Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

But the core units? The unit that the decoration is added on top of? Tactical, Assault, Devastator, Terminators, etc. no drift.

So there's been NO difference between the upblinged Tactical Marines and the more spartan looking 2nd edition ones?

I respectfully disagree.

Go on. Show me.

There's just as much a difference between these two and an Intercessor in my eyes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

B: I never made the assertion that every possible load-out for Tacticals is viable in every circumstance.

No, but you did claim they were more flexible, which is only as true as the weapons they happen to have at the time.

Only if you consciously decide to narrow the definition of "flexible" because you don't have an argument otherwise.

If we're talking the definition of flexible, Intercessors are also flexible, as I outlined with my kill team example.

Tactical Marines are only flexible with their lonesome special weapon guy. That's just as flexible as a whole squad of Intercessors with a variety of bolt weapons, in my eyes.

In this thread: people that complain that in a thread titled "Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs" people report what bothers them about Primaris design.
Amazing.
Bonus: again comparison with the intercessors that, disproportioned legs aside, are universally considered the least offensive models of the line.

BrianDavion wrote:

regarding the thread about stuff being removed from the game. if you're refering to the "can GW just hurry up and get rid of old Marines" thread, not sure you READ the OP in that but it's actually (yet another) Primaris complaint thread. Now I'm not a GW employee so I can't say for sure what their plan is, but my general suspicion is they intend to double dip for a long time to come. the core of a Marine army is the tac squad, devestator squad, and assault squad. and these are all pretty new kits right now, (if you include the HH armor varients as tac squad kits the tac squad is only 3 years old. the assault and vestator kits are only 4) I suspect GW intends to double dip for the forseeable future.

Yeah, I suspect they'll double-dip too. In all honestly, making Primaris was a brilliant marketing move on GWs part. It's like a new Chapter of marines, except they're available to every existing collector to add to their chapter.

I just really don't want them to toss out the old ones, for a whole host of reasons.

But I also really, REALLY disagree with the game design fundamentals of the Primaris, too. The 2W, 2A thing bugs me something huge. I don't wan't the default heroes of the setting to just be flatly superior to the basics of other factions. I liked it when there were competing "elite troops" on the tabletop.

BrianDavion wrote:

Now I'm not a GW employee so I can't say for sure what their plan is, but my general suspicion is they intend to double dip for a long time to come.

And all the problems stem from that. If GW just updated the marines set by set with new proportions without revolutionizing the whole aesthetics, a lot of these complain would not have happened.
But you gotta squeeze ALL from the greatest section of your fanbase, amrite?

Anyhow, on the long term I am actually optimistic. They perhaps will relegate the old fashioned aesthetics to the Dark Angels, differentiating them even more. Optimistically, everyone will win so if you want the tacticool, you go Smurfs if you want the kinghts in space you get the DA.
The issues of the conflict with the setting remain but that is done. The setting is just less interesting, and the Imperium worse characterized, because the Primaris exist. But what is done is done.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
In this thread: people that complain that in a thread titled "Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs" people report what bothers them about Primaris design.
Amazing.

I made it clear - there is nothing wrong with people saying what they don't like. But when people make "facts" to support their opinions, I think it's completely fine to question those "facts".

Essentially - opinions are fine. Just don't use facts to support them if they're not exactly factual.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

But the core units? The unit that the decoration is added on top of? Tactical, Assault, Devastator, Terminators, etc. no drift.

So there's been NO difference between the upblinged Tactical Marines and the more spartan looking 2nd edition ones?

I respectfully disagree.

Go on. Show me.

Spoiler:

There's just as much a difference between these two and an Intercessor in my eyes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

B: I never made the assertion that every possible load-out for Tacticals is viable in every circumstance.

No, but you did claim they were more flexible, which is only as true as the weapons they happen to have at the time.

Only if you consciously decide to narrow the definition of "flexible" because you don't have an argument otherwise.

If we're talking the definition of flexible, Intercessors are also flexible, as I outlined with my kill team example.

Tactical Marines are only flexible with their lonesome special weapon guy. That's just as flexible as a whole squad of Intercessors with a variety of bolt weapons, in my eyes.

Putting you on Ignore, because you don't respect the the thread of argument. You've just supplied two literal non-answers.
For a post about "design drift" you posted two functionally identical models and tried to make a point about Intercessors that nobody is talking about.
For a post about "flexibility", you ignored the definition of "flexible" provided by my earlier posts.

0 points awarded.

right, it's when you make a statement like "Primaris design aestetics are objectively terriable" (a statement I've seen made) that the issue is. you can't claim your subjective opinion is an objective fact

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
In this thread: people that complain that in a thread titled "Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs" people report what bothers them about Primaris design.
Amazing.
Bonus: again comparison with the intercessors that, disproportioned legs aside, are universally considered the least offensive models of the line.

It is absolutely hilarious that you think that Intercessors have disproportionate legs. Look that tactical on the post above yours. Look at it! The lower body in completely different scale than the upper body. It looks utterly bizarre.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
In this thread: people that complain that in a thread titled "Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs" people report what bothers them about Primaris design.
Amazing.
Bonus: again comparison with the intercessors that, disproportioned legs aside, are universally considered the least offensive models of the line.

It is absolutely hilarious that you think that Intercessors have disproportionate legs. Look that tactical on the post above yours. Look at it! The lower body in completely different scale than the upper body. It looks utterly bizarre.

I have to really question your ability to interpret a short passage of text and think logically if you assume that if I say that the legs proportion of primaris intercessors are wonky it automatically means the squatmarines are ok.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
In this thread: people that complain that in a thread titled "Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs" people report what bothers them about Primaris design.
Amazing.

I made it clear - there is nothing wrong with people saying what they don't like. But when people make "facts" to support their opinions, I think it's completely fine to question those "facts".

Essentially - opinions are fine. Just don't use facts to support them if they're not exactly factual.

Can you point where I said my opinions are fact? We are discussing aesthetics, is kinda implied they cannot be. I could say the same about those that don;t agree with me, but I prefer to attack their points, not their ability to raise them.

Insectum7 wrote:Putting you on Ignore, because you don't respect the the thread of argument.

By all means. Still waiting on an answer to my questions about "are 30k Marines, or regular bolter Marines in a vacuum real Space Marines".

For a post about "design drift" you posted two functionally identical models and tried to make a point about Intercessors that nobody is talking about.

Nobody? You're claiming that nobody in this thread has claimed that Intercessors look aesthetically distinct from old Marines?
Wow.

For a post about "flexibility", you ignored the definition of "flexible" provided by my earlier posts.

And you completely ignored my questions.
I also gave my point about flexibility. Tactical Marines are only as flexible as the 1 guy out of 5 who carries a specific unique weapon. Without him, the squad is full of bolter mooks.
That is LESS flexible than Primaris Marines.

I also want to add that you don't even consider Legion Space Marines to be Space Marines. Claiming that Primaris aren't Space Marines is one thing, but 30k Marines? That's impressively audacious.

BrianDavion wrote:right, it's when you make a statement like "Primaris design aestetics are objectively terriable" (a statement I've seen made) that the issue is. you can't claim your subjective opinion is an objective fact

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with saying "I think Primaris aesthetics are terrible". But saying something like "they're objectively bad" or "they look massively different to old marines" requires some backing up, and if you don't have the facts to prove that, you probably shouldn't make that point.

BrianDavion wrote:
right, it's when you make a statement like "Primaris design aestetics are objectively terriable" (a statement I've seen made) that the issue is. you can't claim your subjective opinion is an objective fact

For the record, I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I think most people are pretty ok with the general look of Intercessors. I don't like their changing of scale and proportions, but that's more subjective.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with saying "I think Primaris aesthetics are terrible". But saying something like "they're objectively bad" or "they look massively different to old marines" requires some backing up, and if you don't have the facts to prove that, you probably shouldn't make that point.

But this is impossible, because you ignore everything from "the pose and the tech" to "capri shorts". You actual arguing strategy is to repeat the same things, re-post the same intercessors, ignore any actual criticism, and label the critics as whiners.

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
right, it's when you make a statement like "Primaris design aestetics are objectively terriable" (a statement I've seen made) that the issue is. you can't claim your subjective opinion is an objective fact

For the record, I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I think most people are pretty ok with the general look of Intercessors. I don't like their changing of scale and proportions, but that's more subjective.

never said you where, but I've actually seen that exact quote before belive it or not. not here but..

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
right, it's when you make a statement like "Primaris design aestetics are objectively terriable" (a statement I've seen made) that the issue is. you can't claim your subjective opinion is an objective fact

For the record, I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I think most people are pretty ok with the general look of Intercessors. I don't like their changing of scale and proportions, but that's more subjective.

never said you where, but I've actually seen that exact quote before belive it or not. not here but..

Nice backpedalling.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Can you point where I said my opinions are fact?

You, or other people in this thread?
Assuming just for yourself:






Unless I am mistaken, a lot of these read like you're stating facts, not opinions. Of course, if I am mistaken, please correct me, and I'll retract my comments.
Again, many other people have done the same.

It's a "Gue'vesa" is an hyperbole to show the disconnect between the tech of the Primaris and what the Imperium is supposed to be (both in fluff and aesthetics).
The fact that I state that the legs are messed up is still my opinion. You are implying that unless I state EVRY SINGLE TIME we discuss something similar HEY GUYS IS MY OPINION PLEASE DON'T GET OFFENDED the whole observation and argument is invalid.
What I think? I think that you are doing this in order to do not address any of the above points, from the tech to the capri.
Spoiler: is not going to work.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with saying "I think Primaris aesthetics are terrible". But saying something like "they're objectively bad" or "they look massively different to old marines" requires some backing up, and if you don't have the facts to prove that, you probably shouldn't make that point.

But this is impossible, because you ignore everything from "the pose and the tech" to "capri shorts". You actual arguing strategy is to repeat the same things, re-post the same intercessors, ignore any actual criticism, and label the critics as whiners.

I have never called anyone who has said "I don't like the look of Primaris" a whiner. I HAVE, however, called out people when they've made claims like "Intercessors aren't TRUE Space Marines because they don't have special weapons", because that's got nothing to do with being a Space Marine, or when people call out "they look like Tau" when they're wearing clearly Space Marine power armour, with their unique feature being a modified Space Marine scanner device and a helmet visor that Tau units don't have.

The capri shorts comment is fine, because it's phrased as an opinion. However, I do take issue with it being used as a blanket argument against ALL Primaris. Argue it against all Phobos, by all means, I'll tell you I disagree, but if it reminds you of capri shorts, I can see what you mean. However, arguing that Incursors have a Tau aesthetic is completely unfounded.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
right, it's when you make a statement like "Primaris design aestetics are objectively terriable" (a statement I've seen made) that the issue is. you can't claim your subjective opinion is an objective fact

For the record, I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I think most people are pretty ok with the general look of Intercessors. I don't like their changing of scale and proportions, but that's more subjective.

never said you where, but I've actually seen that exact quote before belive it or not. not here but..

As has been noted, the language surrounding aesthetic/design criticism is sorely lacking. It can be very difficult to communicate these things even among professionals. There's a LOT of slop.

If one were to be generous, a case could be made that Primaris objectively did not match the previous styling of 40K models, and because they don't match the established style, they are terrible. This may have been the context from which that quote came from. With proper context, the statement could be perfectly viable. On a forum where an honest grappling with context is hard to come by, it's not a useful snippet. Or, the poster could just be flatly misguided!

 Insectum7 wrote:

I just really don't want them to toss out the old ones, for a whole host of reasons.

I am again optimistic in this regard. There will be a moment, a Bardo if you wish, in which the old marines will be dead. Once the new marine's take over will be complete, all the old collections will be fine again, "reincarnate" in part of the Primaris line with minimal effort. Unless you play with people that will be bothered by few mm. But why lose your time with these?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
It's a "Gue'vesa" is an hyperbole to show the disconnect between the tech of the Primaris and what the Imperium is supposed to be (both in fluff and aesthetics).

Gue'vesa isn't even the correct term for an Astartes fighting for the Tau.

And again, I don't think at all that the Incursor looks any different to what the Imperium is "supposed to be". The only thing that looks new is the visor. However, I don't think that's enough personally for me to say it violates the entire idea of the IoM.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Kaiyanwang wrote:

I have never called anyone who has said "I don't like the look of Primaris" a whiner. I HAVE, however, called out people when they've made claims like "Intercessors aren't TRUE Space Marines because they don't have special weapons", because that's got nothing to do with being a Space Marine, or when people call out "they look like Tau" when they're wearing clearly Space Marine power armour,

The "Tau" part concerns their concept, their sheer aesthetics and the implied relationship with technology that is not true to what the Imperium is supposed to be. And frankly? I can in fact state this is indeed a fact, because is the premise of their existence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Kaiyanwang wrote:

I have never called anyone who has said "I don't like the look of Primaris" a whiner. I HAVE, however, called out people when they've made claims like "Intercessors aren't TRUE Space Marines because they don't have special weapons", because that's got nothing to do with being a Space Marine, or when people call out "they look like Tau" when they're wearing clearly Space Marine power armour,

The "Tau" part concerns their concept, their sheer aesthetics and the implied relationship with technology that is not true to what the Imperium is supposed to be. And frankly? I can in fact state this is indeed a fact, because is the premise of their existence.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Gue'vesa isn't even the correct term for an Astartes fighting for the Tau.

Irrelevant for something written as a mocking hyperbole.

And again, I don't think at all that the Incursor looks any different to what the Imperium is "supposed to be". The only thing that looks new is the visor. However, I don't think that's enough personally for me to say it violates the entire idea of the IoM.

You ignore again the capri I guess. And the pose. Again, compare with that devastator posted above. Compare with the new CSM that still have that mix of noble fallen knight but with an hint of gansta/arrogant pose. it's an ensemble of things.
You like it? Fine. But you are the one being dismissive and blind of other's opinion.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
The "Tau" part concerns their concept, their sheer aesthetics and the implied relationship with technology that is not true to what the Imperium is supposed to be. And frankly? I can in fact state this is indeed a fact, because is the premise of their existence.

Yes, but I fail to see what that has to do with the Incursors.

The Incursor is no different to what has already appears in pre-Primaris Space Marine models. The only new thing is the helmet visor, but again, is that really all it takes to say "this is not an Imperial model"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
You ignore again the capri I guess.

They look different, but they don't take away from the power armour aesthetic common to Space Marines, in my opinion.

And the pose.

The pose on the multipose model?

You like it? Fine. But you are the one being dismissive and blind of other's opinion.

I'm not blind to opinion. I am dismissive of people posing opinions as facts, however.

I like it, you don't. That's all fine, and I'd be happy to leave it at that.
But when there's 6+ threads of "I don't like this, and this is my justification why" and their "facts" start to sound flimsier and flimsier every time (such as 'Space Marines who don't have special weapons in their squads aren't real Space Marines' or 'Primaris jumped the gun with camo cloaked/tacticool Space Marines'), I'm sure you can understand how a lot of people's opinions start to sound like them masking them as facts.

Intercessors ain't Space Marines and I stand by it. Space Marines get access to mixed weapon squads to handle a variety of targets and operate independently. They ride in Rhinos and Land Raiders, and don't greatly out-stat the "Elite Troops" of other major factions. They wear Mk 4-8 Power Armor, some with bling, some without. If they're really lucky, they get to wear Terminator Armor. They carry Chainswords because this is Warhammer ****ing 40K, and they don't dual wield anything except for pistols, unless it's a prize taken off a Chaos Champion. They use superior training, discipline and doctrinal regimen/(brainwashing) to get the job done, instead of an extra wound.

And these are facts.
/Rant

Primaris are called Space Marines because it tests well in focus group testing. But it's a lie.

Look Smudge, in order to have a discussion, you have to first to accept that for some people, the differences between models, even subtle, that you ignore are relevant.
Since this is not going to happen, and/or you come up with absolutely surreal stuff like "in a multipose model" while it goes without saying that a multipose model is not going to have infinite poses (and the acceptable poses could all communicate something different from the expected), I suppose we can end it here because this is going nowhere.

I understand that 6+ threads can upset you because you seem like a primaris fan, but maybe maybe maybe there are 6 threads because many consider the primaris badly executed and/or conceived, and are finally speaking out.

But since you are not even going to accept this, have a nice rest of your day.

This picture perfectly encapsulates everything I dislike about Primaris.



Every marine in this picture looks bad. I thought the taurox was in the running for worst vehicle design but the new rhino is the heavyweight champion. If it wasn't cheap with 4+ invul upgrade, no one would ever add this to their collection.

Insectum7 wrote:Intercessors ain't Space Marines and I stand by it. Space Marines get access to mixed weapon squads to handle a variety of targets and operate independently. They ride in Rhinos and Land Raiders, and don't greatly out-stat the "Elite Troops" of other major factions. They wear Mk 4-8 Power Armor, some with bling, some without. If they're really lucky, they get to wear Terminator Armor. They carry Chainswords because this is Warhammer ****ing 40K, and they don't dual wield anything except for pistols, unless it's a prize taken off a Chaos Champion. They use superior training, discipline and doctrinal regimen/(brainwashing) to get the job done, instead of an extra wound.

And these are facts.

No, they're not.
Why? Because those criteria would mean that 30k Space Marines aren't Space Marines. It would mean that Razorbacks aren't actually Space Marines units. Primaris carry chainswords (At least one model is modelled with one, and Intercessor Sergeants can be armed with them), modern Vanguard Veterans can dual wield chainswords, plenty of models can dual wield lightning claws, and if the "superior training, discipline, and doctrinal regimen" were enough to get the job done and extra wounds weren't, why do Captains, Lieutenants, and ever special character have them?*


*unless obviously, the extra wounds were a gameplay mechanic to show their resilience/plot armour - which the Primaris have, and which the old marines have, in the form of their increased Toughness stat.

Suffice to say, that is not "factually" correct. But I am grateful for the effort.

Kaiyanwang wrote:Look Smudge, in order to have a discussion, you have to first to accept that for some people, the differences between models, even subtle, that you ignore are relevant.

Yes, they may be. I understand that, so long as they don't try and pull some "these are objectively bad" trick. Opinion is opinion, taste is taste, I get that, and encourage that. Just don't try and make it any more than that - I'm not going to try and say things like "actually Primaris are the best because they are taller and bigger and have not-squatting legs" - that doesn't make them objectively, well, anything.

I understand that 6+ threads can upset you because you seem like a primaris fan, but maybe maybe maybe there are 6 threads because many consider the primaris badly executed and/or conceived, and are finally speaking out.

Honestly, if it had been these 6+ thread only now, I really wouldn't have an issue.

But "finally" speaking out? No offence intended, but these people have been "finally" speaking out since they first saw Primaris, let alone the latest release. I get it. Some people don't like Primaris. Do we need 6+ threads EVERY TIME there's a new unit, a new Space Marine release?
It's not really an "upset" thing, like 'how dare you not like them?!' - it's more of an 'okay, we've heard your opinion, maybe we can give it a break, and we don't need to hear you try and rationalise it?'

And, as I said, stating opinion = fine. Using "facts" to support them? Of course people will come in and disagree, and call out the "facts".

But since you are not even going to accept this, have a nice rest of your day.

Agreed. I've made my points clear. Opinions = fine. "Facts" and misinformation? Not quite so cool.

This picture perfectly encapsulates everything I dislike about Primaris

Buy our new brilliant plastic to kill these gnome eldar guardians we used for pictures since 4th edition codex.

 Commissar Benny wrote:
If it wasn't cheap with 4+ invul upgrade, no one would ever add this to their collection.

I'm going to grab one, and I'm probably going to go with the bombardment upgrade personally.

I don't see what's wrong with the impulsor myself.

BrianDavion wrote:
I don't see what's wrong with the impulsor myself.

It's boxy and clunky in a bad way, rather than boxy and clunky in a good way.