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.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Andykp wrote:
haters

This one says more about you and how you approach a discussion about proportions on a plastic space man than anything else.

It was hard to think of another term that was allowed for you when all you have basically added to the discussion is “I don’t like them” then been awkward and childish to any reasonable rebuttal. So all that word says about me is that I find your contribution to the discussion to be of no actual use.

Too bad this is not what happened. Anyone that reads the thread can read what has been posted about poses, proportions and use of tech. Which BTW have not been addressed beyond clumsy attempts to dismiss the validity of any criticism. Included your "haters" - hate is a very strong term dear boy, if one is childish for using it in this context it's you.
So it's one of these two:
1) You are trying to gaslight
2) You are unable to read simple passages of text
There are not other options.

You’ve said you don’t like the aesthetics but that’s all. That’s your taste. You are stating it as fact though which where any of your arguments fall down, the legs are messed up, you claim to be a fact. I like them, think they look great. That’s my opinion. It’s impossible to rebut your facts because they are just opinions presented as facts.

So it’s option 3 “dear boy”, your argument is flawed to the point of not being an argument at all. And when ever it is rebutted you apply smug sarcasm. Not gaslighting. And only used the term hater because you seem determined not to like primaris whatever they produce. And disliker isn’t a term.

So if you would like to come up with some facts to support your argument or just accept that you don’t like them and there is more to it than that then that’d great.

And robbinew, people on here saying primaris is a huge paradigm shift in design are present opinion as fact. So I apologise for lowering my self to your lots level.

No, what is really happening is that you are upset that people have specific tastes and expectations and you came here policing them.
None ever told me here "is not true that the pose of the old Devastator is imperious and evokes a certain attitude, while the tacticool pose of the nu-marine appeals to the Infinity crowd".
Such statements have been outright dismissed without any actual counterpoint.
The only answer you brought on the table is NU-HU YOU ARE PRESENTING YOUR OPINIONS AS FACTS which is just a way to poison the well. All while being WAY too incensed for the topic discussed.
"lower yourself" ahah. Get a grip.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
No, what is really happening is that you are upset that people have specific tastes and expectations and you came here policing them.
None ever told me here "is not true that the pose of the old Devastator is imperious and evokes a certain attitude, while the tacticool pose of the nu-marine appeals to the Infinity crowd".
Such statements have been outright dismissed without any actual counterpoint.
The only answer you brought on the table is NU-HU YOU ARE PRESENTING YOUR OPINIONS AS FACTS which is just a way to poison the well. All while being WAY too incensed for the topic discussed.
"lower yourself" ahah. Get a grip.

But when you are presenting opinions as facts there isn’t much else to say. I don’t like infinity but do prefer the more realistic proportions and dynamic poses of the primaris marines. The devastator models look poorly proportioned and it’s legs are to far apart for my tastes. It doesn’t look imperious to me and the attitude seems to be that of a short man with a giant head. So I disagree with your opinions on the poses. But still no facts from you.

To the people saying primaris aren’t recognisable as marines then that argument has been picked apart quite rigorously. As have the ones about a change of ethos in the design, happy to discuss the pros and cons of the fluff of the primaris, I happen to think it doesn’t go against the grain of 40k.

But when you only say I think this one looks better than that and that’s a fact, I’m policing??? You are fine not to like them, no skin of my nose at all mate. But it isn’t fact.

And believe me “dear boy” I’m not incensed at all. Baffled by your attitude and why you are wasting everyone’s time. And most of all by how you think your argument is in any way better than everyone else who is trying to explain to you that you have only opinions that aren’t shared universally.

So.
Fact. Primaris share the key design features that makes them easily recognisable as marines.
Fact 2. The design team behind them deliberately used certain features to demonstrate how the armour developed from the existing variants.
Fact 3. They have tech based on existing in universe tech. (Will admit incursors are a bit too sci-fi but that is just my taste).
Fact 4. They have legs. You may not like them or you might. But the only leg fact is that they have them. Two as it happens. Each.
Fact 5. You not liking them is an opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fact 6, forgot. They are marines and clearly not tau, they share no design features with the tau. And lots with marines.

And robbinew, people on here saying primaris is a huge paradigm shift in design are present opinion as fact. So I apologise for lowering my self to your lots level.

No. It’s obviously my own view, you shouldn't need me to qualify everything I say with ‘this is my opinion so andykp doesn’t get confused’

The only thing that bothers me about Primaris is how ugly they make the old models look by comparison

Said no one ever

robbienw wrote:
Said no one ever

Said most people. It is actually also where the feelings of many Primaris haters stem from, even though they don't want to admit it, perhaps even to themselves.

 Ishagu wrote:
The only thing that bothers me about Primaris is how ugly they make the old models look by comparison

Yes ,the primaris are ugly.

I like both but I recognize the shortcomings in the Primaris range without getting super salty about it. Real whacky, I know.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I like both but I recognize the shortcomings in the Primaris range without getting super salty about it. Real whacky, I know.

I suspect the silent majority do, sadly however some people double down hard on their anti-primaris hate, IMHO a lot of it is because of the inital response to primaris was "thats dumb" that they're having trouble admitting that they where wrong

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
"better act smug because I am running out of rebuttals", amrite guys?

I'm only smug because the "not real marines" argument was bad from the get-go based on us poking the argument even just surface wise.

If you have to willfully misinterpret your opponents argument to make your own, you're insecure about your own position.

Kaiyanwang wrote:No, what is really happening is that you are upset that people have specific tastes and expectations and you came here policing them.

Can't speak for everyone, but I'm certainly not policing opinions and taste. I am, on the other hand, calling out people if they make a particularly hyperbolic or hypocritical comment and pass it off as a factual reason why Primaris are bad (namely, things like 'they're not real Space Marines if they don't have special weapons' 'the aerials and tacticool stuff is a totally new thing' or 'there is a clear and obvious design shift away from what Jes Goodwin wanted'.)
Opinions = fine. Reasoning given to justify those opinions whic is hyperbolic, hypocritical or based on non-facts = not so much.

None ever told me here "is not true that the pose of the old Devastator is imperious and evokes a certain attitude, while the tacticool pose of the nu-marine appeals to the Infinity crowd".
Such statements have been outright dismissed without any actual counterpoint.

So the Phobos Captain model, who has the same pose as the Devastator Sergeant, is fine? Hell, he even has a servo skull which isn't even optionally attached to his base!

I also think that point is quite poor considering that in both poses, you're talking about a multipose model, who can be altered and tweaked by the owner, and that both poses themselves are present in the other type of Marine's respective army.

The only answer you brought on the table is NU-HU YOU ARE PRESENTING YOUR OPINIONS AS FACTS which is just a way to poison the well. All while being WAY too incensed for the topic discussed.

I've got a list of some comments made below. Can you honestly tell me that those comments don't read like someone claiming absolute facts? Seriously, if they don't sound like that to you, I'll retract that comment, but at the same time, I hope you understand how they might come across in that manner.

robbienw wrote:

And robbinew, people on here saying primaris is a huge paradigm shift in design are present opinion as fact. So I apologise for lowering my self to your lots level.

No. It’s obviously my own view, you shouldn't need me to qualify everything I say with ‘this is my opinion so andykp doesn’t get confused’

So you're admitting then that EVERY point you've made is entirely an opinion and therefore has no validity outside of your own sphere of influence? How about those made by other people - are they to be treated the same?
So comments like "Primaris look chunky and toylike, with ridculously large lower legs" or "the intercessor design is dressed up in generic sci-fi video game styling" or "30K Marines are plainly not Chapter Marines, and not "classic" marines" or "the core identification of "Space Marine" is elite generalists" have no factual basis, and are only meant as opinion pieces?

robbienw wrote:Said no one ever

I suppose you'll pretend that this is "just an opinion" too, eh?

Andykp wrote:

Fact 6, forgot. They are marines and clearly not tau, they share no design features with the tau. And lots with marines.

Nobody said they were actually Tau. However they're definitely more Tau-like than classic marines.

Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
"better act smug because I am running out of rebuttals", amrite guys?

I'm only smug because the "not real marines" argument was bad from the get-go based on us poking the argument even just surface wise.

If you have to willfully misinterpret your opponents argument to make your own, you're insecure about your argument.

Come on, I asked you outright to clarify your argument and beliefs of if a Tactical Squad without special weapons, or 30k Space Marines were still "Space Marines". You said they were not.

Sorry, but that's a hell of a take. As an opinion, it might be true, but the facts simply don't agree with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Fact 6, forgot. They are marines and clearly not tau, they share no design features with the tau. And lots with marines.

Nobody said they were actually Tau. However they're definitely more Tau-like than classic marines.

If I recall correctly, I think the words they used were not "that look more like a Tau". They were "that is a tau Gue'vesa" - an absolute statement.

And I believe we also debunked the whole "definitely more Tau-like" argument too (again, sure that wasn't supposed to be a fact? )
The bolter is still closer to an Astartes bolter than any Tau weapon. The sights are more like Deathwatch ones than any other faction.
The armour is still closer to Astartes armour than it is to Tau.
The backpack scanner thing is closer in design to a Devastator Sergeant's signum, or the scanning devices on Space Marine vehicles, than any Tau device.
The visor, while unique as far as I'm aware to the Space Marine line, is also unseen in the Tau design range.

Therefore, seeing as the visor seems to be the only actually unique thing about this model, it would actually be just as valid to claim something like "the Incursor is a genestealer cultist or tyranid" than a Tau. And that sounds like very shaky ground for an argument.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
"better act smug because I am running out of rebuttals", amrite guys?

I'm only smug because the "not real marines" argument was bad from the get-go based on us poking the argument even just surface wise.

If you have to willfully misinterpret your opponents argument to make your own, you're insecure about your own position.

You still have yet to answer if a 10 man squad with just one bought weapon can be considered Marines. Based on the fact you haven't answered it I haven't had to misinterpret your argument at all.

Hell, under your logic, Devastators can't be Marines unless there are a minimum of two different weapons bought. Seems a bit silly don't you think?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Fact 6, forgot. They are marines and clearly not tau, they share no design features with the tau. And lots with marines.

Nobody said they were actually Tau. However they're definitely more Tau-like than classic marines.

Yup.

Let's see- heavy grav tanks that combine large thrusters on a grav tank design, mobile large(ish) jetpack infantry that carry heavy weapons, stealthy jetpack troops that are the "lone wolves" of their forces, heavy emphasis on shooting over melee and lots of gadgets and gizmos that aid in that.

Now, am I talking about Tau or the Primaris range?

Look at these Rogue Trader era Tau!

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Fact 6, forgot. They are marines and clearly not tau, they share no design features with the tau. And lots with marines.

Nobody said they were actually Tau. However they're definitely more Tau-like than classic marines.

Yup.

Let's see- heavy grav tanks that combine large thrusters on a grav tank design, mobile large(ish) jetpack infantry that carry heavy weapons, stealthy jetpack troops that are the "lone wolves" of their forces, heavy emphasis on shooting over melee and lots of gadgets and gizmos that aid in that.

Now, am I talking about Tau or the Primaris range?

So the repulsor and the tau tanks look alike??? No.

Jump pack vs jet pack? Same or not?

Shooting focussed army from troops that can deliver 4 attacks on the charge with out have close combat weapons or options.

Are grav vehicles a purely tau thing, let’s list those that have them. Marines (speeders and flyers etc), custodes, eldar, sisters of silence, ad mech, neceons. Dark eldar.

In fact dark eldar have thruster driven grav tanks and loner jump infantry with heavy weapon, maybe they are tau too, or are marines dark eldar??? Or maybe you are talking rubbish.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Fact 6, forgot. They are marines and clearly not tau, they share no design features with the tau. And lots with marines.

Nobody said they were actually Tau. However they're definitely more Tau-like than classic marines.

Yeah they did. And they did it again too. So a primaris is more tau like than an old marine? Let’s assume that that is true and not just opinion. So they could be more tau like but that doesn’t mean they are more like tau than they are like old marines. They are very clearly like old marines. Clearly are an evolution in design of them and have said to be thus by the designers. So I say you are more like a duck than me, doesn’t make you a duck. Just means you like breadcrumbs.

 Crimson wrote:

Look at these Rogue Trader era Tau!

When an argument is based on trends, pointing out exceptions doesn't help you unless you can find a lot of them. 2 is not a lot, and one of them is merely an Assault Marine with two Plasma Pistols.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Fact 6, forgot. They are marines and clearly not tau, they share no design features with the tau. And lots with marines.

Nobody said they were actually Tau. However they're definitely more Tau-like than classic marines.

heavy emphasis on shooting over melee and lots of gadgets and gizmos that aid in that.

To be fair, people have been complaining and mocking the marines over that. You know what I mean, the whole "why do they have swords when there are guns", "why have melee at all in the future" thing
Careful what you wish for I guess.

 Insectum7 wrote:


When an argument is based on trends, pointing out exceptions doesn't help you unless you can find a lot of them.

Your 'trend' was so absurdly vague that with that sort of logic you can claim any two armies are similar.

2 is not a lot, and one of them is merely an Assault Marine with two Plasma Pistols.

Nah, it's an Inceptor!

 Ishagu wrote:
The only thing that bothers me about Primaris is how ugly they make the old models look by comparison

I think it makes playing Adeptus Astartes in Kill Team quite hard because of that The best space marine kill teams are one that use of mixture of Primaris and non-Primaris. When you have so few models and they are so close to each other on the board it looks really off to me. If you go mostly Primaris it looks like the kill team they were forced by their mother to bring their little brother(s). If you go mostly non-Primaris, it looks like the kill team brought their big brother to beat up any bullies. Personally, I am fine with Scouts and Primaris in the same kill team visually, but I can't bring myself to include non-Primaris. Which is too bad too. Kill Team: Elites brought in a bunch of really good non-Primaris marine options.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Look at these Rogue Trader era Tau!

When an argument is based on trends, pointing out exceptions doesn't help you unless you can find a lot of them. 2 is not a lot, and one of them is merely an Assault Marine with two Plasma Pistols.

That’s why I made a list. But you ignored that for some reason.

Andykp wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Look at these Rogue Trader era Tau!

When an argument is based on trends, pointing out exceptions doesn't help you unless you can find a lot of them. 2 is not a lot, and one of them is merely an Assault Marine with two Plasma Pistols.

That’s why I made a list. But you ignored that for some reason.

Find it and repost it, I'm game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Nah, it's an Inceptor!

I'd be more accepting an Inceptor if it looked more like that and less high-tech sleek. It's got the Imperial geiger-tech to it. Less "TauMarine". Besides, it doesn't have the snow-shoes of the Inceptors. It's just regular Power Armor, hence Assault Marine or Vanguard Vet with Dual Plasma Pistols.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Nobody said they were actually Tau. However they're definitely more Tau-like than classic marines.

Yeah they did. And they did it again too. So a primaris is more tau like than an old marine?

You read my statement wrong, which is fair I suppose as it's lingustically awkward description. Merely that if 0 = Classic Marines, and 10 is Tau, many Primaris are drifting in 3 territory. "They are more tau-like than Classic Marines."

Grimtuff wrote:Let's see- heavy grav tanks that combine large thrusters on a grav tank design, mobile large(ish) jetpack infantry that carry heavy weapons, stealthy jetpack troops that are the "lone wolves" of their forces, heavy emphasis on shooting over melee and lots of gadgets and gizmos that aid in that.

Now, am I talking about Tau or the Primaris range?

Well, I thought you may have been talking about the Custodes for a second, or the Eldar. I mean, clearly they fit just as many criteria as the Primaris do.

Heavy grav tanks - applicable to the Tau, the Primaris, the Custodes, and the Eldar.
Mobile large jetpack infantry with heavy weapons - Tau, Primaris, Custodes (the Venetari carry quite strong kinetic destroyers), and Eldar Shadow Spectres all fill this.
Stealthy jet pack unit - Tau, and the aforementioned Eldar Shadow Spectres fill this. Unfortunately, neither the Custodes or Primaris have stealthy jetpack units.*
Regarding the focus of shooting over melee, only the Tau are extreme in this. The Eldar have many combat dedicated aspects, the Custodes nearly always carry relic melee weapons, and the Primaris Marines are even stronger in melee combat than their brothers by default, not to mention having several units with additional close combat prowess (Reivers, Incursors, Aggressors, Inceptors and the range of melee weapons available to Intercessor Sergeants and higher ranking leaders).

You are talking about the Tau range, then followed by the Eldar range, and Primaris and Custodes even further back.
*If you're referring to Reivers, they don't have jetpacks, they have grav-chutes - which see use in the regular Imperial Guard. Hardly a technological innovation. If you're referring to Suppressors, the fluff books surrounding the war on Nemedghast make it clear that the Suppressors were not a stealthy unit, and were not deployed with the initial infiltration force, instead being held in reserve as a rapid moving and fast form of fire support.

Insectum7 wrote:Merely that if 0 = Classic Marines, and 10 is Tau, many Primaris are drifting in 3 territory. "They are more tau-like than Classic Marines."

And to me, Sternguard Veterans and Vanguard Veterans are so blinged-up, they look more like Custodes than "classic marines". Oh, the humanity.

Primaris Marines STILL look more like Space Marines than they do anything else. There is no mis-identifying them as Space Marines. The core Space Marine aesthetic is still strong in their design, and that's the point. The core aesthetic hasn't changed enough that you could look at a Primaris Marine and even question "is that a Space Marine, or is it a different Imperial faction?", let alone "is that a 40k character".

Yes, it is *different* from the "classic" Space Marine models, but so are the new Veteran Squads. So are the new Tactical Squads.

The whole notion of "aesthetics" tends to piss me off when it comes to 40k. People seem to act like there are set-in-stone rules on what a given faction should be "aesthetically". Which is complete bull



And anybody that claims that the Primaris Marines are not "aesthetically" 40k Space Marines really needs to go to VisionWorks and get their eyes checked.

This entire thread is a showcase for how awful and toxic the 40k community can be. It's pathetic.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You still have yet to answer if a 10 man squad with just one bought weapon can be considered Marines. Based on the fact you haven't answered it I haven't had to misinterpret your argument at all.

Hell, under your logic, Devastators can't be Marines unless there are a minimum of two different weapons bought. Seems a bit silly don't you think?

Options allowed and options taken are two different things. The "flexibility" I'm talking about is the flexibility of potential loadout, and the capability of that flexibility to engage a wide variety of targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

The whole notion of "aesthetics" tends to piss me off when it comes to 40k. People seem to act like there are set-in-stone rules on what a given faction should be "aesthetically". Which is complete bull

That doesn't stand up to the barest scrutiny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Your 'trend' was so absurdly vague that with that sort of logic you can claim any two armies are similar.

Trend: Imperial vehicles are non Grav, with few exceptions. The historical trend is ground vehicles.
New Direction: Primaris Tanks are all flyers. As are Custodes.

Trend: Classic Marines are organized around ten man squads with few exceptions. The exceptions are usually five man squads.
New Direction: Many Primaris units are based around 3s.

Trend: Classic Marine units have a wide variety of specialist weapons to choose from, and form mixed squads.
New Direction: Primaris are very limited in their options, and very rigid in their unit makeup.

Trend: Classic Space Marines wear the same Power Armor to battle, with numerically few exceptions.
New Direction: Primaris have more armor types and field them more regularly. (this appears to be the "sihlouette" critique given by the OP.)

Trend: Classic Marine units tend not to feature sleek tech
New Direction: Primaris feature more refined-tech details/overall look.

Trend: Chainswords.
Primaris: I'm not sure I've seen one.

Trend: Classic Marines did not "out stat" the "core identity" units of other "elite" factions.
Primaris: 2W minimum is a big jump. I'm namely thinking the balance between Aspects and Marines here.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Therefore, seeing as the visor seems to be the only actually unique thing about this model, it would actually be just as valid to claim something like "the Incursor is a genestealer cultist or tyranid" than a Tau. And that sounds like very shaky ground for an argument.

Even under this arguement complaints fall apart because the Genestealer Cult uses repurposes Imperial equipment meaning that we have more ties to the Imperium even if someone wanted to make that "hot take".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

I'd be more accepting an Inceptor if it looked more like that and less high-tech sleek. It's got the Imperial geiger-tech to it. Less "TauMarine". Besides, it doesn't have the snow-shoes of the Inceptors. It's just regular Power Armor, hence Assault Marine or Vanguard Vet with Dual Plasma Pistols.

Judt wanted to share this bit from the codex: those "snow shoes" are there to absorb the shock as the Inceptor hitd the ground and then help launch them off thr ground just as hard to give them more of a boost when they move.

It's not a counter point to anything, I just thought it was interesting.

^Huh. Kinda like the old moon shoes or pogo legs. I was trying to figure out if they were like anti-grav skids or something. I like that it's more of a hardware thing.