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.

The main thing I dislike about the Primaris range is the massive increase in both anti grav tech and having large infantry being able to fly around freely. It is a massive change in the background and changes both what I liked about both the IOM in general and space marines in particular.

SM's were the cream of the crop and even they on average keep a handful of land speeders in service at any given time. It made that tech for humanity feel special and set the human factions apart from the xenos.

I would have rather GW doubled down on the decay and slow push towards lower tech for the Imperium versus Cawl figured it all out now we have hover land raiders.

 Shadenuat wrote:

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.

3rd edition.

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

Disagree. It’s boxy and clunky in the good way. Your opinions are bad and you should feel bad.

MY OPINIONS ARE BETTER THEN YOUR OPINIONS!

seriously though the Impulsor is clearly a light weight, lightly armed cousin of the repulsor. I don't have an issue with it at all. as it is it lacks the thing people claimed was the repulsor's biggest issue (excessive guns)

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

Disagree. It’s boxy and clunky in the good way. Your opinions are bad and you should feel bad.

Unlikely. Simple is more iconic, generally speaking. Star Destroyer, Borg Cube, etc.

I could like the idea of a Flying Rhino. I even designed one myself and got half-through building the thing in 4th edition with the vehicle design rules at the time. I'll wait to see this one in person, but so far it's got too much stuff on it. It looks like a Rhino had a threesome between a Land Speeder and a GSC Goliath Truck.

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

Insightful design critique from a professional.

You claim that what makes a marine is tactical squads and load out but that is just your opinion not a fact. One of the reasons marines have been a success over the decades is that they appeal to so many people by being many things at once. Some like the gothic knightly business, some warrior monks, some military elites, some even werewolves on dogs. Marines can be it all and each person will have their own image of what a marine is. To you it’s the noble tactical squad but I bet many black Templar fans don’t see that when they think about marines or space wolf fans. What I have always seen about marines is perfectly captured by the new range, they are the essence of 1st edition marines to me, and load out doesn’t come into it.

So your whole argument is based around an opinion presented as a fact. So doesn’t stand up sorry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

I’m pretty sure you are just a troll in this discussion. You seem totally unable to to have a reasoned discussion. You have set your stall out and are sticking to your ridiculous assumptions. Crack on mate and enjoy your nonsense.

BrianDavion wrote:
MY OPINIONS ARE BETTER THEN YOUR OPINIONS!

seriously though the Impulsor is clearly a light weight, lightly armed cousin of the repulsor. I don't have an issue with it at all. as it is it lacks the thing people claimed was the repulsor's biggest issue (excessive guns)

Which is my main complaint about the Repulsor and it taking up a big chunk of my list. I mean, I love lots of guns but I just don't care for how the Repulsor does it. And then outside the Inceptors and the weird Autocannon dudes, none of the Primaris models are bad whatsoever.

 Commissar Benny wrote:
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.

I will be adding one and not for the reasons above. I will be adding because I like it. And that picture captures for me a lot of what I like about the new range. But that is only my opinion. If I was to say that everyone will have one of these because it’s such a cool vehicle and if you don’t it’s because you have medical problems that would be claiming that opinions are facts.

BrianDavion wrote:

robbienw wrote:

 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.

man you'd think phobos armor was suddenly replacing the entire primaris range

I thought it was Phobos legs being discussed because of the Incursor picture. I can tell you what’s wrong with Tacticus and Gravis legs as well if you like


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

robbienw wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

robbienw wrote:

 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.

man you'd think phobos armor was suddenly replacing the entire primaris range

Nah. It's clearly replacing scouts and expanding the role scouts play in the army, but it's only so prominent right now because they're the new release.

That said I wish people would stop beating a dead horse about how much they hate Primaris every release. I mean I don't like Tau (too much Mech, not enough mixed aliens for my tastes) but I just shrug and move on when it gets something new. This constant Primaris bashing is just toxic behavior that is poisoning the well for others and could even chase off new players.

Yes lets label valid criticism and discussion of models as ‘hate’ and ‘toxic’ because people have an opinion I disagree with. Yes that’s always a good idea...

I see a lot of repetitive criticism of classic marines compared to Primaris about, but you don’t see me complaining about that. If you are willing to point out what you see as flaws in something, don’t be surprised that people start pointing out flaws in things you like.

There is a difference between saying you don't like something and the bashing I've witnessed since they announced this release.

It's been two frikkin' years since they announced Primaris as a thing. It's time to stop trying to complain them away and accept them as a part of the setting. You can like them or them but this constant five threads bashing on Primaris is beyond played out at this point.

No one wants to deal with people who complain about things all the time, and they're less.likely to believe that you're right when you spend all your time bashing something.

It’s been 2 years, yes. But of course a major change to GWs main line of models is going to be discussed for a long time. Also new additions to the line have been released and their is going to be discussion around them - some of it may be critical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

The suggestion you can't is absurd.

No-one'se saying you can't. However, the issue is with the idea of "notable changes" - if there's people who genuinely can see very little difference, they're not really notable, are they?

They are to me. You thinking they don't have notable differences doesn't change my opinion they do.

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.

As I said above, there are so few changes to the core Astartes aesthetic, it's difficult to find a lot of these differences.
Extra plating - where? The gorget or leg armour? Deathwatch have this too. But perhaps you also don't like their armour?
Their feet aren't much larger than normal Marines - except Gravis, but they're not really "normal Primaris", like how Terminators aren't normal Marines.
Only the Inceptors have bucket helms, and they're totally optional.
I don't see any additional "tacticool features" that aren't also present on normal marines (including 30k, because they're still Marines).

Its really not difficult to find the differences. The tacticus armour guys have extra plating to the forearm, thighs and backpack compared to your classic mk7 look for example. Gravis have an armour plates on extra armour plates all over the place look. Most infantry have the tyre tread flexible stomach armour. The sigmar style kneepad rims. There are many changes, and they are relatively consistent across the range. They dont apply to every single primaris model though of course - nobody said they did. Yes they still look like space marines. But the aethsetic has been changed.

I didnt say bucket helms either, lets not try to wilfully misinterpret what i am saying for argumentative purposes. I'm talking about the bucket shaped areas that link to the collar armour that Gravis models have that go around the helmet.

The tacticool features would be stuff like picatinny style rails on guns, abundance of lenses on guns, large wrist computers, soft knee pads, rifles that look like G36's etc. Its mainly confined to phobos armour.

At the same time, I'd expect people who point out flaws and try to back them up with what sound like factual claims (like my example above) to actually HAVE factual arguments that are well quantifiable.

As I've said - opinion is fine. Making up facts to support those opinions is not.

Its all subjective opinion. A flaw to me may not be a flaw to you. No one is making anything up. The problem seems to be you can't accept other people have a differing opinion on a subject to you. People don't like something you do - accept it. Also realise that when there is a new release for an army, there is likely to be a spike in topics discussing said army. Some of those may be negative.

I didn't personally create 6+ threads about it, people are able to individually create threads as they wish.

I do find it hard to believe though that you haven't seen any of the criticism and slurs against classic marines over the last 2 years. Terms such as mini-marines, squat marines, shorties, stunted mini-men, deformed legs etc have been flying about all over the place

robbienw wrote:
Its really not difficult to find the differences. The tacticus armour guys have extra plating to the forearm, thighs and backpack compared to your classic mk7 look for example. Gravis have an armour plates on extra armour plates all over the place look. Most infantry have the tyre tread flexible stomach armour. The sigmar style kneepad rims. There are many changes, and they are relatively consistent across the range.

Yes, and along with the improved proportions, this is another major thing that makes the Primaris look much better than the old marines. There is all this added detail which makes tre armour look much more real and interesting. The old marines had plain armour because of the technological limitations of the time. When they were first designed, no such detail was possible. Later when the tech improved they started to add all sort of superfluous bling. Jes Goodwin pretty much said that this is how he always wanted marines to be, and finally they have the tech to do it.

 Crimson wrote:

robbienw wrote:
Its really not difficult to find the differences. The tacticus armour guys have extra plating to the forearm, thighs and backpack compared to your classic mk7 look for example. Gravis have an armour plates on extra armour plates all over the place look. Most infantry have the tyre tread flexible stomach armour. The sigmar style kneepad rims. There are many changes, and they are relatively consistent across the range.

Yes, and along with the improved proportions, this is another major thing that makes the Primaris look much better than the old marines.

I'm listing the things that i think make them look worse than classics. Proportions don't even come into it when the aethesetic is bad. I'd rather have classics at current proportions (or deathwatch/heroes proportions), than any kind of primaris due to aethsetic preferences.

As for what jes goodwin says, i'm not sure he said exactly that, I think you may be misinterpreting him. I seriously doubt he originally intended marines to look like primaris way in 1987. Especially not the tacticool elements, thing which came into prominence in the real world in the 2000's

Plus the designer intending something to be someway doesn't automatically mean you have to like it. Your can say it is your best work, your fans are under no obligation to agree with that. I prefer his earlier work

Sure, you don't have to like it. I just see those details you mention as a result of better resolution, rather than a drastic thematic change. If you put a Mk VII helmet on an intercessor, to me it will look like a better proportioned and more detailed classic marine. The old ones are just a low res version.

robbienw wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

robbienw wrote:
Its really not difficult to find the differences. The tacticus armour guys have extra plating to the forearm, thighs and backpack compared to your classic mk7 look for example. Gravis have an armour plates on extra armour plates all over the place look. Most infantry have the tyre tread flexible stomach armour. The sigmar style kneepad rims. There are many changes, and they are relatively consistent across the range.

Yes, and along with the improved proportions, this is another major thing that makes the Primaris look much better than the old marines.

I'm listing the things that i think make them look worse than classics. Proportions don't even come into it when the aethesetic is bad. I'd rather have classics at current proportions (or deathwatch/heroes proportions), than any kind of primaris due to aethsetic preferences.

As for what jes goodwin says, i'm not sure he said exactly that, I think you may be misinterpreting him. I seriously doubt he originally intended marines to look like primaris way in 1987. Especially not the tacticool elements, thing which came into prominence in the real world in the 2000's

Plus the designer intending something to be someway doesn't automatically mean you have to like it. Your can say it is your best work, your fans are under no obligation to agree with that. I prefer his earlier work

You may not like those things you have listed but it doesn’t mean that they marked shift in design that fundamentally changed the whole setting as has been claimed here. Mk3 armour is just mk2 with more forward facing armour panels, are the fundamentally different and is mk3 unrecognisable as a space marine. No. Obviously not. This is the difference between fact and opinion. You don’t like those changes but they don’t stop them being marines.

Thats a poor analogy Crimson.

Most current marine kits (and pretty much everything else made in the last 7 or 8 years) are the same 'resolution' as primaris ones. They have been made with the same technology and have the same crispness of surface detail.

Sure there are some older kits from before the era of laser cut mold detail, but they are few now.

To me, putting a mk7 helm on an intercessor would result in an intercessor with a mk7 helm. Still with all the design elements on his body that i dislike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

robbienw wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

robbienw wrote:
Its really not difficult to find the differences. The tacticus armour guys have extra plating to the forearm, thighs and backpack compared to your classic mk7 look for example. Gravis have an armour plates on extra armour plates all over the place look. Most infantry have the tyre tread flexible stomach armour. The sigmar style kneepad rims. There are many changes, and they are relatively consistent across the range.

Yes, and along with the improved proportions, this is another major thing that makes the Primaris look much better than the old marines.

I'm listing the things that i think make them look worse than classics. Proportions don't even come into it when the aethesetic is bad. I'd rather have classics at current proportions (or deathwatch/heroes proportions), than any kind of primaris due to aethsetic preferences.

As for what jes goodwin says, i'm not sure he said exactly that, I think you may be misinterpreting him. I seriously doubt he originally intended marines to look like primaris way in 1987. Especially not the tacticool elements, thing which came into prominence in the real world in the 2000's

Plus the designer intending something to be someway doesn't automatically mean you have to like it. Your can say it is your best work, your fans are under no obligation to agree with that. I prefer his earlier work

You may not like those things you have listed but it doesn’t mean that they marked shift in design that fundamentally changed the whole setting as has been claimed here. Mk3 armour is just mk2 with more forward facing armour panels, are the fundamentally different and is mk3 unrecognisable as a space marine. No. Obviously not. This is the difference between fact and opinion. You don’t like those changes but they don’t stop them being marines.

I never said they aren't marines!

They do have a slightly different design paradigm though.

The fluff changed the whole setting, not the design shift.

Andykp wrote:


I’m pretty sure you are just a troll in this discussion. You seem totally unable to to have a reasoned discussion. You have set your stall out and are sticking to your ridiculous assumptions. Crack on mate and enjoy your nonsense.

If this was the case, people would have offered some actual rebuttal to what has been pointed out concerning primaris, especially poses, proportions, and tech (in light of what the Imperium actually is), but this did not happen, and I think is not going to happen.
But I suppose is way more convenient to call someone a troll rather than address his points. Or state that those "are just opinions that should not proposed as facts" which is completely inane.
And no, post the same intercessor the 287632th time is not "addressing the points".

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
poses

Are better.

proportions

Are massively better.

and tech

Mostly the same. There is some slight teching up, though this is mostly apparent only in certain models such as Incursors.


Happy now?

I already said it to you. You have a very poor grasp of what logic and arguments are.
That embarrassing post above concerning the orcs it's another dead giveaway.

Opinions aren't a rebuttal crimson

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I already said it to you. You have a very poor grasp of what logic and arguments are.
That embarrassing post above concerning the orcs it's another dead giveaway.

I am engaging with the content of your posts, you're hurling ad hominems. You probably shouldn't be critiquing of the argumentation methods of anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

robbienw wrote:
Opinions aren't a rebuttal crimson

I get it. For some bizarre reason you like your space marines being deformed dwarfs. I don't know why, but you are of course free to have that opinion. I really do not expect most players, especially not new players without nostalgia fuelled hangups to share your opinion on the matter though.

BTW, do you think that the current classic marines have better poses and proportions than the RT beakies? Because I think we're talking about similar step in the design evolution here.

 Crimson wrote:

I get it. For some bizarre reason you like your space marines being deformed dwarfs

I have at this point ask if you are doing this purposefully. It's kinda a wish actually, because the opposite is not very flattering for you.
Again, stating that Primaris have weird leg proportions does not mean the old legs are ok. I just think that the proportions used for the new CSM are way better.

Also please show me the ad hominems. I only attacked you directly out of your (hopefully) willing ignorance. Because I want to believe you are being intentionally obtuse here, and you are able to understand that in a given situation there can be more than two options.
Right?

 Crimson wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I already said it to you. You have a very poor grasp of what logic and arguments are.
That embarrassing post above concerning the orcs it's another dead giveaway.

I am engaging with the content of your posts, you're hurling ad hominems. You probably shouldn't be critiquing of the argumentation methods of anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

robbienw wrote:
Opinions aren't a rebuttal crimson

I get it.

You clearly don't get it. Claiming there is as great a difference between RT beakies and current classics, to current classic and primaris is absurd, and pure hyperbole. Like your high resoloution ork nonsense Primaris just have different dimensions and styling, they were designed with the same technology as most recent classic kits. They arent any crisper or sharper. RT marines were designed in the late 80's without computer assistance, laser molds, the current type of plastics used, the current method of plastic injection used, etc.

Classic marines are not deformed dwarfs, no more than Primaris are deformed giants. They are both still within the theroically scaled range. GW would not have sold millions if they were as terrible as you claim.

The reason i like classic more is because i prefer they way they look. Primaris look chunky and toylike, with ridculously large lower legs. Being a bit closer to ideal art proportions is not enough. I need to like the style as well. Dark Eldar for example are very well proportioned, but that doesnt make me want them more than classic marines either, because they dont meet my design preferences.

I think if you gave a primaris and a classic marine to the art scale/big marine fans, with both being identically scaled and proportioned, i think you'd find most would go for the classic.

You are also confusing a stylistic difference with more advanced modelling technology. Miniature companies have been producing models with 'better' proportions (as in closer to real life human proportions) for many many years, before CAD and laser molds came in for sure.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
stating that Primaris have weird leg proportions

But they don't.

I just think that the proportions used for the new CSM are way better.

They're overall a bit smaller. I actually think that their legs are still a tiny bit underscaled. I did a couple of test conversions where I extended their legs by a mm, and they ended up looking better to me. But when we're talking about one mmm on a 36 mm model then it is getting pretty subjective.

 Crimson wrote:

What is the pose that the Primaris marine is doing here? It looks like it's wiggling its hips as it walks like a model in high heels strutting down a catwalk.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
stating that Primaris have weird leg proportions

But they don't.

I just think that the proportions used for the new CSM are way better.

They're overall a bit smaller. I actually think that their legs are still a tiny bit underscaled. I did a couple of test conversions where I extended their legs by a mm, and they ended up looking better to me. But when we're talking about one mmm on a 36 mm model then it is getting pretty subjective.

And your opinion is as valid as mine because is based on aesthetics. In a thread titled "Finally realized what bothers me about CSM designs" it would be a valid criticism. "I think they did not go far enough with the legs, I prefer the Primaris approach".
I would answer "I think the legs are fine, the Primaris feel weird to me".
Get it now? No need to police people about it.

robbienw wrote:

You clearly don't get it. Claiming there is as great a difference between RT beakies and current classics, to current classic and primaris is absurd, and pure hyperbole. Like your high resoloution ork nonsense Primaris just have different dimensions and styling, they were designed with the same technology as most recent classic kits. They arent any crisper or sharper. RT marines were designed in the late 80's without computer assistance, laser molds, the current type of plastics used, the current method of plastic injection used, etc.

I was talking about the shift in proportions, style and posing in this example, not the technical level of detail.

When I said earlier that the simpleness of the armour plates in the classic (mk VII marines) was due the technical limitations of the time, I was referring to the time when that design was first created decades ago, not the latest iteration of it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

What is the pose that the Primaris marine is doing here? It looks like it's wiggling its hips as it walks like a model in high heels strutting down a catwalk.

He's turning while walking.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

What is the pose that the Primaris marine is doing here? It looks like it's wiggling its hips as it walks like a model in high heels strutting down a catwalk.

He looks like he has been shot in the back and is just about to pitch forward.

robbienw wrote:I thought it was Phobos legs being discussed because of the Incursor picture. I can tell you what’s wrong with Tacticus and Gravis legs as well if you like

No-one really specified what legs they were talking about, seeing as most people just tend to have a blanket grievance with "Primaris", when oftentimes, they might mean a single unit.

Now, if someone said "I don't like the legs on PHOBOS marines because they look different to Tacticals/Intercessors", I'd be cool with that opinion and logic, because they factually ARE visually distinct in a meaningful way (that's not to say they're 'objectively bad', but that there is a clear and obvious difference). However, very rarely do people actually point out specific things and units and just say "Primaris look bad", when perhaps it's not even the main units that they're talking about.

I mean, if I hated the Centurion design with a passion, would you think it was cool for me to say "Space Marines look terrible!" when I'm only actually talking about the Centurions?

It’s been 2 years, yes. But of course a major change to GWs main line of models is going to be discussed for a long time. Also new additions to the line have been released and their is going to be discussion around them - some of it may be critical.

Yes, but do the same points that were brought up at release and have had no further elaboration beyond "it's new and I don't like it*" need to be brought up again and again?

robbienw wrote:

No-one's saying you can't. However, the issue is with the idea of "notable changes" - if there's people who genuinely can see very little difference, they're not really notable, are they?

They are to me. You thinking they don't have notable differences doesn't change my opinion they do.

They aren't THAT notable then, are they?
I'm just pointing out that you saying and having the opinion that they're these massive changes conflicts with the fact that many other people don't think there's anything new here at all.
Therefore, if there's a significant amount of people who can't see a large difference, it's not widely notable, is it? It's not like the difference between black and white, where one is clearly notably different from the other.
Perhaps it's more like a dark grey and a normal grey. Maybe some people think they're distinct, and others don't - in that situation, I don't think it would be fair to say that one grey is "notably different" from the other, because a significant group of people cannot see that.

Its really not difficult to find the differences. The tacticus armour guys have extra plating to the forearm, thighs and backpack compared to your classic mk7 look for example.

Deathwatch have the same too. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen you complain about them.

Gravis have an armour plates on extra armour plates all over the place look.

As do Terminators.

Most infantry have the tyre tread flexible stomach armour.

Do they? Only the Phobos Marines do, and that's hardly any different to the exposed wiring and cables that Mark 7 has.

The sigmar style kneepad rims.

This is true, yes. Is that rim enough to make them an entirely new aesthetic though? If I put one on a Deathwatch Marine with a Mark IV helmet, would they suddenly be completely different?

There are many changes, and they are relatively consistent across the range. They dont apply to every single primaris model though of course - nobody said they did.

I don't know, the constant "PRIMARIS LOOK DIFFERENT" without many people actually specifying the specific things and specific units sounds more just like people having a problem with anything with the Primaris keyword, not specific features and units.

Again, not accusing you of this, but there are many who do this.

Yes they still look like space marines. But the aethsetic has been changed.

Again, has it? Deathwatch have many of the same things you say Primaris introduced as changed aesthetics.

I didnt say bucket helms either, lets not try to wilfully misinterpret what i am saying for argumentative purposes. I'm talking about the bucket shaped areas that link to the collar armour that Gravis models have that go around the helmet.

Oh, I see - that wasn't a wilful misinterpretation, that was a misunderstanding - I thought you were talking about the dome helmets that can be put on Inceptors, not the Gravis suits as a whole. Even so, don't both Librarians and Terminators have similar coverings?
Here's a really nice example:

The tacticool features would be stuff like picatinny style rails on guns, abundance of lenses on guns, large wrist computers, soft knee pads, rifles that look like G36's etc. Its mainly confined to phobos armour.

I see your point about the toothed gun rails, that's new. But it's hardly like older bolter didn't have gun rails at all. The deathwatch bolters are just as egregious with lenses and sights. Deathwatch also boast wrist computers. Don't know what you mean about the soft knee pads, actually. The bolt sniper rifles are on one unit, and the only real thing that evokes that is the raised tactical rail thing. Remove that, and it looks no different from other 40k weaponry. And yes, it mostly is on the Phobos units.


Again, with how much of it is already present or different in the slightest of ways, I don't think I could call that a drastic change.

Its all subjective opinion. A flaw to me may not be a flaw to you.

Agreed.

No one is making anything up.

Disagree. Come on, does "Tactical Marines without special weapons aren't Space Marines" sound like 'subjective opinion'?
There's a difference between "I don't like the look of Primaris" and "Primaris CLEARLY look different and have undergone a drastic new change of aesthetic" - the latter one is phrased in a very assured and as if stating facts, sounding more like the speaker is announcing facts, rather than personal opinions. A lot of it is in the phrasing.

The problem seems to be you can't accept other people have a differing opinion on a subject to you. People don't like something you do - accept it. Also realise that when there is a new release for an army, there is likely to be a spike in topics discussing said army. Some of those may be negative.

Again, have you actually be reading what I'm saying?

Different opinions are fine. Just don't phrase them like it's some kind of fact or truth that applies widely. I don't exactly agree with people saying things like "Primaris are the best because they're bigger and more well proportioned" - being bigger doesn't necessarily make them better to everyone, and well proportioned is subjective. A better statement would be "I think Primaris are better because they're bigger and more well proportioned according to my tastes".

I didn't personally create 6+ threads about it, people are able to individually create threads as they wish.

Yes, but don't you find it, or at least understand, how that's a tad excessive?

I do find it hard to believe though that you haven't seen any of the criticism and slurs against classic marines over the last 2 years. Terms such as mini-marines, squat marines, shorties, stunted mini-men, deformed legs etc have been flying about all over the place

Only one of them is a slur, and that's "deformed legs". Mini-marines is hardly used in the same context that people use when they insult Primaris, and you know it.

There's also not 6+ threads talking about how they're the worst thing ever and are terrible design and so on, so forth.

robbienw wrote:As for what jes goodwin says, i'm not sure he said exactly that, I think you may be misinterpreting him. I seriously doubt he originally intended marines to look like primaris way in 1987. Especially not the tacticool elements, thing which came into prominence in the real world in the 2000's

I'll rewatch the Voxcast interview, but I'm pretty sure he was saying that.

Plus the designer intending something to be someway doesn't automatically mean you have to like it. Your can say it is your best work, your fans are under no obligation to agree with that. I prefer his earlier work

Absolutely, but there were people in this thread who were, again, making up things by saying "Jes clearly didn't have a hand in this, this is blasphemous to his name" or words to that effect.

Kaiyanwang wrote:If this was the case, people would have offered some actual rebuttal to what has been pointed out concerning primaris, especially poses, proportions, and tech (in light of what the Imperium actually is), but this did not happen, and I think is not going to happen.

It has. Or at least, just pointing out that many people's "facts" aren't so.

As above - haven't got a problem with people making opinions, but when they start to sound like claiming facts, that's a different matter.

And no, post the same intercessor the 287632th time is not "addressing the points".

When the "points" made are lacking in matter, a single Intercessor is more than enough.

robbienw wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

What is the pose that the Primaris marine is doing here? It looks like it's wiggling its hips as it walks like a model in high heels strutting down a catwalk.

He looks like he has been shot in the back and is just about to pitch forward.

The arm pose might be to blame there. I tend to use different bits for that body which makes him look more like he's turning to check a threat.

robbienw wrote:You clearly don't get it. Claiming there is as great a difference between RT beakies and current classics, to current classic and primaris is absurd, and pure hyperbole.

Is it hyperbolic?

In my opinion, there is absolutely more difference between beakies and modern Tacticals than there is between modern Tacticals and Primaris.

I think if you gave a primaris and a classic marine to the art scale/big marine fans, with both being identically scaled and proportioned, i think you'd find most would go for the classic.

But that relies on the classic marines being scaled and proportioned correctly. For many people, they prefer Primaris because of that superior scaling and proportion.
Personally, if I had both the Tactical and Primaris, both scaled and proportioned correctly, I don't think there would be enough difference for me to actually choose one over the other.

robbienw wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

What is the pose that the Primaris marine is doing here? It looks like it's wiggling its hips as it walks like a model in high heels strutting down a catwalk.

He looks like he has been shot in the back and is just about to pitch forward.

Personally, I think it looks better than the old marines who look as if they're about to use their armour's 'recycling' functions.