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.

Over all, I'm fond of the new line. I don't really care for Phobos armor as it looks clunky on what should be the sleekest design. The Intercessor armor looks great and keep the shoulderpads the same size looks a lot better, IMO. The Gravis armor didn't appeal to me at first, but I think some of that is just that I don't care for the blue paint and notice it makes them look a little flatter than they are. Seeing them in person greatly improved my opinion, though some of the arm options come out much better than others and I would have liked to see the jump packs stay a little closer to the old style.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I much prerfer the phobos to scouts, but that just might be the part of me that finds it annoying so many marine lists don't use power armor troops for their troops

Phobos are pretty decent looking but I just can't buy a sneaky power armor unit. The scout kit is definitely showing it's age but scouts at least look like they can sneak up on someone. The new stealth dread that GW ripoff from avatar is even sillier.

Even If the thing is some how totally silent, good luck moving a multi ton vehicle across any type of terrain with out someone noticing, especially when it's paint job is a bright color

Too bad MkVI was basically the stealth power armour then.

That's not even touching on the Heresy where we had MkIV Snipers:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The argument still seems to be people don’t like primaris because they are new and different. They are really just truescale mk4 marines.

Without the ability to mix weapons in the squad. Without Rhinos or Drop Pods. Buffed beyond relative parity with Aspect Warriors/Necron Troops. And I don't think I've noticed a single Chainswrod among them.

Tryhard Marines.

MkIV was Heresy era, which these guys fit into pretty well in terms of organization and level of "bling".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I am also sure he has the final word, am I right?

Yes. He's in charge of the model design studio at the time and told the designers to -remove- some of the stuff they'd planned to put on the models so that said models wouldn't be too cluttered and more stuff could be added more naturally later (source was him talking about the models on Voxcast).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
Over all, I'm fond of the new line. I don't really care for Phobos armor as it looks clunky on what should be the sleekest design. The Intercessor armor looks great and keep the shoulderpads the same size looks a lot better, IMO. The Gravis armor didn't appeal to me at first, but I think some of that is just that I don't care for the blue paint and notice it makes them look a little flatter than they are. Seeing them in person greatly improved my opinion, though some of the arm options come out much better than others and I would have liked to see the jump packs stay a little closer to the old style.

I feel like the studio's modern paint style is too low contrast to do models proper justice. It shows off the details, but visually it's bland and flat.

Basically it's too toyetic.

robbienw wrote:

 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.

People on here have given so many examples of how the primaris isn’t a fundemental change in anything but a continuation of the design. Designed by the same people with the same in world technology and same shapes and everything. The only actual difference people can come up with is that they don’t have special weapons in squads and have new fluff. No paradigm shift at all.

If I was to point to the one detail that seems to fit in with the OP's point is any kit that has a small scope/ammo bit that fits in the middle of the gun.
That completely changes the behavior of the weapon but with very little to affect the silhouette (Intercessors/Reivers (Drum mag, vs sickle mag vs straight mag)/Hellblasters (In-line mag vs across mag vs cable-backpack)).
The other unit types seem to make a big difference between weapons.

The differing shoulderpads seem to be the main indication of a "light" unit Reivers or Phobos armor types so that is consistent as well as the leg/boot "cuff" pointed out.

The Inceptors and Aggressors seem to have a similar heavy look that is reminiscent of the Terminator recessed head.

The Primaris Tanks have much of the same shape and panel lines of the Land Raider.

I think the theme and styling is VERY consistent, just those swappable middle of the gun bits require a second look during a game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Yes. He's in charge of the model design studio at the time and told the designers to -remove- some of the stuff they'd planned to put on the models so that said models wouldn't be too cluttered and more stuff could be added more naturally later (source was him talking about the models on Voxcast).

Don't know what to say other than "maybe he lost a bit of touch".

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Yes. He's in charge of the model design studio at the time and told the designers to -remove- some of the stuff they'd planned to put on the models so that said models wouldn't be too cluttered and more stuff could be added more naturally later (source was him talking about the models on Voxcast).

Don't know what to say other than "maybe he lost a bit of touch".

Considering that the models are better than ever, that clearly is not the case.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Yes. He's in charge of the model design studio at the time and told the designers to -remove- some of the stuff they'd planned to put on the models so that said models wouldn't be too cluttered and more stuff could be added more naturally later (source was him talking about the models on Voxcast).

Don't know what to say other than "maybe he lost a bit of touch".

Clearly you're reaching to justify your dislike of something new.

If Primaris has shown me anything, it's clear that people will find any reason they can to hate something regardless of the evidence against them, to the point I've seen people have gone after older parts of the lore that no one had problems with before.

I just think they are boring looking... but so are tac marines too.

I'll admit I haven't read the whole thread so not sure if someones mentioned this already, but I think the primary reason for the silhouette differences is to create unique kits to sell.

In the old range you could conceivably mix and match weapons or wargear to make varying squads, so for example some of your tactical marines could be fielded as devs or vets or command squads or assault squads without jump packs.

GW wants to create as many unique units to buy that don't just differ by whatever gun the model is holding. Your intercessor squad contains no models that could directly stand in for a hellblaster or suppressor or inceptor. It's a design philosophy ensuring they don't lose sales or make kits that are redundant in the eyes of the hobbyists.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I just think they are boring looking... but so are tac marines too.

Now that is a fair and honest statement.

To be fair, your bog standard troopers should never be the modt interesting part of your army. They should be the base everyone else builds on.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

If Primaris has shown me anything, it's clear that people will find any reason they can to hate something regardless of the evidence against them, to the point I've seen people have gone after older parts of the lore that no one had problems with before.

Yeah, no.

I think that does look pretty cool though. Well, except for the camera thing on his backpack, that looks weird.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I think that does look pretty cool though. Well, except for the camera thing on his backpack, that looks weird.

The execution of the concept is very good.
But that's not an Imperium of Mankind model. That's a Tau Gue'vesa.
The concept is flawed.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

If Primaris has shown me anything, it's clear that people will find any reason they can to hate something regardless of the evidence against them, to the point I've seen people have gone after older parts of the lore that no one had problems with before.

Yeah, no.

Spoiler:

Devastator Sergeant renders your arguement invalid about the backpack camera:


And scouts already have goggles so that's invalid too.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

If Primaris has shown me anything, it's clear that people will find any reason they can to hate something regardless of the evidence against them, to the point I've seen people have gone after older parts of the lore that no one had problems with before.

Yeah, no.

Spoiler:

Devastator Sergeant renders your arguement invalid about the backpack camera:

Spoiler:

And scouts already have goggles so that's invalid too.

The specific reference to the backpack camera is from CthuluIsSpy. Perhaps you mixed up the posts.
Secondly, I seriously hope you are not comparing the two. Note how clunkier the one you posted is. That alone evokes a completely different relationship with technology.
Note how more archaic the eye camera is, and how at the same time evokes some older concept like a monocle. Look at the context, like the servo skull. Look at the imperious pose compared to the tacticool one.
Don't be deliberately obtuse and tone deaf, please.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I think that does look pretty cool though. Well, except for the camera thing on his backpack, that looks weird.

The execution of the concept is very good.
But that's not an Imperium of Mankind model. That's a Tau Gue'vesa.
The concept is flawed.

I'm sorry but I don't see how this ties into Tau at all. it's not their aestetic remotely.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

If Primaris has shown me anything, it's clear that people will find any reason they can to hate something regardless of the evidence against them, to the point I've seen people have gone after older parts of the lore that no one had problems with before.

Yeah, no.

Spoiler:

Devastator Sergeant renders your arguement invalid about the backpack camera:

Spoiler:

That still looks weird. It actually looks worse than the Primaris version, as its bulkier and stands out more.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I think that does look pretty cool though. Well, except for the camera thing on his backpack, that looks weird.

The execution of the concept is very good.
But that's not an Imperium of Mankind model. That's a Tau Gue'vesa.
The concept is flawed.

I'm sorry but I don't see how this ties into Tau at all. it's not their aestetic remotely.

What makes the Tau.. Tau, except from being blue, compared to the imperium? two main elements.
The first is that the Xenos is kinda allowed to live. What's the second?
Now think about the whole concept behind the primaris. EVERY aspect of the primaris, included their creation.

Have people completely forgotten that these are multipart plastic models that are easy to customise? Like if you think that the Incursors have too much tacticool crap just don't glue all of it on them. If you think the Intercessors are not gothic enough, glue some religious bling on them. It's not rocket surgery, in fact I'd argue that doing that sort of thing is one of the core elements of the whole hobby.

 Crimson wrote:
Have people completely forgotten that these are multipart plastic models that are easy to customise? Like if you think that the Incursors have too much tacticool crap just don't glue all of it on them. If you think the Intercessors are not gothic enough, glue some religious bling on them. It's not rocket surgery, in fact I'd argue that doing that sort of thing is one of the core elements of the whole hobby.

Or you know, I just don't buy the model. It's simpler.
I find amusing the fact that it's implied over and over that one is going to buy these models.

 Crimson wrote:
Have people completely forgotten that these are multipart plastic models that are easy to customise? Like if you think that the Incursors have too much tacticool crap just don't glue all of it on them. If you think the Intercessors are not gothic enough, glue some religious bling on them. It's not rocket surgery, in fact I'd argue that doing that sort of thing is one of the core elements of the whole hobby.

People who never actually handle one of the kits but feel the the need.to complain about stuff they won't buy anyways can't know that because they refuse to give any of the stuff a chance.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Have people completely forgotten that these are multipart plastic models that are easy to customise? Like if you think that the Incursors have too much tacticool crap just don't glue all of it on them. If you think the Intercessors are not gothic enough, glue some religious bling on them. It's not rocket surgery, in fact I'd argue that doing that sort of thing is one of the core elements of the whole hobby.

People who never actually handle one of the kits but feel the the need.to complain about stuff they won't buy anyways can't know that because they refuse to give any of the stuff a chance.

As stated in another thread, not only by me
1) Many that criticize these models have actually bought some, me included. Is after buying few intercessors that I actually realized how messed up their legs are.
2) Actually no, not really. You can judge the whole concept of the miniature just looking at the picture. The messed up legs are an execution problem, the Gue'vesa is a concept problem. Both are problems.
3) I find absolutely mind-boggling the fact that is implied over and over that the models MUST be bought regardless.

You don't need to buy them. But just stop spamming the forums with idiotic reasons for that.

 Crimson wrote:
You don't need to buy them. But just stop spamming the forums with idiotic reasons for that.

it'd be like me spamming a half dozen eldar threads when the eldar (finally) get something new saying how aweful they are. I might not find the aestetic intreasting but there's no reason to rain on others parades

 Crimson wrote:
You don't need to buy them. But just stop spamming the forums with idiotic reasons for that.

At this point, I can point out at the title of the thread, and also wait for actual arguments.
Because I have yet to see an actual rebuttal to the fact that every aspect of the primaris incarnate the "new" attitude of the empire toward tech and innovation, therefore killing what made it interesting and peculiar and made the Tau their "foil".
But I suppose some throwaway statement is less difficult to come up with, am I right?

"Messed up legs"? Now you have my attention since I haven't heard this complaint. What's wrong with the legs exactly?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

At this point, I can point out at the title of the thread, and also wait for actual arguments.
Because I have yet to see an actual rebuttal to the fact that every aspect of the primaris incarnate the "new" attitude of the empire toward tech and innovation, therefore killing what made it interesting and peculiar and made the Tau their "foil".
But I suppose some throwaway statement is less difficult to come up with, am I right?

That's fluff. We're talking about aesthetic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
"Messed up legs"? Now you have my attention since I haven't heard this complaint. What's wrong with the legs exactly?

They're not bizarrely deformed and short.

 Crimson wrote:

That's fluff. We're talking about aesthetic.

As if they aren't tightly intertwined.

 Crimson wrote:

They're not bizarrely deformed and short.

Strawman.
In reality, just compare with what they did with the new CSM.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
"Messed up legs"? Now you have my attention since I haven't heard this complaint. What's wrong with the legs exactly?

The Capri shorts look is whats wrong with the legs.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

That's fluff. We're talking about aesthetic.

As if they aren't tightly intertwined.

Perhaps for you. I am perfectly capable thinking at the same time that the Primaris fluff is stupid and that the Primaris models are amazing.

 Crimson wrote:

They're not bizarrely deformed and short.

Strawman.
In reality, just compare with what they did with the new CSM.

Gave them shorter legs because they're smaller?