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.

 oni wrote:
GW is fundamentally changing what Space Marines are.

No they're not. They're still genetically enhanced, brainwashed and fanatical supersoldiers that wear power armour and eradicate xenos and heretics with bolt weapons.

 oni wrote:
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.

It’s the revision of an existing model line, the most iconic one with a line that looks remarkably similar to the old one. And that’s my point, my sole argument here, primaris look just like marines.

And lore wise what has really changed. The great rift and marines have got some new stuff. Marines have had new stuff every edition and it hasn’t broken the game. I’ve played since 1st edition and primaris only armies feel more like classic marine armies since any I’ve played since 2nd edition. After third marines became too cheap and expendable and lost a feeling of a tough elite force. Primaris has brought that back.

Andykp wrote:
I’ve played since 1st edition and primaris only armies feel more like classic marine armies since any I’ve played since 2nd edition. After third marines became too cheap and expendable and lost a feeling of a tough elite force. Primaris has brought that back.

This is true.

Honestly the real issue I have with the primaris designs is the tacticool stuff, lack of a medieval knight feel. Also the loss of the vader esque helmets. The primaris look like mk IV knock offs. There is also less variety in the armor pattern, it's too standardized. Marine armor used to have subtle variants, embellishments etc. I'd consider the current tactical marine kit superior to intercessors in this regard. I also liked the WW1/WW2 inspired vehicles, you can imagine them being loud and belching smoke and just being obnoxious. The grav vehicles are just bleh in comparison.

 Thargrim wrote:
Honestly the real issue I have with the primaris designs is the tacticool stuff, lack of a medieval knight feel. Also the loss of the vader esque helmets. The primaris look like mk IV knock offs. There is also less variety in the armor pattern, it's too standardized. Marine armor used to have subtle variants, embellishments etc.

Whilst subjective, these are all valid complaints. They're also easy and fun to fix if you have decent bitsbox.

 Crimson wrote:

 oni wrote:
GW is fundamentally changing what Space Marines are.

No they're not. They're still genetically enhanced, brainwashed and fanatical supersoldiers that wear power armour and eradicate xenos and heretics with bolt weapons.

This is correct


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thargrim wrote:
Honestly the real issue I have with the primaris designs is the tacticool stuff, lack of a medieval knight feel. Also the loss of the vader esque helmets. The primaris look like mk IV knock offs. There is also less variety in the armor pattern, it's too standardized. Marine armor used to have subtle variants, embellishments etc. I'd consider the current tactical marine kit superior to intercessors in this regard. I also liked the WW1/WW2 inspired vehicles, you can imagine them being loud and belching smoke and just being obnoxious. The grav vehicles are just bleh in comparison.

And this is a man giving a personal opinion. It doesn't appeal to you great. It doesn't to me either. That's why I'm using a different army. There is nothing saying you have to give them anything more.

ok first of all, the differance between a MK 6 marine (the original RTB01 box) and a modern MK 7 marine is honestly visually as much or more of a major aestetic differance from a MK 7 marine and a intercessor.as for the modular armor, marine armor has always been described as being module, MK X armor is actually a fairly logical outgrowth of this.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
Well, we've all agreed to be hostile and condescending about it all, that's the main thing.

It's genuinely difficult when the basic point raised by one side (this change reminds me X / is supposed to recall Y) is dismissed so quickly while there is obviously way more to say.
Especially considering the fact that design is something complex and other than the concept, there are details in the general execution, the proportions and so on. For some people the proportions can be something so off-putting to completely estrange you from the line because - surprise surprise - people have different tastes and priorities.
But no, it must be sheer negativity.

 Crimson wrote:

 oni wrote:
GW is fundamentally changing what Space Marines are.

No they're not. They're still genetically enhanced, brainwashed and fanatical supersoldiers that wear power armour and eradicate xenos and heretics with bolt weapons.

What is your opinion on Space Marines now having specialized units and hover tanks then?

There used to be lines that other armies simply did not cross because the goal was to ensure every army had a distinct identity. We've been seeing that line blurred a lot with Space Marines while they also monopolize the lion's share of development and growth we've seen in this game.

Nvs wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 oni wrote:
GW is fundamentally changing what Space Marines are.

No they're not. They're still genetically enhanced, brainwashed and fanatical supersoldiers that wear power armour and eradicate xenos and heretics with bolt weapons.

What is your opinion on Space Marines now having specialized units and hover tanks then?

There used to be lines that other armies simply did not cross because the goal was to ensure every army had a distinct identity. We've been seeing that line blurred a lot with Space Marines while they also monopolize the lion's share of development and growth we've seen in this game.

I really don’t see the issue with hover tanks and marines. No one complained when marines found a new rhino chassis variant or landraider variant every edition or new armour or guns to carry. Imperial grab tanks and vehicles have been a thing since year one and have always been around. The tanks still look decidedly marine like and share a lot of common design features. They hover that is all. Yes I know some won’t like them and others will but to say that it was a rule that all space marine tanks had to have tracks isn’t true. By having a hovering brick of a tank they aren’t treading on eldar a toes, the two races are still fundamentally different. Read the fluff on the repulsor and it is a brutish thing that shatters the ground as goes along and is noisy and inelegant. A marked difference from the falcon or wave serpent. And definitely not new technology. One of the opponents I play my primaris against most often is craftworld eldar and trust me, our tanks don’t feel the same on the battle field and our squads don’t play similar either.

As for specialist squads, they always have had specialist squads. A marine army isn’t all tactical squads it always had Devastator and assault squads with specialist roles. Bike squads and jump pack squads. Even back in the day there was marines doing covert recon work in power armour. None of this is new.

Having massive hover tanks, such as the hover rhino, hover landraider and the FW hover super tank is it fundamentally changes the setting. One of the things I liked about 40k or several other fiction settings is the sense of loss and decay. The best days of the IOM were behind them, the empire holds together despite itself and humanity is slow but surely losing ground.

Now we have a Cawl Ex Machina and suddenly there is innovation out the ass. I liked that the best the IOM could do before was something small like a bike or a land speeder, now I'm waiting for the day when guard get hover tech cause apparently it's easy to make now.

I think what we can all agree on is that people that played marines but don’t like Primaris should all come over to the 30k forum and have fun with us “oldest” marine folks

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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. . .

You are "latching" in error. I would put it as "The essence of the Tactical Squad is the capacity to effectively engage a variety of targets, with a variety of methods, without support." Each unit can operate independently, and can be equipped appropriately. I'd go so far as to call it a pervasive doctrinal philosophy among Marine units, in fact.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 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?

The options available to add resolution to your Primaris Kill team is functionally a non-point, different bolters changes little regarding their limited strategic scope. I like how you breeze past the Sergeant in the squad and his loadout potential, too. If you're not trying to be disingenuous, why are you cherry-picking?

Chainsword (or two)
Power Sword
Power Axe
Power Maul
Power Fist
Thunder Hammer
Lightning Claw (or two)

Plasma Pistol
Grav Pistol
Combi Weapon
Storm Bolter

Grav Gun
Plasma Gun
Melta Gun
Flamer

Heavy Bolter
Missile Launcher
Multimelta
Lascannon
Plasma Cannon
Grav Cannon

+/- auxiliary options depending on edition, like Auspex, Purity Seals, Teleport Homer, Melta Bombs, etc.

Scouts have more meaningful options than Intercessors.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 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.

Sgt. Smudge, if you're going to suggest that a Lascannon isn't a good AT weapon in prior arguments above, don't then turn around and claim that a Grenade Launcher firing Krak is at all sufficient for the task. Your squad is going to be babysitting a lot longer if you're relying on Krak Grenades to do your AT work a range. A Krak Grenade was not a quarter the threat of a Lascannon in earlier editions. The Grenade Launcher is still a joke of an AT weapon, and doesn't come close to qualifying in this regard.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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).

I said 90ish% because the 10th company size is variable, and it's notably rare for a Chapter to be able to field it's entire 1st company in Terminator Armor. Then you add in the characters and other various super numaries that potentially include Command Squads.

As for the rest, you either misunderstood the argument, or are simply trying to avoid it. The point is that all the personal armor is virtually identical/interchangeable. Bikes are essentially just "guy in Mk5-8 riding a bike", Assault marine is "guy in Mk5-8 with a Jump Pack and CC weapons" for example. All major roles are filled by marines in Mk5-8.

I'd wager that nobody making the argument for "traditional marines" gives any care about the Centurion. Centurions are Primaris before Primaris. I could be wrong.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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?

I'm saying they're poor impressions of Space Marines having been given the characteristics of Tau and Eldar. Flying Battlesuits with no Chainswords, Squads of Battlesuits with Missile Pods/multiple simultaneous weapons systems, or squads all armed with the same weapon. Some of them even have those little anime-fins.

Andykp wrote:
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.

RTB01 Tacticals: 10 Marines. 1 Sergeant with upgrade choices. 1 Special weapon, 1 Heavy Weapon.
8th Ed Tactical Squad: 10 Marines. 1 Sergeant with upgrade choices. 1 Special weapon, 1 Heavy Weapon.
And the majority of the options is the same. Transports are the same. You can field the same Tac Squad 30(?) years later. There are a few options (Like a 3% chance of having a Lasgun, or a 10% chance of having a D-Cannon) that were quickly phased out in those days, but the squad is otherwise virtually identical.

Intercessors: 10 Primaris Marines. Big difference in statline compared to the contemporaries of other races (2W in particular)
Completely different weapons options. Different transport options.

Deadnight wrote:

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

Fixed that for you:

After the end of 1st edition there's like. . . zero drift, dude. The moulds got cleaner and the heavy weapons changed at the start of 3rd Ed. The overall amount of change in the core line is exceedingly minimal.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
ok first of all, the differance between a MK 6 marine (the original RTB01 box) and a modern MK 7 marine is honestly visually as much or more of a major aestetic differance from a MK 7 marine and a intercessor.

It's worthwhile to acknowledge this. . . however. . . it's important to also acknowledge that the line stabilized shortly afterwards, and has remained stable for 20+ years since. Additionally, "Brand new" Mk 7 Marines could mix squads with Mk6, carry the same weapons, ride the same transports. The difference was purely aesthetic and no other mechanics or "pressures" were involved.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

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

Fixed that for you:

Spoiler:

Second ed marines.

8th Ed Marines

After the end of 1st edition there's like. . . zero drift, dude. The moulds got cleaner and the heavy weapons changed at the start of 3rd Ed. The overall amount of change in the core line is exceedingly minimal.

And the marines from 2nd ed onwards can be freely mixed in squads with 3rd ed onwards. I have 2nd ed metal assault sergeants leading 3rd ed plastic assault squads with 5th ed weapon options grafted in, and forgeword resin armour components scattered for flavour.
All of the below show design changes from metal to resin/plastic but none of them are invalidated in any (classic)space marine squad.


You'll notice that the 2nd ed metals have modern style boltguns and arms, despite being made for 2nd ed plastics.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
ok first of all, the differance between a MK 6 marine (the original RTB01 box) and a modern MK 7 marine is honestly visually as much or more of a major aestetic differance from a MK 7 marine and a intercessor.

It's worthwhile to acknowledge this. . . however. . . it's important to also acknowledge that the line stabilized shortly afterwards, and has remained stable for 20+ years since. Additionally, "Brand new" Mk 7 Marines could mix squads with Mk6, carry the same weapons, ride the same transports. The difference was purely aesthetic and no other mechanics or "pressures" were involved.

Right. Beakie marines were not retconned as lesser marines when the MkVII marines dropped. New models arrived to update the marine aesthetic, comnplete with updated MkVI but RTB01 remain valid for tactical squads today.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Having massive hover tanks, such as the hover rhino, hover landraider and the FW hover super tank is it fundamentally changes the setting. One of the things I liked about 40k or several other fiction settings is the sense of loss and decay. The best days of the IOM were behind them, the empire holds together despite itself and humanity is slow but surely losing ground.

Now we have a Cawl Ex Machina and suddenly there is innovation out the ass. I liked that the best the IOM could do before was something small like a bike or a land speeder, now I'm waiting for the day when guard get hover tech cause apparently it's easy to make now.

This is a very valid point. I don't like the decay theme being lost either. I just think that that ship sailed in a major way when loyalist Primarchs started returning, so some new tank is small beans compared to that. This is really about how the new stuff was introduced. I don't mint it existing, but I would have preferred if they would have just retconned it in instead of making it all new in the setting as well. After all, the marines had hover tanks in Rogue Trader already.

To add my few bits, I like how Primaris look, generally, mainly the Intercessors. The old marines were iconic, yet tall as a guardsman and were bit silly too.

New marines being tacticool is not a big issue, unless it's too over the top. The thing that I dislike on the old marines were their distinct lack of pouches. Even the guardsmen have a belt with a spare mag or two along with grenades, but marines had very little if nothing.
A marine would (logically assuming) go into battle with at least 4 spare magazines, if not more.

The thing that bugs me more is the silly and ridiculous designs GW produces.
Inceptors - Silly bouncy marines. Their jump-pack is the worst on them.
Aggressors - Too bulky to my taste, they look like baby Contemptor dreadnoughts.
Suppressors - Does this really need a commentary? Just ridiculous.
Gravis armor - Not sure what is specifically wrong with it, but... it just looks off to me.

 Crimson wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Having massive hover tanks, such as the hover rhino, hover landraider and the FW hover super tank is it fundamentally changes the setting. One of the things I liked about 40k or several other fiction settings is the sense of loss and decay. The best days of the IOM were behind them, the empire holds together despite itself and humanity is slow but surely losing ground.

Now we have a Cawl Ex Machina and suddenly there is innovation out the ass. I liked that the best the IOM could do before was something small like a bike or a land speeder, now I'm waiting for the day when guard get hover tech cause apparently it's easy to make now.

This is a very valid point. I don't like the decay theme being lost either. I just think that that ship sailed in a major way when loyalist Primarchs started returning, so some new tank is small beans compared to that. This is really about how the new stuff was introduced. I don't mint it existing, but I would have preferred if they would have just retconned it in instead of making it all new in the setting as well. After all, the marines had hover tanks in Rogue Trader already.

This is what bothered me the most also. I like the design of the intercessors and the scale of the primaris is more fitting for a space marine, but like has already been said, their introduction changes the setting. The imperium of man in 40k has always been described as a technologically stagnant and bureaucratically inefficient moloch, where old tech from the glory days was almost always better and had to be rediscovered first. If they had written the introduction of the primaris more in that framework, it would have been more coherent with the long lasting established lore and also more elegant.

I think someone at GW said that they need to update the scale of the space marine line because they looked kinda tiny compared to recent releases (Custodes for example) and it seems that somehow the best idea they could come up with was to create an entirely new space marine out of thin air, who is just bigger, better and stronger....which is a bit lame from a storytelling perspective.
Also I have to agree with my previous poster that many of the new primaris models are a bit silly. Though again, I like the intercessors and the sculpts of most "upgraded" characters look great, but everything else from the primaris line does not fit into the faction very well in my opinion.

There is nothing fundamentally changed about Primaris Marines. They are still indoctrinated children turned super soldiers with bolt weapons.

Visually the faction is being made to look more distinctive from other Imperial factions - and that is a good thing. The Grav vehicles are perfectly fine - they look very similar to established Astartes designs but more futuristic. I'm also a big fan of Aggressors as they have a more human-like shape beneath the heavy armour, compared to the odd shape of Terminators, and yes - I know they are iconic because they've been around for so long.

The setting changed and primaris were added. Primaris didn’t change the setting. They no more changed it than them finding a new stc variants of rhinos and land raiders. Than adding centurions and new dreadnought types. Adding marines riding wolves or immortal saints to a marine army. There had been change every edition and update. Cawl no more understands what he’s made than they did old marines. He didn’t invent anti grav technology, it was one lots of imperial stuff, look at the space wolf flyer, that shares design cues with the repulsor. He bolted existing tech onto an existing chassis.

I’ve said this before, people would have been up in arms if they had just made bigger marines that replaced everyone’s old marines. The marine range was bloated and done, every variant of every thing was over done. All they could do was add more crap detail onto each model. Primaris reset the clock design wise and gave them Scope to expand the range and go in new directions. They could have said cawl just found all this stuff. People still would be sulking.

And finally I’m sorry, the setting changing isn’t new, what’s been done to the HH by blacklibrary is a devastation of the setting that has more impact on it than any of this. If you don’t think it’s happened before ask my mates old squat army and the 1st/2nd edition ORK army of mine they used to fight. They were invalidated over night and the background changed massively.

In fact I'd argue the horus Heresy being fleshed out made some of the storyline developments in modern 40k inevitable.

 Ishagu wrote:
There is nothing fundamentally changed about Primaris Marines. They are still indoctrinated children turned super soldiers with bolt weapons.

Visually the faction is being made to look more distinctive from other Imperial factions - and that is a good thing. The Grav vehicles are perfectly fine - they look very similar to established Astartes designs but more futuristic. I'm also a big fan of Aggressors as they have a more human-like shape beneath the heavy armour, compared to the odd shape of Terminators, and yes - I know they are iconic because they've been around for so long.

See, I look at the picture and completely dislike the aesthetic. Marnus Calgar was one guy with underslung bolters on powerfists. It was cool but impractical to fire heavy assault rifles from beneath your giant mechanised hands, but it was one guy, made him unique and he had an army of guys backing him up with rifles aimed normally.
The Greyknights had theirs atop the wrist, with the visual justification that they needed two hands to fight daemons with their halberds.
Similarly , bloodangels got gauntlet weapons on jump troops so they could hold weapons double handed.

That suit doesnt have the ancient warrior aestheic of a lightning claw/hammer and shield terminator- but it does have a ton of bulk. Its an entire squad of guys with short range weapons and clunky suits and no riflemen. They have no movement mechanism like jump packs, or teleportation, so their plan is to waddle into range.

They are neither futuristic versions of modern soldiers or futuristic version of ancient soldiers- they only look like they could exist in Warhammer 40,000 as a short range firepower unit.

In short they look like they are designed for the game-system and not the universe they inhabit.

Its entirely possible to like one thing aesthetically, and not like something similar but with notable changes.

The suggestion you can't is absurd.

I love classic marines and their aethesetic (for the most part).

I don't like the primaris aethsetic. The changes from the preceding classic marine aethesetic **are what makes me not like it**. Stuff like the over abundance of extra platting, huge boots, buckets over helmets, abundance of tacticool features, the size increase etc.

The infantry anyway, the vehicles are fine (except for the stubbers, but those can easily be removed )

robbienw wrote:
Its entirely possible to like one thing aesthetically, and not like something similar but with notable changes.

Of course it is. People are just contesting the idea that this is some drastic and unprecedented visual change on a fundamental level. One can like RT beakies and not later Mk VII models or vice versa. One can like HH armour types but not 40K era ones or vice versa. And the Primaris models are just one more thing on that list.

Likewise, I really like the intercessors, hellblasters and even the new infiltrators as a scout esque type.
I strongly dislike the Inceptors, Suppressors, and all of the tanks/transports.
Aggressors I'm OK with, same with the Dreads.

I can do without Inceptors and Suppressors, but it's hard to do a Primaris army without the tanks and in my eyes, they are abominations. I haven't dropped cash on any of them yet, and I'm hoping I don't have to.

 bullyboy wrote:
Likewise, I really like the intercessors, hellblasters and even the new infiltrators as a scout esque type.
I strongly dislike the Inceptors, Suppressors, and all of the tanks/transports.
Aggressors I'm OK with, same with the Dreads.

I can do without Inceptors and Suppressors, but it's hard to do a Primaris army without the tanks and in my eyes, they are abominations. I haven't dropped cash on any of them yet, and I'm hoping I don't have to.

If you don’t like them of course you don’t “have” to. That’s the beauty of this is that the old stuff is all valid. Run primaris with predators and the like, run old marines, run primaris bodies with old marine arms and helmets on to make better proportioned tactical squads etc. It all works fine.

Me I love the basic infantry types. Love Phobos armour, less keen on inceptions but they are ok in a heavy duty kind of way. Have converted my suppressors into something more sensible luckily for I love the tanks. But I’ve also made some primaris terminators, and written rules and fluff for them.

 Crimson wrote:

robbienw wrote:
Its entirely possible to like one thing aesthetically, and not like something similar but with notable changes.

Of course it is. People are just contesting the idea that this is some drastic and unprecedented visual change on a fundamental level. One can like RT beakies and not later Mk VII models or vice versa. One can like HH armour types but not 40K era ones or vice versa. And the Primaris models are just one more thing on that list.

I see what you are saying, but i still think primaris are fundamentally different in the respect that they have an overall changed design paradigm compared to the current classic range, that is fairly consistent across the range.

There have always been a few classic models i'm not fond of, such as mk2 armour and centurions, but i don't like the whole primaris infantry range because of said changed design paradigm.

The vehicles i quite like, in part because their design is changed less from classic vehicles, they look like they are part of the space marine vehicle family.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Having massive hover tanks, such as the hover rhino, hover landraider and the FW hover super tank is it fundamentally changes the setting. One of the things I liked about 40k or several other fiction settings is the sense of loss and decay. The best days of the IOM were behind them, the empire holds together despite itself and humanity is slow but surely losing ground.

And yet, when primaris designs replace storm bolters and heavy bolters with low tech heavy stubbers people whine prime example of decay and expediency forcing replacement of high tech with something cheaper and easier to make is somehow backwards and archaic. Go figure.

Now we have a Cawl Ex Machina and suddenly there is innovation out the ass. I liked that the best the IOM could do before was something small like a bike or a land speeder, now I'm waiting for the day when guard get hover tech cause apparently it's easy to make now.

Yup, it's not like SM had land speeders or anything... Oh wait.

You know in fluff some Imperial worlds have mass produced grav cars? How making a single grav transport is supposed to be difficult then, especially when your faction had always used grav vehicles? If anything, grav plates in SM flyers are larger than the ones in primaris tanks, so I fail to see the problem here.

 agurus1 wrote:
I think what we can all agree on is that people that played marines but don’t like Primaris should all come over to the 30k forum and have fun with us “oldest” marine folks

Yeah, because people who don't like Mk IV lookalikes with tacticool gear will love this:


Oh wait

You can literally use primaris units 1:1 with zero modifications in HH, they literally copied legion organization, design language, armour, and special bolter variants. Whenever I see HH player complaining about primaris I just wonder if doublethink and bias can ever get any stronger...

 =Angel= wrote:
In short they look like they are designed for the game-system and not the universe they inhabit.

A beautiful quote. Yes.

 Crimson wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Having massive hover tanks, such as the hover rhino, hover landraider and the FW hover super tank is it fundamentally changes the setting. One of the things I liked about 40k or several other fiction settings is the sense of loss and decay. The best days of the IOM were behind them, the empire holds together despite itself and humanity is slow but surely losing ground.

Now we have a Cawl Ex Machina and suddenly there is innovation out the ass. I liked that the best the IOM could do before was something small like a bike or a land speeder, now I'm waiting for the day when guard get hover tech cause apparently it's easy to make now.

This is a very valid point. I don't like the decay theme being lost either. I just think that that ship sailed in a major way when loyalist Primarchs started returning,

GW went to great lengths for more than a decade teasing that several loyalist primarchs were still alive or could make a return someday. Nobody should be surprised that they finally pulled the trigger on that, especially given how Forge World was happily selling HH primarchs left right and center.

GW hasn't changed the setting, they've just upped the ante. The Imperium was in a state of slow, inevitable decay. That decay took a HUGE jump when Cadia fell, now half the galaxy is warp storms and basically the only way for the Imperium to cling to the status quo (i.e. slow decay) was to do something like bring back the Primarchs, because the bad guys just got so much worse. Even if all the (unconfirmed dead) primarchs return and halt the decay of the Imperium, it's still in a way worse state than before Cadia fell. That galaxy is that badly fethed up, and with the Necrons waking up and the Tyranids eating their way across the galaxy the Imperium is so, so much worse off that the first few thousand years after the Emperor was installed into the Golden Throne looks like a golden age.

 Hawky wrote:
The thing that I dislike on the old marines were their distinct lack of pouches. Even the guardsmen have a belt with a spare mag or two along with grenades, but marines had very little if nothing.

I agree with that. The sprues came with pouches, but for a long time they were pretty spare. Pretty easy to remedy though, personally I made moulds and puddied a couple up. I also traded/inherited some from other people. But each of my marines has pouches, holstered Bolt Pistol, grenades + occasional doodads.