guess the hate is on topic with being salty ?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/17 07:45:02
The experience of the game encompasses more than mechanics. Thus, judging the merits of semi-redundant choices strictly by mechanics is erroneous.
But the game is the mechanics. Without the mechanics the game does not exist, unless someone makes it his trade to paint or convert, or someone works for a company like GW, then it may have a monetary aspect and becomes a job.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Insectum7 wrote: The experience of the game encompasses more than mechanics. Thus, judging the merits of semi-redundant choices strictly by mechanics is erroneous.
But, again, we're talking about mechanics here. I'm sure you did a great job with the NMM on your most recent space marine model, and I'm sure that your amazing painting work adds a lot to the experience of the game, but that has nothing to do with the question of whether it's vitally important that lascannons and krak missiles have a 5% difference in point efficiency.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: but that has nothing to do with the question of whether it's vitally important that lascannons and krak missiles have a 5% difference in point efficiency.
JohnnyHell wrote: Came in rightly expecting salt. Found yet another Peregrine vs 40K thread. Yawn. Think I’ve seen this one already.
We've all seen it, any one who's been on Dakka for longer than a week has seen it.
Peregrine hates 40k BaconCatBug hates 40k yet they keep putting up the same post again and again
No. They are allowed to continually spam the same post, 25,000 times, because they are 'faces'. I have been here less than a year and it could not be more obvious that certain posters are utterly exempt from rules that are strictly and subjectively applied to others.
Opening three or four threads about movies gets your threads locked even though they're active and only tangentially related to each other. Posting "40k sucks reeeeeeeee" 25,000 times is fine.
Excommunicatus wrote: No. They are allowed to continually spam the same post, 25,000 times, because they are 'faces'. I have been here less than a year and it could not be more obvious that certain posters are utterly exempt from rules that are strictly and subjectively applied to others.
Opening three or four threads about movies gets your threads locked even though they're active and only tangentially related to each other. Posting "40k sucks reeeeeeeee" 25,000 times is fine.
And I'm sure you are equally insistent that people who always like 40k should be banned for being excessively positive. Or is it only people that you disagree with that you want to ban?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The experience of the game encompasses more than mechanics. Thus, judging the merits of semi-redundant choices strictly by mechanics is erroneous.
But the game is the mechanics. Without the mechanics the game does not exist, unless someone makes it his trade to paint or convert, or someone works for a company like GW, then it may have a monetary aspect and becomes a job.
The game is the experience of the game, which encompasses mechanics, imagery, tabletop and model presentation, listbuilding and planning, social negotiation etc.
Minor differences in weapons even if they have similar or overlapping roles, provide reinforcement accross imagery, narrative, listbuilding and planning, in addition to the "table-time" decision making. I pay a few fewer points for the Mtimelta over a Lascannon, I want to make sure I can deploy it effectively, so I plan my unit-use differently, and I imagine a steady, invisible heat ray that cooks my target when I fire it. All of which add more to my experience of the game as a whole, even if it has thr same anti-armor role as a lascannon.
The experience of the game encompasses more than mechanics. Thus, judging the merits of semi-redundant choices strictly by mechanics is erroneous.
But the game is the mechanics. Without the mechanics the game does not exist, unless someone makes it his trade to paint or convert, or someone works for a company like GW, then it may have a monetary aspect and becomes a job.
The game is the experience of the game, which encompasses mechanics, imagery, tabletop and model presentation, listbuilding and planning, social negotiation etc.
Minor differences in weapons even if they have similar or overlapping roles, provide reinforcement accross imagery, narrative, listbuilding and planning, in addition to the "table-time" decision making. I pay a few fewer points for the Mtimelta over a Lascannon, I want to make sure I can deploy it effectively, so I plan my unit-use differently, and I imagine a steady, invisible heat ray that cooks my target when I fire it. All of which add more to my experience of the game as a whole, even if it has thr same anti-armor role as a lascannon.
I am not understanding the argument. everything after game mechanics is a secondary thing. You could play w40k with wine corks or pices of paper, and the game result and expiriance would be identical to the one where one uses imagination. Planing and list building are the result of rules existing. If there were no rules on how to build an army, how one will builds, or more important, how one can not build his army would not matter.
I also don't understand the Mtimelta and Lascannon example given. One is a weapon no one will ever take, so it may as well not exist and the other is kind of a bad, but some armies don't have other options for anti tank so they use lascannon on something like astral aim dreadnought. The result of using one of the other would have different results, lascannons have better range, damage, chance to wound. To imagine that using a mtimelta over it would have the same result, would require a very strong imagination.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
I actually like the new models, for the most part.
I was playing guard until Primaris marines came out, and honestly...that's what got me back into Space Marines.
I don't like that the new Shadowspear stuff isn't usable with Deathwatch. Though, I think when multi-part kits come out later, they will make some REALLY awesome kitbash material to fold into the Deathwatch.
I am also kinda salty now about the whole "Phobos Armor Special Rules"... because I had schemed on making an entire Chapter of guys that used Phobos armor exclusively, when there was nothing that set it apart.
The experience of the game encompasses more than mechanics. Thus, judging the merits of semi-redundant choices strictly by mechanics is erroneous.
But the game is the mechanics. Without the mechanics the game does not exist, unless someone makes it his trade to paint or convert, or someone works for a company like GW, then it may have a monetary aspect and becomes a job.
The game is the experience of the game, which encompasses mechanics, imagery, tabletop and model presentation, listbuilding and planning, social negotiation etc.
Minor differences in weapons even if they have similar or overlapping roles, provide reinforcement accross imagery, narrative, listbuilding and planning, in addition to the "table-time" decision making. I pay a few fewer points for the Mtimelta over a Lascannon, I want to make sure I can deploy it effectively, so I plan my unit-use differently, and I imagine a steady, invisible heat ray that cooks my target when I fire it. All of which add more to my experience of the game as a whole, even if it has thr same anti-armor role as a lascannon.
I am not understanding the argument. everything after game mechanics is a secondary thing. You could play w40k with wine corks or pices of paper, and the game result and expiriance would be identical to the one where one uses imagination. Planing and list building are the result of rules existing. If there were no rules on how to build an army, how one will builds, or more important, how one can not build his army would not matter.
I also don't understand the Mtimelta and Lascannon example given. One is a weapon no one will ever take, so it may as well not exist and the other is kind of a bad, but some armies don't have other options for anti tank so they use lascannon on something like astral aim dreadnought. The result of using one of the other would have different results, lascannons have better range, damage, chance to wound. To imagine that using a mtimelta over it would have the same result, would require a very strong imagination.
Karol,
I think that we are playing different games, or at least playing them completely differently. How you play or enjoy the game does not bother or effect me, but based on your posts it is fairly clear that you are not enjoying yourself. Game mechanics are important, but the point of a tabletop miniatures wargame is utterly lost if you focus only on mechanics. If your experience is the same using miniatures as if you used wine corks or pieces of paper then perhaps you should focus on boardgames or role playing games? You might be happier?
I've played 40K for over twenty years now. The closest I have seen to paper and corks in games was the 2nd Edition box-set cardboard Ork Dreadnought. Magnificent death-machine that it was as it terrorized my Marines on the kitchen table - and I only saw that in open gaming at the FLGS once. Rules and mechanics change over time, but the immersive experience of tabletop gaming remains fairly constant. Its a visual and mental experience. I enjoy the competitive side and go to a tourney each quarter. I still make "zap, boom, zorch and aaaaah!!!! and the odd "run away!!!!" noises when I play.
Cheers
T2B
p.s. I take Multi-meltas with my Ravenwing all the time. But let's not go there.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
If your experience is the same using miniatures as if you used wine corks or pieces of paper then perhaps you should focus on boardgames or role playing games? You might be happier?
no one would let anyone play with such stuff at my store. But every day I hear people talk about different stuff, I have never seen. my point was that the looks of models does not matter, as far as effecting the rules goes. It is like football no one cares if the players or coachs are good people, how they look etc Some are and some are real not nice people, but as long as they win for the team no body cares. Rules are what makes the game exist. No rules, no game. I mean AoS is a good example of this. The game was dead with the rule set it had. No point system, rules that require you to wear or look in specific way, including specific gender. first thing people did was make points for the game. And the game really started to grow when it got a real point system. In the end it is cost >rules>looks. If you can't afford to play you wont play, if you can afford to play you will want to a working set of rules, after that everything else may matter. But I have seen enough people who would play with bricks, if they were allowed to, as long as there was competition in the game.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Carnikang wrote: So, question. I see this reasoning a lot, that the new Primaris aren't space Marines.
What does that mean? What is a Space Marine and why do they not qualify?
I ask as an outsider to the whole Power Armor family. You're all the same to me, aside from some bling, or with additional pointy bits.
By the logic of the 40k, new things in the IoM are seen with extreme suspicion and modifying existing things is often considered heretical as it breaks from tradition. Cawl and his creations should be condemned as extremely heretical as he not only made up new tech (suspect that primaris dread has tau tech on its guns ) but changing the marine process (a process designed by the god emperor himself) and claiming it to be superior to the established process is heresy beyond belief.
In old 40k all of this should of caused massive uproar and Inquisitors sending armies to put Cawl down for all this nonsense but GW let their new marketing team take the pen and write some horrible fluff to justify this filth without the whole *blamming* response that should be par for the course in the grim dark future of the 41st millennium. Hell the most mind blowing thing is that Gulliman didn't immediately condemn Cawl to execution for primarisiing all 20 of the original legion gene seeds (messing about with traitor gene seeds is bad enough but to also mess with the 2 legions that did something so horrible that they where wiped from Imperial Records). Basically the fluff of the setting is jacked up and honestly its all in the name of selling new products with damage to the fluff being an afterthought.
No thats not quite correct though is it? Guilliman comes from a time before all the crazy religious witch burning cult stuff happened, when the Imperial truth, science, INNOVATION and reason were literally law. So while he may still be suspicious of alien technology and out right opposed with anything to do with true AI, he is actually best suited for cawl to introduce his new marines too, and it is perfectly reasonable for him to actually not be as you described. He is actively disturbed by what the Imperium has had to become to survive for crying out loud! Guilliman is the primarch thats renowned for his empire building/politician, logistical and tactical/strategic ability [or in less words his balanced, logical approach to things], and not so much his close combat fighting prowess. Only thing he may have an issue with is that cawl did meddal with gene seed without permission from big E which could of had potential chaos corruption etc. Lastly since he is a primarch, even the inquisition wouldn't dare feth with a Primarchs ot his orders, not to mention he is the highest ranking person in the entire imperium except the emperor!
I dont think the lore is that bad on that front. No worse than some others bits anyways.
Carnikang wrote: So, question. I see this reasoning a lot, that the new Primaris aren't space Marines.
What does that mean? What is a Space Marine and why do they not qualify?
I ask as an outsider to the whole Power Armor family. You're all the same to me, aside from some bling, or with additional pointy bits.
By the logic of the 40k, new things in the IoM are seen with extreme suspicion and modifying existing things is often considered heretical as it breaks from tradition. Cawl and his creations should be condemned as extremely heretical as he not only made up new tech (suspect that primaris dread has tau tech on its guns ) but changing the marine process (a process designed by the god emperor himself) and claiming it to be superior to the established process is heresy beyond belief.
In old 40k all of this should of caused massive uproar and Inquisitors sending armies to put Cawl down for all this nonsense but GW let their new marketing team take the pen and write some horrible fluff to justify this filth without the whole *blamming* response that should be par for the course in the grim dark future of the 41st millennium. Hell the most mind blowing thing is that Gulliman didn't immediately condemn Cawl to execution for primarisiing all 20 of the original legion gene seeds (messing about with traitor gene seeds is bad enough but to also mess with the 2 legions that did something so horrible that they where wiped from Imperial Records). Basically the fluff of the setting is jacked up and honestly its all in the name of selling new products with damage to the fluff being an afterthought.
No thats not quite correct though is it? Guilliman comes from a time before all the crazy religious witch burning cult stuff happened, when the Imperial truth, science, INNOVATION and reason were literally law.
That's not true. Genuine innovation was very frowned upon/heresy. You developed by using the advances of senior mechanicum priests and things that were recorded. You didn't fiddle with things independantly. Cawl was yelled at for that even in 30k.
tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam
I wish I could mix up weapons in Intercessor squads - otherwise I spent a year or two hating them... now I sort of like the larger marines. It was a hard sell until I built a few
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Please outline for Karol all the HQ selections that Grey Knights have available to them. The answer may surprise you.
Also LOL at talking about GK relics like they're any good.
Can we skip another round of this, just assume that they reply to you with the literal number of HQ choices and relics that the GK have, assume you reply back with Underpowered Faction Indignance (tm) and assume Karol regaled us with another story about how in his meta people are allowed to kick you in the nuts and steal your wallet if you lose and he can't do anything about it because the government of poland just made that legal?
Everyone could save a whole lot of time that way and this thread might save a couple pages.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
As a non-marine player, I have my opinions as well.
1) Models are (mostly) amazing. They look way better than the smolmarines. True, there are some exceptions, such as Suppressors, Aggressors, Inceptors and the Captain from Know no Fear box that look silly/awful in my opinion. Models like Eliminators are just and when I saw them, I was tempted to start a Raptors chapter kill team.
2) Variability worries me a bit. Smolmarines used to have tons of wargear options, unlike the Bigmarines that have plasmas and bolt-weapons of various kinds. Pity.
3) Fluff behind them is VERY weak and seem forced.
Conclusion: I won't collect them, but I'll be happy to look at them and shoot them on the table.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: I collect SW's but they are in my top 5 favourite armies, but is anyone else feeling like their army is changing into something that no longer resembles SM's anymore. They new models look amazing and they offer great flexibility but they ain't SM's.
For me, it’s the opposite. When I see how model ranges ‘change’ over the years, I’m reminded of stuff I learned in school about genetic ‘drift’ and genetic ‘shift’. Briefly, in the case in the former, it is a slow, gradual accumulation of changes in a population that over a certain period of time (or even geographical distance) result in an entirely different species. In the case of the latter, it is generally a sudden sharp, (typically environmental in nature) pressure that forces a sudden change in a population (typically in terms of ‘attractive’ traits, that were up to this point marginal, or irrelevant, but all of a sudden, are now suddenly useful – an example most people are familiar with being the black and white moths and the industrial revolution).
I use the terms ‘drift’ and ‘shift’ loosely with regard to 40k, with the slow, gradual accumulations in the SM line as ‘drift’ and the sudden change/introduction of Primaris as a ‘shift’.
I remember as a kid being intrigued by 40k for years before I was finally able to get into it properly. This was 3rd ed 40k by the way. When I did, it was with Space Wolves. Back then, it was the ‘classic’ SM tactical box, and the ‘classic’ Space Wolves pack box. Both felt to me to be no-nonsense kits. Nothing over the top. Space Wolves felt like Marines with a Viking/barbarian flavour. Marines were marines. And then, over the years, things started to change, and the new SM models were slowly, but subtly blinged up. More and more so with every new release. First time I noted it was thr 4th ed tyrannic war veterans, and veteran SM. With robes and greebles. Still felt more ‘marine’ than ‘ornament’ though. But over time, for me, the sense of ‘ornament’ began to eclipse the ‘marine’. Sternguard and vanguard were the 'this is getting over the top' point for me. It got ridiculous by the time 5th ed was around, with Space Wolves changing from Marines with a Viking/barbarian flavour to becoming a barbarian/wolf cartoon, with a tiny amount of Space Marine flavour. Blood Angels were ‘blood-nouns’. And for me, the high (or rather low point of this) was Marneus Calgar and his honour guard. Specifically, the model I refer to as ‘wing-face’. For me, by this point Marines had ‘drifted’ to the point where they had gotten silly. Very silly. There was nothing that said 'marine' about them. It was all about the bling. And the ornaments. They stopped being Marines and started being walking chalices. There was nothing 'no-nonsense' about them. They were a cartoon parody of what they’d been.
It became all too clear to me when I came across an awesome model company called Anvil Industry and their sublime ‘Exo-lord’ range. Specifically, the black ops ‘totally-not-marines’ range. Here were no-nonsense 'marines'. No bling. No ornaments. No faff. No silly crap. Just pouches, grenades, knives, spare magazines. Thry felt and looked like geared up badasses ready to go and crack some skulls. They were Maybe a tiny bit ‘tacti-cool’ but all of a sudden I had the ‘look’ that I wanted. And as I saw them, I knew gw marines had completely lost that 'look' and I wished gw marines were more like anvil exo-lords.
So then a wee bit later and GW releases Primaris, and the long genetic ‘drift’ that had, for me, defined and undermined marines for too long suddenly ended with a decisive ‘shift’ to a model that was, again, no-nonsense marines. No bling. No ornaments. No faffs. Just perfectly, what id always wanted marines to be.
Truth be told, marines had stopped being marines for me a long time ago. Primaris ended the foolishness and brought them back in line with what id always wanted them to be.
[1,750] Chaos Knights | 
[1,250] Thousand Sons | 
[1,000] Grey Knights | 40K editions: RT, 8, 9, 10 | 
and when I saw them, I was tempted to start a Raptors chapter kill team.
Neutran Panzergrenadiers, 
Ostrakan Skitarii Legions, 
Order of the Silver Hand
