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.

Nice find. It's always cool to see the development that goes into these models, even if we disagree on the quality of the end result.

To me, that sketch of the flying land raider looks just as goofy as the final model. Certainly a faithful translation from 2d to 3d. Not sure what happened there.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
There are Marines, and there are Marines. Classic Tactical, Devastator etc. are the latter. It is what it is.

Honestly, no, I don't get it.

If I took a unit of Tactical Marines without a special or heavy weapon, are they still "Marines", as you put it?

In my book? No.

What I like about the true-marine Tactical Squad from the time of yore, is that it's a unit that is expected to be able to take on any sort of target/mission. And for a long time, it was pretty good at that, as the Heavy Weapon could conceivably destroy even a Land Raider in a single shot. The Tac squad has its roots in the Rogue Trader style of play, which was almost an adventure game or RPG type of thing. Except instead of a single character, you had a squad. The same this held true in 2nd Edition. I just played 2nd edition the other week, and a Tac Squad one-shotted a Hive Tyrant with a Krak missile. This gist of the TActical Squad is that it can operate independently and effectively, because each guy was a an elite trooper, and they could gear up for the mission at hand. Every other squad-of-the-line was merely a variation on that. Same armor, different gear.

Legions and Primaris don't do that. Presumably Intercessors are supposed to headbut tanks with their extra attack. Or shoot a Krak grenade at it :/. It's a fundamental doctrinal change and I hate it. They aren't designed to operate independently. They are not the marines I signed up for. They're more like Eldar.

That is really more about how the scope of the game has changed. If you just have like two squads, a character and maybe a small tank like it originally was the case, then a versatile squads composed of individuals with varied specialised equipment makes sense. In scale the game operates now it makes much more sense for each squad to have a defined role.

The old approach works better in the Killteam. (And there you can create a team of varied specialists with different equipment out of the Primaris too!)

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
There are Marines, and there are Marines. Classic Tactical, Devastator etc. are the latter. It is what it is.

Honestly, no, I don't get it.

If I took a unit of Tactical Marines without a special or heavy weapon, are they still "Marines", as you put it?

In my book? No.

What I like about the true-marine Tactical Squad from the time of yore, is that it's a unit that is expected to be able to take on any sort of target/mission. And for a long time, it was pretty good at that, as the Heavy Weapon could conceivably destroy even a Land Raider in a single shot. The Tac squad has its roots in the Rogue Trader style of play, which was almost an adventure game or RPG type of thing. Except instead of a single character, you had a squad. The same this held true in 2nd Edition. I just played 2nd edition the other week, and a Tac Squad one-shotted a Hive Tyrant with a Krak missile. This gist of the TActical Squad is that it can operate independently and effectively, because each guy was a an elite trooper, and they could gear up for the mission at hand. Every other squad-of-the-line was merely a variation on that. Same armor, different gear.

Legions and Primaris don't do that. Presumably Intercessors are supposed to headbut tanks with their extra attack. Or shoot a Krak grenade at it :/. It's a fundamental doctrinal change and I hate it. They aren't designed to operate independently. They are not the marines I signed up for. They're more like Eldar.

You seem to arguing that because they don’t operate like tactical squads of old that they aren’t marines, the initial argument was about silhouettes which is clearly a nonesense as smudge showed earlier. How they behave on a table top wasn’t what made marines look like marines, you are basically saying if they had a missile launcher they would be fine????

In first and second edition I often ran a combat squad or two with just bolters in. Something about it felt thematic. If you are getting to the point of “hate” about a change to the operating style of the toys we all love you maybe need to take a step back.

Insectum7 wrote:

If I took a unit of Tactical Marines without a special or heavy weapon, are they still "Marines", as you put it?

In my book? No.

So in your eyes, what makes a Space Marine a Space Marine is that they have a random guy in the squad with a special weapon?

Sorry, but to me, there's WAY more than that.

What I like about the true-marine Tactical Squad from the time of yore, is that it's a unit that is expected to be able to take on any sort of target/mission.

And when were Tactical Marines every actually able to pull that off reliably?
Yes, I know in lore they're capable, but in lore, so are Primaris.

The Tac squad has its roots in the Rogue Trader style of play, which was almost an adventure game or RPG type of thing.

Ay, there's the rub: because what 40k itself is has moved on from that. In 5th at the latest, we were seeing a massive departure from what Rogue Trader and early 40k were. It went from skirmish, platoon level combat to company level, and beyond.

This gist of the TActical Squad is that it can operate independently and effectively, because each guy was a an elite trooper, and they could gear up for the mission at hand.

Well, except for the other three guys in the squad who weren't the Sergeant or the random guy with something that wasn't a bolter.

Every other squad-of-the-line was merely a variation on that. Same armor, different gear.

Except Terminators and Scouts. Are they not Marines too?

Presumably Intercessors are supposed to headbut tanks with their extra attack. Or shoot a Krak grenade at it :/.

The krak grenade which is the same grenade that the Tactical Marines of old were so good at using against tanks in CQC, remember? I'm sure you also remember when Tacticals actually having krak grenades made them a genuine threat to vehicles if they got too close - Intercessors can do the same, and even at range. It's a versatile weapon in fluff - just not so much in game.

It's a fundamental doctrinal change and I hate it. They aren't designed to operate independently. They are not the marines I signed up for. They're more like Eldar.

But Marines have, in my experience, NEVER been defined solely by "they have a guy who carries an actually good weapon in their squad, nestled in behind the bolter mooks". More than anything else, it's their aesthetic and power level in lore that have defined what a Space Marine is to me. Not in game stats, because those fluctuate like the seasons.

Sorry, but I disagree strongly with the idea that Marines are only Marines if they have a special weapon guy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
The old approach works better in the Killteam. (And there you can create a team of varied specialists with different equipment out of the Primaris too!)

Exactly! In Kill Team, I can create a really fun team with lots of personality and "specialised gear" with just 5 Intercessors:

Sergeant with power sword - the leader, and champion. Fights in close combat against the toughest foes.
Intercessor with bolt rifle - the all rounder, the flexible guy
Intercessor with auxiliary grenade launcher - the one with the heavy firepower and massive damage
Intercessor with stalker bolt rifle - the sniper, the pinpoint marksman
Intercessor with auto bolt rifle - the suppressor, the hail of fire

Compare that to a 5 man Tactical Squad:
The Sergeant (pretty much the same)
The heavy firepower guy (same as the auxiliary grenade launcher)
And then three bolter guys.

Which team has more tactical flexibility?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
You seem to arguing that because they don’t operate like tactical squads of old that they aren’t marines, the initial argument was about silhouettes which is clearly a nonesense as smudge showed earlier. How they behave on a table top wasn’t what made marines look like marines, you are basically saying if they had a missile launcher they would be fine????

In first and second edition I often ran a combat squad or two with just bolters in. Something about it felt thematic. If you are getting to the point of “hate” about a change to the operating style of the toys we all love you maybe need to take a step back.

Pretty much, yeah.
Being a Space Marine is more than having a guy in your squad with a special weapon, and honestly, you don't NEED a special weapon to be Space Marines (unless apparently 5 bolter guys aren't actually Space Marines until someone hands them a flamer).

If it were truly that easy, then, well, Guardsmen would apparently be more like Space Marines than Primaris.

 Crimson wrote:
That is really more about how the scope of the game has changed. - - - In scale the game operates now it makes much more sense for each squad to have a defined role.

100% disagree. As do
Infantry Squads
Tyranid Warriors
Ork Boyz
Eldar Guardians
Dark Eldar Warriors
Battle Sisters
To name some other Troop Choices

If anything, 8th is even better for it now that squads can split their fire.

Andykp wrote:

You seem to arguing that because they don’t operate like tactical squads of old that they aren’t marines, - - - How they behave on a table top wasn’t what made marines look like marines, you are basically saying if they had a missile launcher they would be fine????

In first and second edition I often ran a combat squad or two with just bolters in. Something about it felt thematic.

A: If Intercessors had more options for mixed weapons, they would be more "mariney", imo.

B: You're welcome to take advantage of the option to run just bolters. Be my guest and equip your marines however you see fit.

Andykp wrote:
---the initial argument was about silhouettes which is clearly a nonesense as smudge showed earlier.---

Actually, what the OP said I think is spot on, and Smudge is way off.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If I took a unit of Tactical Marines without a special or heavy weapon, are they still "Marines", as you put it?

Insectum7 wrote:
In my book? No.

So in your eyes, what makes a Space Marine a Space Marine is that they have a random guy in the squad with a special weapon?

Sorry, but to me, there's WAY more than that.

At the basics, the core identification of "Space Marine" is elite generalists. Part of being a generalist is having the equipment to handle different roles/targets.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

What I like about the true-marine Tactical Squad from the time of yore, is that it's a unit that is expected to be able to take on any sort of target/mission.

And when were Tactical Marines every actually able to pull that off reliably?
Yes, I know in lore they're capable, but in lore, so are Primaris.

Yah, by what? Firing a Krak grenade at tanks? That's a joke. I'll take the . . . any one/two/three of the much better AT options available to Tac Squads.

As for the silhouette issue, I'm with the OP. 90ish% of a Chapter is marines in Power Armor, and the only difference is equipment. Bolt Pistol Chainsword? Assault Marine. Heavy Weapons? Devastator. Mix? Tacticals. Same base silhouette, different equipment. Armor doesn't change until very special cases. The Primaris line is closer to Tau in terms of armor, and limited in terms of equipment like Eldar.

I would have given them melta granades to use with the auxiliary launcher.

For me the maximum and absolute flexibility is a Deathwatch thing, for example. There I basically give a name to every single marine in a squad and I love to have them mixed, and since KT was released Deathwatch is my go-to faction for the sheer fluff.

For Marines, I much prefer the legion approach to warfare on the battlefield.

I've said it before but primaris are clearly designed in response to 7th (and earlier) edition criticisms (and suggestions for improvement) of standard Marines. the second wound? something widely suggested. an additional attack to make them a little more potent in melee? suggested. specialsit squads? likewise suggested (tac squads where kinda meh before split fire and all)

I can see why someone would prefer the tactical squad style setup over more uniform squad composition, but that is really not an essential marine thing. Legion marines were still marines, and the Primaris are organised more like them.

The underlying reason people dislike the Primaris marines can be found in my sig: "You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex.
Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it."

That said, they do still look aesthetically distinct, whoever it was that was trying to claim they're aesthetically "cut from the same cloth". Just sharing some overall characteristics does not make for a recognisably united aesthetic. You wouldn't say that about a member of the Russian military and the American military circa Vietnam/Afghanistan, even though they both have a helmet, long barrelled assault rifle, grenades, body armour, webbing, trousers, etc, etc.

Edit, found it:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

barboggo wrote:The new sculpts have a markedly different aesthetic from the old ones.

Do they? I don't think so.
Big pauldrons? Check.
Blocky rifle with the same barrel type? Check.
Purity seals, eagles and skulls? Check.
Helmet with the same faceplate/cranial covering split? Check.
Backpack with big vents on each shoulder? Check.

Just because they share many features does not mean they still have a different aesthetic. They're both clearly marines, true, but things from the primaris marine line are clearly part of the primaris marine line, and the same goes for real marines.

except the differance between a Primaris Marine and Spinosaurus is that the Primaris Marine really is a new and improved Marine. the Spinosaurus was however a spindly creature that obviously was not as solidly built being billed as a bigger and better critter because it's spine happened to make it a bit taller. the problem with the spinosarus was it obviously WASN'T a super T-rex.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
The underlying reason people dislike the Primaris marines can be found in my sig: "You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex.
Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it."

I think this is accurate. This is how most who hate the Primaris seem to feel. It is an emotional reaction based on nostalgia and how the new line was presented. And it is a perfectly valid reaction. I had similar feelings regarding certain choices in the latest Star Trek iterations.

I actually think that the Primaris fluff is stupid and awkward and I certainly question many decisions GW made about introducing this new line. Nevertheless, I am not going to let that to ruin my enjoyment of the beautiful models. They're the best Space Marine models we've ever had, and I'm really glad they exist.

I'm looking forward to future gamer generations looking at my trueborn Marines like they look at my Squats today: abject loathing mixed with pity.

Insectum7 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

You seem to arguing that because they don’t operate like tactical squads of old that they aren’t marines, - - - How they behave on a table top wasn’t what made marines look like marines, you are basically saying if they had a missile launcher they would be fine????

In first and second edition I often ran a combat squad or two with just bolters in. Something about it felt thematic.

A: If Intercessors had more options for mixed weapons, they would be more "mariney", imo.

B: You're welcome to take advantage of the option to run just bolters. Be my guest and equip your marines however you see fit.

But apparently they're NOT Marines if they don't have a special weapon. That's what I'm latching onto here, the fact that apparently the 3 bolter mooks in the squad aren't "Marines" until their mate with the meltagun shows up.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So in your eyes, what makes a Space Marine a Space Marine is that they have a random guy in the squad with a special weapon?

Sorry, but to me, there's WAY more than that.

At the basics, the core identification of "Space Marine" is elite generalists. Part of being a generalist is having the equipment to handle different roles/targets.

Okay, I'll ignore the whole implication that "Marines aren't actually Marines without having their special weapon buddy tagging along", but I'll redirect to my point about the 5 man Primaris Kill Team versus the 5 man normal Marine Kill Team.
Primaris Marines can be organised in such a way that EVERY Marine is unique, has a unique role in the team (by their equipment), and is tactically flexible as a result.
Regular Marines have less flexibility, as they're stuck with 3 members of the squad with inflexible loadouts. Sure, ONE of them can have a larger range of options which are more efficient at it's chosen task, but the rest of the squad have less flexibility than the Primaris. Having a token guy with a fancy weapon doesn't mean the whole squad is more versatile. It just means the bolter mooks are cannon fodder for the only useful guy.

Which squad was the inflexible one again?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

What I like about the true-marine Tactical Squad from the time of yore, is that it's a unit that is expected to be able to take on any sort of target/mission.

And when were Tactical Marines every actually able to pull that off reliably?
Yes, I know in lore they're capable, but in lore, so are Primaris.

Yah, by what? Firing a Krak grenade at tanks? That's a joke. I'll take the . . . any one/two/three of the much better AT options available to Tac Squads.

Is the mark of a Tactical Squad how well they take down tanks? Because a grenade launcher wouldn't have been too bad in previous editions, all things considered. I mean, models with krak grenades in melee were a non-insignificant threat in previous editions.

And again, Tactical Marines are only as flexible as their single special weapon dude allows. That's not flexibility. That's babysitting.

As for the silhouette issue, I'm with the OP. 90ish% of a Chapter is marines in Power Armor, and the only difference is equipment.

Actually, it's <80%. There are ten companies. 10% of the Chapter is in/can wear Terminator Armour. 10% of the Chapter is Scouts in Scout Armour. Then we have Centurions (which have a VERY different silhouette), Bikes (who still have a different silhouette), and jump pack Marines (who have even MORE silhouette different to a Tactical Marine than a Reiver has to an Intercessor).

Phobos Armour and Tacticus Armour, on the other hand, while with their notable differences, still look like they're from the same baseline. From the waist up, they're pretty much identical. The biggest area of difference is the legs, which is one has slightly thinner legs. Aside from that, no difference in silhouette.

Bolt Pistol Chainsword? Assault Marine.

Or one of the many Sergeants or Veterans.

Heavy Weapons? Devastator.

Or it's a Tactical Marine or Sternguard Veteran.

Mix? Tacticals.

So a Tactical Squad with no special weapon isn't a Tactical Squad? No, wait, they're not even Space Marines!

Same base silhouette, different equipment.

Primaris do this perfectly - unlike Tactical Marines, they don't even have to worry about potential misidentification because of a random heavy weapon guy who *might* be a nearby Devastator.

Tacticus with bolt weapons? Intercessors.
Tacticus with plasma weapons? Hellblasters.
Flying "Tacticus"? Suppressors.
Phobos with antennae? Infiltrators.
Phobos with visors? Incursors.
Phobos with skull masks? Reivers.
Camo cloaks? Eliminators.
Gravis on foot? Aggressors.
Flying Gravis? Inceptors.

And yet they still all have the same basic silhouette, Phobos and Tacticus especially (come on, they're incredibly similar from the waist up, which is what you're most likely to be seeing of them). The biggest different comes from the Gravis Armour, which is no more different from Tacticus/Phobos as Terminator Armour is from Aquila pattern power armour. Hell, the old Marines have things like Cataphractii and Centurion armour, which has even less in common to Aquila plate.

The Primaris line is closer to Tau in terms of armor, and limited in terms of equipment like Eldar.

You're seriously saying that Primaris Marines look more like Tau than Space Marines?

Just to make this clear, I'm arguing that the aesthetics still LOOK like the old Marines still. Do you agree with that? Or are you saying that it would be easier to confuse a Primaris Marine with a Fire Warrior than a Tactical Marine?

CREEEEEEEEED wrote:The underlying reason people dislike the Primaris marines can be found in my sig: "You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex.
Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it."

I understand this, and get what this means: the problem is that I don't see what the Primaris do that isn't the same as the old Marines, aesthetically at least.

I can understand about the "they don't have the same embedded weapons" approach as said above, but:
1 - That doesn't mean they're not SPACE MARINES, they're just not the kind of playstyle you like.
2 - This whole thread seems to be about silhouettes, so I'm talking about the armour design here first and foremost.

And in regards to that second point, I just can't see what aesthetically is different that they're not the same.

That said, they do still look aesthetically distinct, whoever it was that was trying to claim they're aesthetically "cut from the same cloth". Just sharing some overall characteristics does not make for a recognisably united aesthetic.

Okay, but what are the differences that set them apart? Because if they share all those, and they're still not aesthetically united, what are the characteristics you can point out clearly that divide them?

You wouldn't say that about a member of the Russian military and the American military circa Vietnam/Afghanistan, even though they both have a helmet, long barrelled assault rifle, grenades, body armour, webbing, trousers, etc, etc.

Honestly, I'd say they ARE visually more similar than distinct. Clearly, they're not the same, but I'm going to lump those two under the same aesthetic bracket, instead of linking the American soldier to a Civil War era American.

Yes, there's a difference, but I can clearly see that they're two soldiers from the same time period, fighting at the same kind of technological peak. Same as I can see that a Primaris Marine is part of the same organisation as an old Marine.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Big pauldrons? Check.
Blocky rifle with the same barrel type? Check.
Purity seals, eagles and skulls? Check.
Helmet with the same faceplate/cranial covering split? Check.
Backpack with big vents on each shoulder? Check.

Just because they share many features does not mean they still have a different aesthetic. They're both clearly marines, true, but things from the primaris marine line are clearly part of the primaris marine line, and the same goes for real marines.

I'm not arguing they don't have a difference, obviously. But I am arguing that Primaris Marines look MORE LIKE Marines than they do different. I'm saying that it would be practically impossible to mistake a Primaris Marine are being from any other 40k army, or belonging to any other sci-fi army. They're clearly Space Marines.

With regards to comparing Primaris to Tau, I think he's clearly equating the way each Tau unit wears different armour for a different role, just as the Primaris do, rather than the particulars of the armour.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

I actually think that the Primaris fluff is stupid and awkward and I certainly question many decisions GW made about introducing this new line. Nevertheless, I am not going to let that to ruin my enjoyment of the beautiful models. They're the best Space Marine models we've ever had, and I'm really glad they exist.

I agree with you about the fluff but disagree about the models. The tacticus are great, and the helm mirrors the same late Mk4 aesthetic that communicates high tech. But this goes back to the fluff- the aquila pattern helms communicated the brutal antihero status of the marines. That's lost in the new minis by design and its a fundamental shift in how people see the marines.

Unlike other armour marks or aesthetic updates (RTB01 beakies to MkVII 2nd ed, 3rd ed plastic MKVII including updated MkVI, DV Chosen) the Primaris release is given different rules and a fluff reason that doesnt allow you to opt out of using them. They're not centurions, which were an alternate way to field devastators. They are the new guard, and that's where the rancour comes from.

For marine fans, what ideally should have happened is that Cawl resupplied chapters with MKX armour and stylish bolt guns from his forges. The indomitus crusade could have been a massive founding of marines in response the 13th black crusade - drawing on much of the Adeptus Terra's geneseed vault. Armed at Terra and led by the returned Gulliman, they reunited the marines with their chapters and shared the new equipment.

Mechanically, MkX armour and the marines of that crusade don't need to be any different to codex marines. It would make more sense that the writer of the codex was suddenly handed a vast army of marines trained and armed in line with that codex. If GW were dead set on giving marines 2w, and 2A, give it to them.

What did happen was that we got legion style units in 40k.

What some people above have been saying about primaris not feeling mariney enough is that the base unit of the marines was the tactical squad. It makes sense for a battle game (and a miniatures company) to have squads kitted with the same weapon. Reducing options makes bookkeeping simpler and is easier for GW to produce. All the options are in the box, because the options are boltguns or different boltguns.

However, in the lore, the tactical squad was equipped to deal with all threats- a special weapon and a heavy weapon gave it flexibility to hunt tanks, mow down infantry at range, burn hordes or even take out heavy infantry. The classic flamer and missile launcher loadout, combined with the combat squad rule allowed the tactical squad to be its own fire support and close range assault team and threaten every unit in the game. With squad frag and krak grenades and sergeant meltabombs, and the option for sergeants to take pistol or combi weapons, the jack of all trades unit was than supported by specialists like the assault squads or devastator squads in open battle.
But In theory, a tac squad had all the weapons it needed to win a battle single handedly.
Within the squad, there were 3 roles with 'model support' beyond the standard bolter marine: Sergeant, heavy and special. But in the lore there was a second squad leader, and a marksman for each combat squad. optional copes and iron halo transfers allowed you to model this, if you chose. This brought the total number of roles to 6- 3 for each combat squad and 2 battle brothers with standard loadout to accompany them.

None of this needed rules support, just like MkVI armour didn't need rules support and crusade era armour didn't need rules support. It was abstracted away like all the different bolter models, magazines, scopes, chainsaw bayonets and wolfpelts that added character but not rules. The primaris release flies in the face of this- telling us that these bolters are meaningfully different from the ground up- not because of special ammo.
Stealth chapters infiltrated for years in MKVII (or mark VI when they could get it) but now there's a new armour for that. Captains have reliably communicated with the fleet to co-ordinate precision lance strikes, but now you'll need giant aerials sticking out of your armour to communicate effectively. Every new bit they attach to phobos armour reduces what MKVII/MKX armour must be capable of. The sensors protruding from the latest sneak peeks are symptomatic of this.

In the game, tac squads have never been able to handle much of anything.

Nurglitch wrote:With regards to comparing Primaris to Tau, I think he's clearly equating the way each Tau unit wears different armour for a different role, just as the Primaris do, rather than the particulars of the armour.

I see - but regular Astartes are just as guilty of this.

Devastators have different armour to Tactical Marines, with helmets bristling with enhanced optics and increased leg plating.
Assault Marines have a great big jump pack.
Bikers have, well, bikes.
We have three different types of Terminator Armour.
We have Centurion suits, which, while definitely Space Marine equipment, are far more removed from the standard Astartes aesthetic than Primaris are.
Scouts wear a whole different type of armour.

It's not just as simple as "each Primaris unit has a different suit of armour and THAT'S what makes each unit special". Infiltrators, Incursors, Eliminators and Reivers all share the same base armour type. Intercessors and Hellblasters also do. In fact, you can see in their armour designs that Phobos and Tacticus plates share a common core armour set, which was intentionally designed. The entire idea of this, and the fluff that many Primaris Marines switch between Phobos and Tacticus plate as per the mission at hand, is to double down on the idea of Astartes being modular, being tactically flexible, just like how people worship the old Marines for.

Yes, one of their squad members can't carry a special weapon (or, at least, ignoring the grenade launcher), but they're clearly capable of equipping different types of bolter to meet the task at hand. As my Kill Team example shows, 5 Intercessors have more potential for flexibility than 5 Tactical Marines.

The entire Primaris faction has more design synergy than the regular 40k Marines, and even in doing so, are also still easily identifiable as Adeptus Astartes. Yes, they have aesthetic designs that show how they're not the same as old Marines, but to say they're not Astartes at all (as some people argue) is baffling.

Basically I haven’t heard an argument that stands up to anything smudge has had to say. I get people don’t like the change but it’s not because of some fundamental design shift. There hasn’t been one. Comparing primaris to the last version of the tactical squad is no different from comparing lastest tactical marines to RTB01 marines. Clearly all marines. To say otherwise is just being deliberately awkward.

The only thing that bothers me about Primaris is the cost of the boxes. I already have 12,000+ points of power armor and now I want to get more. I may have a problem.

You guys realize it's possible for people to have differing aesthetic taste right?

 barboggo wrote:
You guys realize it's possible for people to have differing aesthetic taste right?

Yes, absolutely.

If people were just saying "I don't like the look of Primaris", I'd have no issue, same as someone saying "I don't like the look of Orks". Aesthetic preference.
If people were saying "I don't like the look of Primaris compared to normal Marines", I'd question why, because they have lots of similarities between the two.

But when people say things like "The new sculpts have a markedly different aesthetic from the old ones." or "...shift from gothic sci-fi to generic, high-tech Call of Duty/Halo sci-fi", then that's not taste, that's not opinion, that's them claiming a fact.
And no-one has been able to factually provide me with evidence that Primaris Marines look more like CoD or Halo soldiers than 40k ones. No-one's been able to show me how Primaris Marines don't share nearly ALL the hallmarks of what makes a Space Marine.

The ONLY argument that I've seen about why old marines are different to Primaris is the helmet grille, creating some Darth Vader vibes showcasing their more menacing nature. However, this argument falls flat when you factor in:
Unhelmed Marines
Mark III helmets
Mark IV helmets
Mark VI helmets
who DON'T have mouth grilles. Do Astartes not wearing those helmets not count as Space Marines? Are the Raven Guard, who often wear Mark VI helms, not actually true Astartes?

Again, I'd have no issues with people saying "I don't like the look of Mark VI helmets", and there's "many people who find them lacking", but no-one's calling them "a markedly different aesthetic".

This brings me to my main argument - it's fine not to like how they look. But nearly every argument which has tried to argue factually that "they don't look like normal Marines" has failed under this scrutiny.

And if one prefers mark VII helmets it is not like it is hard to glue one on a Primaris.

I think people forget something. There is no such thing as any one 'classic' marine. Marines have been around since the 80s and have grown and changed immensely over the years.

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. Lumier from beauty and the beast had a stronger space marine aesthetic than some of the walking tabernackles that gw were producing.

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 ‘ahem, 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.

To illustrate my points, lets look at how marines have changed over the years, through thirty odd years of ahem, "classic"..

Second ed marines.


3rd ed tac marines.


Your rtb01 marines?


Edit: can't get the pics. Please accept a link to a dakka gallery!

When you compare these guys to the RTB01 guys, you can see the lineage and the heritage there, along with constant subtle and not so subtle changes that goes all the way through the current oldstartes through to primaris though the RTB01 marines really do show their age at this point.
Now, By the time you have 7th edition rolling around and marines have evolves from 'clean' rtb01s to the likes of

Ultramarine honour guard, and the despised 'wing-face'.


Santa Grimnar.


Rolling around, and as far as I’m concerned, the shark has been jumped. Those guys are more ‘ornament’ than ‘marine’. Hell, there is more of a Space Marine aesthetic in Lumiere or Cogsworth from the Beauty and the Beast movie than those ornaments – its like Where’s Wally, but for Space Marines.

Now, compared to the likes of these guys?

Black Ops.


I know who I want in my army.

Now, to be fair, I am probably more on the extreme end. When I got back into 40k with primaris (and death guard), I went with Raptors (Raven Guard successors) for their pragmatic, practical, utterly no-nonsense approach to things.

I actively avoid anything even remotely looking like an embellishment on my guys armour. It annoys me to have lieutenants with the greebled up legs and fancy ornate shoulder pads – I even refuse to paint gold or any ‘fancy’ coulours on my guys. The most I’ll accept on my guys is a Primaris head or shoulder pad with a wee skull on it to denote rank, for the sergeants. Lieutenants might get a tiny bit extra, but frankly, that’s it. No bling. Loads of 3rd party anvil bits - every one gets loaded up with grenades, pouches, spare clips of ammo on their belts, thighs and chest/torso. And everyone gets a holstered sidearm. It’s a war, not a damned fashion show.
For the death guard, I actively avoid any embellishments. Dusk Raiders and pre-heresy Death Guard were notorious for the utterly crude functionality of their armour and complete and utter disregard for any embellishments or fanciness. Which makes 'modern' death guard the complete opposite of what they were. Most of my Death Guard Mk3 ‘undersuits’ are unpainted metallic, with only the main plate ‘slabs’ being ivory, and accents (knee, elbow and shoulder pads) being green. Tentacles are fine. Horns are fine. Any OTT greebles (any design, really!) or silly bug heads just get filed off. As weird as it sounds, I want 'clean' Death Guard ((so I can paint their armour with centuries of grime and contempt).

People pointed out that the Intercessors are the most "classic" models and other Primaris models are way different...
The comparison is again and again done with Intercessors.

At this point, it even stopped to be amusing, to be honest.

Well, we've all agreed to be hostile and condescending about it all, that's the main thing.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:With regards to comparing Primaris to Tau, I think he's clearly equating the way each Tau unit wears different armour for a different role, just as the Primaris do, rather than the particulars of the armour.

I see - but regular Astartes are just as guilty of this.

Devastators have different armour to Tactical Marines, with helmets bristling with enhanced optics and increased leg plating.
Assault Marines have a great big jump pack.
Bikers have, well, bikes.
We have three different types of Terminator Armour.
We have Centurion suits, which, while definitely Space Marine equipment, are far more removed from the standard Astartes aesthetic than Primaris are.
Scouts wear a whole different type of armour.

After assembling ~ 1000 models of space marine infantry models I am pretty sure there were just 3 Types of Armor at the reboot ( 3rd ed. ) onwards:
- Scout Armor , Power Armor , Tactical Dreadnaugt Armor ( Terminator ).
Sure, we didn't have a lot of the FW and HH variants all the time. But, seriously the idea of Space Marine with a backpack beeing something different than the same marine on a bike or piloting a land-speeder ? Thats not a point.

Only Veterans got access to TDA. Only Scouts used Scout armor ( because access to Power Armor had to be earned ) and every regular battlebrother and his dog ran around in a suit of Power armor. All that bling someone may have added and burying the space marine beneath purity seals or any other gear doesn't matter that much if the Subject is the general design of the Space Marines that was.

The Space Marines Power Armor was always compatible with a lot of equipment and pieces of different Marks interchangable. You Didn't need a "special devastator body" to build a devastator space marine for example. Basically just 1 general type of armor for the majority of the chapter.

Now, the plan GW seems to be on is to offer Figures with limited Options and recognizable Names, so each box is something of its own and you are not meant to take those Power Armor bodys and add some gear to have tactical role A or tactical role B or C or D or F etc pp.
And that is a change IMHO.
The Primaris Design isn't: "a suit of Power Armor granted when the Marine advanced from beeing a scout to full battlebrother". Its more of "equipment according to mission" style and cannot be the same so people are free to like or dislike it.

GW is actively changing their most iconic property. The very property that has made Warhammer 40,000 what it is today. The very property that has made GW what it is today.

Like it or not, Warhammer 40,000 in its entirety (lore, game(s), etc.) is built around the Imperium and its Space Marines and GW is fundamentally changing what Space Marines are.

Primaris is NOT a revision of an existing model line. It IS the outright replacement of an existing property.

Space Marines are so deeply rooted into the core of what Warhammer 40,000 is and even who GW is, that changing Space Marines is going to have such far reaching effects that W40K as we know it; GW as we know it, the Community as we know it...

Will change.

And this change... whatever it ends up being... will have unpredictable and unprecedented collateral damage.

1hadhq wrote:After assembling ~ 1000 models of space marine infantry models I am pretty sure there were just 3 Types of Armor at the reboot ( 3rd ed. ) onwards:
- Scout Armor , Power Armor , Tactical Dreadnaugt Armor ( Terminator ).

Devastator armour is noticeably different now. Centurion suits too. And two more types of Terminator.

Sure, we didn't have a lot of the FW and HH variants all the time. But, seriously the idea of Space Marine with a backpack beeing something different than the same marine on a bike or piloting a land-speeder ? Thats not a point.

I don't see why that's any different to anyone suggesting that Reivers, Incursors and Infiltrators are different units. Or Intercessors and Hellblasters. They're based on the same core, Phobos or Tacticus.
In my eyes, Primaris have about 4 types: Tacticus (Intercessor/Hellblaster), Phobos (Infiltrator, Incursor, Reiver, Eliminator*), Gravis (Aggressor, Inceptor), Omnis (Suppressor - I would personally call it Tacticus, but it IS more armoured).
Compare to old Marines, and that's really not too different.

*Unless you want to argue that sniper Scouts are different to regular Scouts.

The Space Marines Power Armor was always compatible with a lot of equipment and pieces of different Marks interchangable. You Didn't need a "special devastator body" to build a devastator space marine for example. Basically just 1 general type of armor for the majority of the chapter.

Except now Devastators now DO have different armour.
If we're talking about "power armour was compatible with other gear" - so is Primaris armour. Jes' notes indicate that Primaris armour is modular - an Astartes can wear whatever armour is required for the task at hand, be that increased durability, flexibility, or stealth.

Now, the plan GW seems to be on is to offer Figures with limited Options and recognizable Names, so each box is something of its own and you are not meant to take those Power Armor bodys and add some gear to have tactical role A or tactical role B or C or D or F etc pp.
And that is a change IMHO.

Is it? Where were the Astartes carrying bolters with jump packs? Where were the Captains with plasma guns or missile launchers? Could I put terminator arms on Devastator Marines and give them storm bolters and power fists?

There have always been limits between boxes. Primaris are no less hampered by this than old Marine kits.

The Primaris Design isn't: "a suit of Power Armor granted when the Marine advanced from beeing a scout to full battlebrother". Its more of "equipment according to mission" style and cannot be the same so people are free to like or dislike it.

Isn't that LITERALLY the whole point of tactical flexibility though?
It's still a suit of power armour. It's just more modular. It still LOOKS like Marine power armour: even the Phobos armour looks like power armour still. It's clearly different, but so is Devastator armour now.