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.

I don’t like that there’s no standard primaris set that includes a chainsword.

 Nerak wrote:
I don’t like that there’s no standard primaris set that includes a chainsword.

the aversion to chainswords GW has with the Primaris range is baffling.

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

You should see threads about female space marines. That really shows off the problems in this “community”.

At the end of the day it’s a hobby people are passionate about. Nothing in this thread is really that bad, one group with very set opinions about something another who see it completely differently. No posts removed for being abusive, mods not had to involve themselves, although the conversation is getting a bit circular so maybe will be closed soon. But it’s no more than a heated debate around the table in the pub. I’ve cime away from this I’d still be happy to have a pint with anyone involved. There have been discussions where that wouldn’t happen, female marines for example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Nerak wrote:
I don’t like that there’s no standard primaris set that includes a chainsword.

the aversion to chainswords GW has with the Primaris range is baffling.

Like wise. Happy with them just being sgt options but would be nice to see some more.

I'd like to see them a option on captains and Lts.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^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.

Wait, since the vehicles also have the grav skies, does this mean the impulsor and the other tanks bounce forward?

Insectum7 wrote: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.

Haven't Custodes had hover vehicles for AGES? Like, when the models finally got a more fleshed out army list, weren't we all expecting hover tanks?
Also, the defining feature of Imperial vehicles isn't that they're groundbound. The defining feature is the large flat surfaces, the rivets and overlapping plates, the exhaust ports and cupolas, the modular designs and vertical flanks and suchlike.

Give a Rhino the same kind of grav-plates that the Repulsor and new SM tanks have, and it'll still look like a distinctly Space Marine vehicle. Land Speeders, despite being grav-vehicles, still carry the hallmarks of Space Marine aesthetic.

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.

Many? Let's do a quick count-up:
Eliminators
Inceptors
Aggressors
Suppressors

4 units, by my count.

Now onto the old Space Marine units:
Bikes
Scout Bikes
Devastator Centurions
Assault Centurions
Attack Bikes (bought in units of 1, and can only go up to a max of 3)
Both Company Veterans and Veterans on Bikes start at 2 men

About 7, if I count both Veterans units.

Maybe a higher proportion of Primaris units are organised in 3s, but there are more old units that are organised that way than Primaris.

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.

And this is no different to Legion Space Marines, who I haven't seen people complain at with nearly as much uproar about "not being marines".
Again, this is just to highlight that a lot of people's complaints about Primaris Marines are based on things that the Primaris Marines were never the first to do. It feels completely random, like people are grasping at excuses not to like them. It's fine, it's okay not to like them, but for there to be thread after thread and people trying to rationalise why Primaris are bad only for their reasons to be based on things that Primaris aren't even the first to do feels faulty.

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.)

Primaris have:
Tacticus
Phobos
Gravis (with a gravis variant with a jump pack - I will count this as separate, but do the same with standard jump pack units too)
Omnis

Regular Marines have:
Mark 2-8 power armour (still only counts as one!)
Scout armour
Terminator Armour (with 3 variants, Indomitus, Cataphractii, and Tartaros)
Centurion warsuits
Power armoured jump pack units
Bikers (including because of the same rules as jump pack units - the power armour looks the same, but the silhouette looks much different)

That's 5 Primaris armour types, versus 8 distinct normal Marine silhouette variants.

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

I disagree. The Primaris look just as boxy with their tech as the classic marines in my eyes.

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

The new store birthday model has a chainsword (embedded in a Ork), and at least three of the Primaris upgrade sprues have chainswords. However, I would have liked if they'd be actually in the Intercessor box and available to leaders.
So while they do the option for chainswords (which you seem to be all about, regarding your comments on Tactical Squads), they're not as accessible unless you have a good bitzbox.

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.

This was a failing with the old Marines, I feel. They should have been stronger, but the elite units of other factions (such as the Aspects - who aren't the core of the Eldar army, might I add) should also have been stronger to match them. Right now, I think all Marines should be 2W, but Aspect Warriors should be made tougher too. Things like Genestealers and Tau Battlesuits feel like they're were they should be.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitdakka wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^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.

Wait, since the vehicles also have the grav skies, does this mean the impulsor and the other tanks bounce forward?

Not quite, though that would be funny.
In fact, Primaris grav tanks actually function very differently to other factions' grav tech, even regular Space Marines and Custodes! Where those other factions have grav tech that's a lot less disruptive and faster, Primaris grav-tech is more like a constant punching the ground in order to stay afloat - less elegant, less refined, and not even as effective. Their vehicles literally turn the ground under the into glass with their grav-tech.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The visor, while unique as far as I'm aware to the Space Marine line, is also unseen in the Tau design range.

I disagree.

It's not unique. If anything, it's a version of the visor on the SM scout model.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Space-Marines-Scouts-2019

Back row centre model. Always liked that head.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.)

Primaris have:
Tacticus
Phobos
Gravis (with a gravis variant with a jump pack - I will count this as separate, but do the same with standard jump pack units too)
Omnis

Regular Marines have:
Mark 2-8 power armour (still only counts as one!)
Scout armour
Terminator Armour (with 3 variants, Indomitus, Cataphractii, and Tartaros)
Centurion warsuits
Power armoured jump pack units
Bikers (including because of the same rules as jump pack units - the power armour looks the same, but the silhouette looks much different)

That's 5 Primaris armour types, versus 8 distinct normal Marine silhouette variants.

I'm not sure I agree. I think it's fairer to say traditional marines have power armour (mki-8 variants/hybrids), terminator armour (variants and hybrids - cataphractii, Tartarus, and the main one - can't think of its name), scout armour and characters artificer armour. I don't think it's fair to call bikes or assault marines their own armour types - bikes are bikes and the jump pack is attached to the backpack, though your point on silhouettes is correct.

On a point of order though, I do agree with you. I think a lot of this boils down to the fact that gw have simply presented, packaged and sold Primaris marines in a different way to how the traditional variants are presented, packaged and sold. We talk about gravis, Tacitus and Phobos armour as separate things, but tend to hybridise all of the traditional variants of sm power armour as just being 'power armour', when the reality isn't they are all quite different, were named and invented and are used in different areas. It's just in the rules that they are dressed up as slightly aesthetically different but functionally identical when the reality is different,
. if we present traditional power armour in the same manner as the primaris variants, Mkvi for example is the 'stealthy armour', while mkiii is the 'attrition armour', and mkv is the 'easy to maintain' armour. Heck. They're even named different, just like Primaris armour - mkii crusade armour, mkiii iron armour, mkiv maximus armour, mkv heresy armour, mkvi corvus armour and the current mkvii Aquila and mkviii errant armour and they're all functionally different too - mkiii for example was typically used in high intensity war zones like zone mortalis, while mkvi was typically for scout/recon work. As such, I don't think it's fair to say that Primaris using different variations of armour to accomplish different jobs/perform different mission roles is a different, and therefore bad thing, when Space Marines have always done this.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In fact, Primaris grav tanks actually function very differently to other factions' grav tech, even regular Space Marines and Custodes! Where those other factions have grav tech that's a lot less disruptive and faster, Primaris grav-tech is more like a constant punching the ground in order to stay afloat - less elegant, less refined, and not even as effective. Their vehicles literally turn the ground under the into glass with their grav-tech.

When I first saw primaris sm anti grav tanks, I won't lie - my first reaction was a bit negative - this w always presented as rare tech (though 'how' rare was something that frequently changed) and I did not see it as in keeping with the themes of marines. Then again, I hadn't read the lore. when I did, and found out how it actually worked, not through fancy magic (eldar) , or advanced vtol (tau), but essentially by punching and pulverising the ground beneath it, I changed my mind - that sheer ignorance and contempt, and application of sheer brute force over high technology to get the job done is quite possibly the most space marine thing about the vehicles. I smiled when I read that. I Yeah, I love them now.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Regular Marines have:
Mark 2-8 power armour (still only counts as one!)
Scout armour
Terminator Armour (with 3 variants, Indomitus, Cataphractii, and Tartaros)
Centurion warsuits
Power armoured jump pack units
Bikers (including because of the same rules as jump pack units - the power armour looks the same, but the silhouette looks much different)

Far more marks actually, not only there are dozens of sub-marks (as this picture brilliantly shows), there are marks employed by particular chapters (say, SW runic armour is supposed to be mark XII, even thought it makes no sense). Ditto for termies, there are six variants, and there are even old models of Saturnine pattern terminators.

Gitdakka wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^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.

Wait, since the vehicles also have the grav skies, does this mean the impulsor and the other tanks bounce forward?

No, those are actual grav plates like on a Land Speeder. They likley double as landing pads when the vehicle powrs down though.

The moon shoes are servo controlled metal plates that help absorb momentum on impact so the Astartes scan drop in faster and then act as a boost assist so they can jump faster.

Deadnight wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The visor, while unique as far as I'm aware to the Space Marine line, is also unseen in the Tau design range.

I disagree.

It's not unique. If anything, it's a version of the visor on the SM scout model.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Space-Marines-Scouts-2019

Back row centre model. Always liked that head.

Good catch. I completely forgot about that.
So what you're saying is that there's absolutely nothing on that Incursor model which is completely new to the Space Marine aesthetic?

I'd agree with that point.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:That's 5 Primaris armour types, versus 8 distinct normal Marine silhouette variants.

I'm not sure I agree. I think it's fairer to say traditional marines have power armour (mki-8 variants/hybrids), terminator armour (variants and hybrids - cataphractii, Tartarus, and the main one - can't think of its name), scout armour and characters artificer armour. I don't think it's fair to call bikes or assault marines their own armour types - bikes are bikes and the jump pack is attached to the backpack, though your point on silhouettes is correct.

I would normally agree that bikes and assault marines don't wear any new kind of armour, but if some people are going to pretend that Aggressors and Inceptors should count as different units because of their silhouettes (even though they both wear Gravis Armour), then I think it's only fair to apply that to jump pack and bike units too.
Even if we counted Inceptors as Gravis, and then folded the Assault Marines and Bikers into the power armour category, there's still far more classic marine armour types than Primaris, which was my point.

On a point of order though, I do agree with you. I think a lot of this boils down to the fact that gw have simply presented, packaged and sold Primaris marines in a different way to how the traditional variants are presented, packaged and sold. We talk about gravis, Tacitus and Phobos armour as separate things, but tend to hybridise all of the traditional variants of sm power armour as just being 'power armour', when the reality isn't they are all quite different, were named and invented and are used in different areas. It's just in the rules that they are dressed up as slightly aesthetically different but functionally identical when the reality is different,
. if we present traditional power armour in the same manner as the primaris variants, Mkvi for example is the 'stealthy armour', while mkiii is the 'attrition armour', and mkv is the 'easy to maintain' armour. Heck. They're even named different, just like Primaris armour - mkii crusade armour, mkiii iron armour, mkiv maximus armour, mkv heresy armour, mkvi corvus armour and the current mkvii Aquila and mkviii errant armour and they're all functionally different too - mkiii for example was typically used in high intensity war zones like zone mortalis, while mkvi was typically for scout/recon work. As such, I don't think it's fair to say that Primaris using different variations of armour to accomplish different jobs/perform different mission roles is a different, and therefore bad thing, when Space Marines have always done this.

Agreed. Just because they have the same proportions doesn't really change that they *are* separate armour designs, and on many, they have just as much difference as the ones between Tacticus and Aquila.
For example, Maximus helmets are far closer to Tacticus than Aquila. Iron helmets are likewise not exactly similar to Aquila.
Then onto the chestplates - Aquila and Tacticus both feature chest eagles - none of the other designs do.
As for kneepads, some designs (Corvus) don't have any at all. Iron armour is also different to Aquila in it's use of banded plates around the legs and arms, and far more distinctive backpack than the difference between Aquila and Tacticus.

There's just as much differennce between "classic" power armour marks before Primaris were even on the scene.

I hadn't read the lore. when I did, and found out how it actually worked, not through fancy magic (eldar) , or advanced vtol (tau), but essentially by punching and pulverising the ground beneath it, I changed my mind - that sheer ignorance and contempt, and application of sheer brute force over high technology to get the job done is quite possibly the most space marine thing about the vehicles. I smiled when I read that. I Yeah, I love them now.

I must admit, that bit of lore really made me like that tanks a lot more than I had when I first saw them. For all the people saying "Primaris stuff completely changes the feeling of the setting", I have to wonder how many have actually read what the new stuff's like, or if they just looked at it and dismissed it.

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

Well Intercessors have the option of the flexible Aux Grenade Launcher, so that automatically proves you wrong.

 Insectum7 wrote:

That doesn't stand up to the barest scrutiny..

Utter nonsense. Period. It's a sign that you don't have a counter argument to what I said. Because just as my OPINION is, yours too is completely subjective.


The Imperium of Man is a galaxy spanning empire made up of a million-plus star systems.. A million star systems with varying technological levels, culture, societies, and industrial levels. Many of these planets are capable of producing their own military equipment, since not all manufacturing in the Imperium is done on Forge Worlds.

Just look at the Imperial Guard, and the wide variety of wargear used by the various corps from various worlds. And each one has a different style and different quality of equipment. That is just the easiest example. Even the Space Marines are going to have variation in style,doctrine, armor, and equipment. Take the Raptors Chapter (the original tacticool marines, and spiritual forefathers of the Primaris in a sense). No relic wargear, works well with the Imperial Guard and PDFs, and act like super soldiers rather than warrior monks (much like the Primaris Marines). While a few things are standardized by policy and tradition, the sheer size of the Imperium's armed forces makes true standardization impossible.

So, you could very easily have a technologically advanced planet in the Imperium supplying wargear to it's tithed regiments that wouldn't look too out of place in modern Iraq or Afghanistan. You could have a Chapter that could have a higher percentage of sleeker looking war engines from the Great Crusade-era. You could build an Inquisitorial force using sleek, high-tech models. Nothing is set in stone, because ultimately, the game is about YOUR DUDES. And 40k's level of grimdark (approcahing levels that equate GRIMDERP and MEHTAL at times) has nothing to do with the skull motifs or gothic architecture. It's more to do with the craptastic situation in the galaxy over the last 10,000 years of Imperial history.

I uderstand that the Primaris Marines are not to everyone's tastes. And that is fine. But arguing from a subjective position of "aesthetics" as if it were somehow fact is dishonest and doesn't hold much water.

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.

"Not real marines" is an appropriate criticism if the models don't evoke the same staples and setting the old ones used to evoke. It's not really that difficult to grasp. One can disagree, but what happened here is that such thing was dismissed as if was some sort of blasphemy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

I suppose is extremely convenient to label any opposition as "toxic". Every criticism is easily smothered.

Andykp wrote:

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

You should see threads about female space marines. That really shows off the problems in this “community”.

At the end of the day it’s a hobby people are passionate about. Nothing in this thread is really that bad, one group with very set opinions about something another who see it completely differently. No posts removed for being abusive, mods not had to involve themselves, although the conversation is getting a bit circular so maybe will be closed soon. But it’s no more than a heated debate around the table in the pub. I’ve cime away from this I’d still be happy to have a pint with anyone involved. There have been discussions where that wouldn’t happen, female marines for example.

I concur. We are hardly debating the aestetics of plastic space men, the heat remains within well defined boundaries for what concerns me.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

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.

I think you should give up on this specific thing. "It's too high tech/not gothic enough" and "nope, there is a continuity with the older models" are both opinions. People percevie little but significant details in a different way. I am ok with you thinking that, I am less ok with the fact that the opposite point of view is not even considered.

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.

Depends from what makes a 40k marine for you. For me the retrograde context it belongs to is a vital part, and the new aesthetics follows the new fluff, new fluff that I find going against what made the Imperium interesting.

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.

Again, you are the one that is apparently baffled by the fact that someone can consider the new imperium models non imperium enough, regardless of the fact that has been told you why over and over. We can say that the new fluff and its consequences on the models is here to stay and we should get over it, but this does not mean "I prefer the old fluff and the rest" is an automatically invalid opinion.

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

Answers to the "Facts"
Fact 1 only superficially.
Fact 2 is irrelevant, because the WAY it was developped says all.
Fact 3 shows that you have a "tolerance" higher than mine, not that mine is automatically wrong.
Fact 4 is a joke and ignores again what said about the CSM. Again, someone can think that the new CSM should have had amore primaris like legs, someone thinks the opposite. Don't consider one of the two opinions automatically invalid.
Fact 5: You liking them is an opinion as well. I have still to understand how this is even remotely related to what has been said about poses, background ect.
Fact 6: The Tau hyperbole is still valid because they are the sign of a Tau-like approach to tech from the imperium. You may like it, I don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Look at these Rogue Trader era Tau!

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

So you had to dig so deep the fluff was not the 3rd-7th one? Thank you! Good move.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote: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.

Haven't Custodes had hover vehicles for AGES?

No idea. They didn't have an army until very recently. And up until very recently the Land Speeder was the only anti-grav vehicle available. Everything else was on the ground. And it's not like illustrations were full of flying cars, either. Army wise? Imperial factions got tanks, Tau and Eldar got Skimmers. With few exceptions, for decades.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Many? Let's do a quick count-up:
Eliminators
Inceptors
Aggressors
Suppressors

4 units, by my count.

Now onto the old Space Marine units:
Bikes
Scout Bikes
Devastator Centurions
Assault Centurions
Attack Bikes (bought in units of 1, and can only go up to a max of 3)
Both Company Veterans and Veterans on Bikes start at 2 men

About 7, if I count both Veterans units.

Maybe a higher proportion of Primaris units are organised in 3s, but there are more old units that are organised that way than Primaris.

Bikes are the one notable exception, but even most Bike units max at 5-10iirc. This is the first edition where Company Vets/Command Squads didn't minimum at 5. Centurions are a degradation of the Marine line, and I toss them out for this discussion. Controversial, maybe, but they're obviously controversial themselves.

But the key is in your last statement. Proportionality counts. The mainline units, Veteran, Terminator, Tactical, Devastator, Assault, (Even Bikes maxed at 10), Scouts. Were all organized 5-10.

Primaris Eliminators, Inceptors, Aggressors, Suppressors all seem to be billed as mainline units, and they're not 5-10.

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.

And this is no different to Legion Space Marines, who I haven't seen people complain at with nearly as much uproar about "not being marines".

The number of people familiar with 30K is small. Even fewer people actually play it. Doctrinally Legions are completely different, built for a different scale of conflict. Plus, when Games Workshop made Horus Hersey Box sets, guess what was in them. . . 10 Man Tactical Squads with Heavy Weapon and Special Weapon.

Again, this is just to highlight that a lot of people's complaints about Primaris Marines are based on things that the Primaris Marines were never the first to do. It feels completely random, like people are grasping at excuses not to like them. It's fine, it's okay not to like them, but for there to be thread after thread and people trying to rationalise why Primaris are bad only for their reasons to be based on things that Primaris aren't even the first to do feels faulty.

It's enough of a trend that it's obviously not simply random. That's what the thread is about. The OP is trying to describe where the dislike comes from, because it's hard to pin down. Impressions can be based on subtle things.

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.)

Primaris have:
Tacticus
Phobos
Gravis (with a gravis variant with a jump pack - I will count this as separate, but do the same with standard jump pack units too)
Omnis

Regular Marines have:
Mark 2-8 power armour (still only counts as one!)
Scout armour
Terminator Armour (with 3 variants, Indomitus, Cataphractii, and Tartaros)
Centurion warsuits
Power armoured jump pack units
Bikers (including because of the same rules as jump pack units - the power armour looks the same, but the silhouette looks much different)

That's 5 Primaris armour types, versus 8 distinct normal Marine silhouette variants.

Like above, counting out a list does nothing to serve proportionality. Like I said before, 90ish (85ish, whatever) percent of a Chapter was a marine in some mark of Power Armor, and Power Armor is all interchangeable.

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

I disagree. The Primaris look just as boxy with their tech as the classic marines in my eyes.

At a distance, yes, in the details, no.

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.

This was a failing with the old Marines, I feel. They should have been stronger, but the elite units of other factions (such as the Aspects - who aren't the core of the Eldar army, might I add) should also have been stronger to match them. Right now, I think all Marines should be 2W, but Aspect Warriors should be made tougher too. Things like Genestealers and Tau Battlesuits feel like they're were they should be.

I think this is a failing of Black Library, and a failing of "special weapons creep". I'd also note that I hardly ever saw Guardsmen on the table during 4th - 7th, because Marines (the most popular army) could just butcher them. Flamers, Whirlwinds, etc did horrific things to light troops, as did the Sweeping Advance rules. Marines become "not marine-like" when they're surrounded by tanks and super weapons. Which is fine, imo. I played Epic. Dudes got killed by the bundle. On a good table under controlled settings, I find Marines perform acceptably vs. light and average troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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..

Utter nonsense. Period. It's a sign that you don't have a counter argument to what I said.
. . .
But arguing from a subjective position of "aesthetics" as if it were somehow fact is dishonest and doesn't hold much water.

There are established "looks" for various factions and the way they are presented by the company, in lore, illustrations and model products,. This is a fact.

You can make up your own stuff, and you should! But the product lines are in fact quite consistent. There are no rules for your personal collection, there ARE rules for established imagery. These rules can be bent and broken, but they are not "purely subjective." They are guidelines which you can choose to adhere to or not.

And I am not here to police your interpretation of those rules, either. Far from it. What I am doing is comparing (sub?)lines of product put forth by the company, and that can be done with relative objectivity.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

Well Intercessors have the option of the flexible Aux Grenade Launcher, so that automatically proves you wrong.

A: Your inability to address the argument is not surprising. You are essentially redefining "datasheet/unit flexibility" into, "a gun that fires two types of projectiles".

B: A Grenade Launcher is probably worse than a Heavy Bolter against both Armor AND Infantry, and a Heavy Bolter is the bare minimum Heavy Weapon for a Tactical Squad. Against most armor, arguably simply Rapid-Firing with a Bolt Rifle might be better. Against most Infantry, Rapid Firing with the Bolter is ALSO probably better. The efficacy of the unit as a whole barely increases with a Grenade Launcher, and the Grenade Launcher is their only "special" option, while Tacs get 10 options to choose from. On top of that, they only get one (per 5?), while a five man Tac Squad can get a Heavy/Special and a Combi. This "Special Weapon" that you're touting, all it does is increase the range of weapons that the Tactical squad also already has.

In what way does the new fluff go against the “lore” anymore than all of the other new marine things you have praised as pure old school marines. Every edition the range has expanded with new unheard of units and equipment. Primaris is just that.

The fluff on the vehicles states how brutal a solution they are. Huge inefficient things using brute force to even move. Classic imperial solution to problems. And based on existing stc. Tanks, grab plates and thrusters. Bingo. The guns are all based on existing tech. The armour too. Why is mk10 so wrong when 1-8 were ok changed for you? And as for the marines them selves. Two new organs added. Two? Not game breaking is it. Do they have new super powers? No. Do they do anything the old ones don’t? They are just a bit better.

You say they superficially are recognisable, I don’t get that. It has been shown here that they are to old marines what they were to rtb01 marines. The poses you love about old marines are doable in primaris. And more besides. Posing being more suited to your taste isn’t fact. You claim it is? Fact that one pose is better than an other.

Marines are many things to many people, and primaris are still all those things. It is just rolling the clock back to clean simple miantures.

You have failed to give any reasons why they aren’t imperial enough for you. You have made ludicrous comparisons to tau and just said that they aren’t imperium enough because they aren’t. Everyone else has given examples time and time again of how all of the design elements are based in the existing universe and faction. Now you claim the fluff is the problem.

You don’t like them. I get it. But it isn’t because they are wrong in any way. And that is my only point in all of this. They haven’t done anything that any other major release has done to the game or setting. They are as 40k and grimdark and imperium of man as any of it. You might not like them but don’t make them out to be this big game ruining evil.

 Insectum7 wrote:
No idea. They didn't have an army until very recently. And up until very recently the Land Speeder was the only anti-grav vehicle available. Everything else was on the ground. And it's not like illustrations were full of flying cars, either. Army wise? Imperial factions got tanks, Tau and Eldar got Skimmers. With few exceptions, for decades.

In the artwork we've had for Custodes, which was around long before they had a model line, they were depicted as having anti-grav tanks.

Bikes are the one notable exception, but even most Bike units max at 5-10iirc.

In my book, it's telling me 9 for Scouts, 8 for regulars. And if you buy the units with power levels, you move up in increments of 3 as well - 3 Bikes, to 6 Bikes, to 8/9 Bikes.

This is the first edition where Company Vets/Command Squads didn't minimum at 5.

And now they are.

Centurions are a degradation of the Marine line, and I toss them out for this discussion. Controversial, maybe, but they're obviously controversial themselves.

Not exactly lending your argument much faith when you're moving those goalposts.

You claimed that there were more Primaris units with awkward unit sizes. This is not true.

But the key is in your last statement. Proportionality counts. The mainline units, Veteran, Terminator, Tactical, Devastator, Assault, (Even Bikes maxed at 10), Scouts. Were all organized 5-10.

Primaris Eliminators, Inceptors, Aggressors, Suppressors all seem to be billed as mainline units, and they're not 5-10.

When I meant proportion, I meant that there are simply more non-Primaris units than Primaris ones, so with Primaris having a smaller product line, they stick out more.
Eliminators and Suppressors don't seem to be billed as mainline. The Aggressors and Inceptors, yes, because they're the nearest to the Terminator equivalent, but they're also able to be fielded in 5s.
So again, that's what, two "mainline" Primaris units against the Bikers (who are a mainline unit in an awkward size) - cool, that's one more Primaris unit than the regular ones. Not exactly enough to build a solid argument on, in my eyes.

The number of people familiar with 30K is small.

Is it? In my experience, most people are familiar enough to know that the Legions are organised differently (but still keep that Space Marine flavour enough that I've never seen anyone complain 'HOW DARE GW MAKE THESE IMPOSTER MARINES".

Even fewer people actually play it. Doctrinally Legions are completely different, built for a different scale of conflict.

As are the Primaris in 40k lore. They've been designed for a Great Crusade V2, as it were, with more Space Marines to play with fighting on a larger scale on conflict - but the key part is that they're STILL Space Marines. They still function like Astartes in how they act, how they fight, how they look - I really don't think that the embedding of special weapons in a unit is the cornerstone of what it is to be a Space Marine. In my eyes, that's NEVER been the important part - too many other armies do the same thing for it to be the "Marine thing".

Plus, when Games Workshop made Horus Hersey Box sets, guess what was in them. . . 10 Man Tactical Squads with Heavy Weapon and Special Weapon.

Aka Legion Veteran Squads. I mean, it's literally in how they built the cover models for Betrayal at Calth - 20 bolter Tacticals for the Word Bearers, and 10 mixed weapon Veterans for the Ultramarines.

It's enough of a trend that it's obviously not simply random. That's what the thread is about. The OP is trying to describe where the dislike comes from, because it's hard to pin down. Impressions can be based on subtle things.

Subtle, yes. So when people make claims like "they're CLEARLY totally different from normal Marines!", does that sound like a subtle disliking?

Again, I'm not saying that there is no reason to not like them at all, but I am saying whatever that difference is doesn't seem to be the silhouette of the models, because normal Marines do the same thing. It's not in their lack of embedded weaponry, because no-one complained about the Legion Marines "not being Marine-y". It's not in their aesthetic, because their armour designs are incredibly alike, and any new design features are usually ones already present on Marines.

It's not a case of "you aren't allowed to dislike them" - it's more "this reason has holes in it, maybe there another reason why you don't like it".

Like above, counting out a list does nothing to serve proportionality. Like I said before, 90ish (85ish, whatever) percent of a Chapter was a marine in some mark of Power Armor, and Power Armor is all interchangeable.

As is Primaris armour. As per the design notes, Primaris Marines all wear the same core aesthetic to their armour.

At a distance, yes, in the details, no.

Which details?

I think this is a failing of Black Library, and a failing of "special weapons creep". I'd also note that I hardly ever saw Guardsmen on the table during 4th - 7th, because Marines (the most popular army) could just butcher them. Flamers, Whirlwinds, etc did horrific things to light troops, as did the Sweeping Advance rules. Marines become "not marine-like" when they're surrounded by tanks and super weapons. Which is fine, imo. I played Epic. Dudes got killed by the bundle. On a good table under controlled settings, I find Marines perform acceptably vs. light and average troops.

Whereas I find that the lack of almost that safety blanket of the extra wound makes Marines feel a lot less durable than they should. I think Kill Team gets it very right with the Transhuman Physiology rules. It makes Astartes feel a lot more, well, Astartes-y, without necessarily needing that extra wound. Of course, this couldn't work for 40k, so I think the extra wound is a nice stopgap.

List all purchaseable, non Walker, Imperial vehicles prior to 3 years ago. Then compare how many of them were skimmers, next to how many of them were not.

Do the same for Tau and Eldar.

You will find a marked difference in the ratios involved.

Bring into the discussion the Custodes is weird. They were supposed to be extremely rare and elite, something unique to the throne. The use of the anti-grav tech for them is more to bring home this point, and contrast with the rest of the imperium.
When everyone is special, none is.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote: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.

Haven't Custodes had hover vehicles for AGES?

No idea. They didn't have an army until very recently. And up until very recently the Land Speeder was the only anti-grav vehicle available. Everything else was on the ground. And it's not like illustrations were full of flying cars, either. Army wise? Imperial factions got tanks, Tau and Eldar got Skimmers. With few exceptions, for decades.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Many? Let's do a quick count-up:
Eliminators
Inceptors
Aggressors
Suppressors

4 units, by my count.

Now onto the old Space Marine units:
Bikes
Scout Bikes
Devastator Centurions
Assault Centurions
Attack Bikes (bought in units of 1, and can only go up to a max of 3)
Both Company Veterans and Veterans on Bikes start at 2 men

About 7, if I count both Veterans units.

Maybe a higher proportion of Primaris units are organised in 3s, but there are more old units that are organised that way than Primaris.

Bikes are the one notable exception, but even most Bike units max at 5-10iirc. This is the first edition where Company Vets/Command Squads didn't minimum at 5. Centurions are a degradation of the Marine line, and I toss them out for this discussion. Controversial, maybe, but they're obviously controversial themselves.

But the key is in your last statement. Proportionality counts. The mainline units, Veteran, Terminator, Tactical, Devastator, Assault, (Even Bikes maxed at 10), Scouts. Were all organized 5-10.

Primaris Eliminators, Inceptors, Aggressors, Suppressors all seem to be billed as mainline units, and they're not 5-10.

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.

And this is no different to Legion Space Marines, who I haven't seen people complain at with nearly as much uproar about "not being marines".

The number of people familiar with 30K is small. Even fewer people actually play it. Doctrinally Legions are completely different, built for a different scale of conflict. Plus, when Games Workshop made Horus Hersey Box sets, guess what was in them. . . 10 Man Tactical Squads with Heavy Weapon and Special Weapon.

Again, this is just to highlight that a lot of people's complaints about Primaris Marines are based on things that the Primaris Marines were never the first to do. It feels completely random, like people are grasping at excuses not to like them. It's fine, it's okay not to like them, but for there to be thread after thread and people trying to rationalise why Primaris are bad only for their reasons to be based on things that Primaris aren't even the first to do feels faulty.

It's enough of a trend that it's obviously not simply random. That's what the thread is about. The OP is trying to describe where the dislike comes from, because it's hard to pin down. Impressions can be based on subtle things.

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.)

Primaris have:
Tacticus
Phobos
Gravis (with a gravis variant with a jump pack - I will count this as separate, but do the same with standard jump pack units too)
Omnis

Regular Marines have:
Mark 2-8 power armour (still only counts as one!)
Scout armour
Terminator Armour (with 3 variants, Indomitus, Cataphractii, and Tartaros)
Centurion warsuits
Power armoured jump pack units
Bikers (including because of the same rules as jump pack units - the power armour looks the same, but the silhouette looks much different)

That's 5 Primaris armour types, versus 8 distinct normal Marine silhouette variants.

Like above, counting out a list does nothing to serve proportionality. Like I said before, 90ish (85ish, whatever) percent of a Chapter was a marine in some mark of Power Armor, and Power Armor is all interchangeable.

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

I disagree. The Primaris look just as boxy with their tech as the classic marines in my eyes.

At a distance, yes, in the details, no.

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.

This was a failing with the old Marines, I feel. They should have been stronger, but the elite units of other factions (such as the Aspects - who aren't the core of the Eldar army, might I add) should also have been stronger to match them. Right now, I think all Marines should be 2W, but Aspect Warriors should be made tougher too. Things like Genestealers and Tau Battlesuits feel like they're were they should be.

I think this is a failing of Black Library, and a failing of "special weapons creep". I'd also note that I hardly ever saw Guardsmen on the table during 4th - 7th, because Marines (the most popular army) could just butcher them. Flamers, Whirlwinds, etc did horrific things to light troops, as did the Sweeping Advance rules. Marines become "not marine-like" when they're surrounded by tanks and super weapons. Which is fine, imo. I played Epic. Dudes got killed by the bundle. On a good table under controlled settings, I find Marines perform acceptably vs. light and average troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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..

Utter nonsense. Period. It's a sign that you don't have a counter argument to what I said.
. . .
But arguing from a subjective position of "aesthetics" as if it were somehow fact is dishonest and doesn't hold much water.

There are established "looks" for various factions and the way they are presented by the company, in lore, illustrations and model products,. This is a fact.

You can make up your own stuff, and you should! But the product lines are in fact quite consistent. There are no rules for your personal collection, there ARE rules for established imagery. These rules can be bent and broken, but they are not "purely subjective." They are guidelines which you can choose to adhere to or not.

And I am not here to police your interpretation of those rules, either. Far from it. What I am doing is comparing (sub?)lines of product put forth by the company, and that can be done with relative objectivity.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

Well Intercessors have the option of the flexible Aux Grenade Launcher, so that automatically proves you wrong.

A: Your inability to address the argument is not surprising. You are essentially redefining "datasheet/unit flexibility" into, "a gun that fires two types of projectiles".

B: A Grenade Launcher is probably worse than a Heavy Bolter against both Armor AND Infantry, and a Heavy Bolter is the bare minimum Heavy Weapon for a Tactical Squad. Against most armor, arguably simply Rapid-Firing with a Bolt Rifle might be better. Against most Infantry, Rapid Firing with the Bolter is ALSO probably better. The efficacy of the unit as a whole barely increases with a Grenade Launcher, and the Grenade Launcher is their only "special" option, while Tacs get 10 options to choose from. On top of that, they only get one (per 5?), while a five man Tac Squad can get a Heavy/Special and a Combi. This "Special Weapon" that you're touting, all it does is increase the range of weapons that the Tactical squad also already has.

Except, in your own argument, you said that what makes Marines "Marines" is the ability to be outfitted for the situation, which already can't happen on the tabletop unless you got two weapons able to handle all situations (seeing as you can't buy a weapon after hitting the table). After all, a squad with a Flamer + ML is still at a disadvantage vs tanks because they only ever get the one weapon effective.
So, theoretically, only a squad with two ML can be this "TAC" squad you imagined them to be. While the Grenade Launcher is clearly a worse weapon, a squad with two of those, fluff wise, would be able to handle more targets with more flexibility.

Ergo, is your "flexible" squad with a Flamer and ML actually any more flexible than an Intercessor squad with two Aux grenade launchers? No.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Bring into the discussion the Custodes is weird. They were supposed to be extremely rare and elite, something unique to the throne. The use of the anti-grav tech for them is more to bring home this point, and contrast with the rest of the imperium.
When everyone is special, none is.

They have more refined anti-grav that doesn't turn sand into glass from the pressure.

Honestly i am surprised we don't have a unit of primaris marines with jump packs, chainswords, and options for power swords. Most primaris at this point should just be straight upgrades for marines not separate units.

Reivers really don't offer the option for good close combat.

As I said, my major complaint is not much variety in helmet design, shoulder design, or torso design.

The kits themselves are very restrictive because of how most if not all are monopose when it comes to feet and torso placement. There is also the overall design of their dreadnoughts where they feel very whats the term... bendy? Most space marine tanks are by their design boxy, plus the lack of options you can have on the new dreadnought and invictius really leaves littles to be desired when assembling those kits. Another major part is the current space marine vehicles feel very too high tech, not even skulls or gothic markings for them to fit the 40k era. But again that is personal opinion.

But on the kits themselves they are all really basic and lead very little poses to happen because of how inorganic they feel in comparision to the marine kits, even terminators have far more wide range of poses than Aggressors or Inceptors.

My other issue is that the design overall (sleekness) has long been gone from the space marine range when it came to the architecture of marine armor and less of the crusader knight aspect that marines used to have.

@Slayer, Bolters and Frag grenades againt hordes, any number of anti-tank weapons for anti vehicle.

Hiding behind your Grenade Launcher argument is like hiding behind paper.

It goes like this:
10 'special' choices > 1 'special' choice.
2 'special' slots > 1 'special' slot
Individual effectivness of multiple choices > grenade launcher.
And Tacs already come with those grenades.

30" grenades > 8" flamer

Anyone could play this arbitrary game of good or bad, but a weapon with a long range, ability to engage a wide number of targets is never a bad tool for giving a unit the ability to engage a wide range of threats.

Insectum7 wrote:List all purchaseable, non Walker, Imperial vehicles prior to 3 years ago. Then compare how many of them were skimmers, next to how many of them were not.

Do the same for Tau and Eldar.

You will find a marked difference in the ratios involved.

What point does this prove, exactly? Was it the fact that Space Marine vehicles used to be tracked that made them special and identifiable? I don't think so, because Orks and Guardsman vehicles did the same, and yet they still had different aesthetic designs. The important part about the Space Marine vehicle designs were the look of the cupolas, the style of doors, the sloped front going onto a flat top and sides, the overlapping layered look of the armour. That was their aesthetic, their core look.
Space Marines had skimmers. Now they just have another type. And it's ever MORE crude than their old one!

Kaiyanwang wrote:Bring into the discussion the Custodes is weird. They were supposed to be extremely rare and elite, something unique to the throne. The use of the anti-grav tech for them is more to bring home this point, and contrast with the rest of the imperium.
When everyone is special, none is.

Remind me, didn't Space Marines have skimmers already?

And as I've said, the Custodes have 'clean' gravity tech. Their stuff doesn't turn the literal ground to glass under it.

Asherian Command wrote:Honestly i am surprised we don't have a unit of primaris marines with jump packs, chainswords, and options for power swords.

Agreed. I really want to see a full close combat unit.

As I said, my major complaint is not much variety in helmet design, shoulder design, or torso design.

I think I might have missed this - explain? What do these guys lack that normal Marines don't?

Another major part is the current space marine vehicles feel very too high tech, not even skulls or gothic markings for them to fit the 40k era.

I've actually got a Repulsor and a Rhino on hand with me right now. They both have an aquila on the front, but aside from that - they have the same amount of ornamentation.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Reivers really don't offer the option for good close combat.

As I said, my major complaint is not much variety in helmet design, shoulder design, or torso design.
.

I dunno if you're aware but Primaris heads and shoulders are interchangeable so you can toss a MK V helmet and a MK 3 shoulderpad on an intercessor

I think people forget that, outside of after market kits like FW doors all heraldry is a function of paint and/or transfers.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Honestly i am surprised we don't have a unit of primaris marines with jump packs, chainswords, and options for power swords. Most primaris at this point should just be straight upgrades for marines not separate units.

Reivers really don't offer the option for good close combat.

As I said, my major complaint is not much variety in helmet design, shoulder design, or torso design.

The kits themselves are very restrictive because of how most if not all are monopose when it comes to feet and torso placement. There is also the overall design of their dreadnoughts where they feel very whats the term... bendy? Most space marine tanks are by their design boxy, plus the lack of options you can have on the new dreadnought and invictius really leaves littles to be desired when assembling those kits. Another major part is the current space marine vehicles feel very too high tech, not even skulls or gothic markings for them to fit the 40k era. But again that is personal opinion.

But on the kits themselves they are all really basic and lead very little poses to happen because of how inorganic they feel in comparision to the marine kits, even terminators have far more wide range of poses than Aggressors or Inceptors.

My other issue is that the design overall (sleekness) has long been gone from the space marine range when it came to the architecture of marine armor and less of the crusader knight aspect that marines used to have.

Games Workshop has seemingly gone out of their way to prevent Primaris from being a direct replacement to non-Primaris. As a player with a Primaris only army this certainly can be frustrating, but it really does manage to keep non-Primaris marines quite viable.

Reivers are okay. They certainly would be better with more melee options, but so long as you mostly keep them on non-melee focused infantry they usually chew through them with a thousand cuts. I still contend they would be pretty decent as Troop options.

Well the shoulders are the same as all space marines so you can customize to suit as far as you want to go getting pauldron upgrades/aftermarket/etc. I personally have no issue with the helmets as pretty much each unit type has a slight variation that would just be a random tactical helmet in their model kit. I like the uniformity of it, and I have to say I really like the helmeted heads with Primaris kits. It is really too bad I have a model rule of only sergeants and some HQ's don't were helmets as I really do want to have more unhelmeted heads on my models. If that isn't enough, most kits allow for any previous helmet. You pretty much got me with chest pieces. Again, I don't mind the uniformity of them, but I could definitely see someone wanting more that winged skull or skull and crossed swords. Ultimately customizing is little more work, but that does give you a more unique model since less people are going to bother.

I personally think there is enough differing in the poses that they look better than previous marine kits which at arm's length mostly just look like a combat crouch right or left to me. At the same time I don't think the Primaris poses are so unique, for the most part, that they stand out when doubled up provided you pose the head and arms a little different. I definitely appreciate the more natural flow of Primaris model bodies compared to previous marine kits which look pretty much like what they are which is a ball and socket mid-section which become more apparent the more twist or angle you put on that ball and socket. Horses for courses I guess.

I have never been much for dreadnoughts, but I find my easy-to-build redemptor pretty okay. It is a country mile better looking than my Battle for Calth contemptor. I also much prefer it over any other dreadnought I have seen which are far too boxy for my taste. I do think here there was a decent distance between Primaris and non-Primaris in design.

I really like the repulsor line of models. I have never been much of a fan of side sponsons as even if someone managed to remove all the mechanical issues with them, there is still the problem of them being largely useless in a hull down configuration. But that is a personal minor hang up have coming from historical tanks. I don't own any loyalist space marine vehicles, but my repulsors have half the number of skulls that my CSM land raider has (2). And that is more two more than my CSM rhinos if you don't count the CSM vehicle upgrade bits. The repulsor model kit comes with a little gothic shrine that (instructions suggest the right side, lower right quadrant). I honestly don't know where this Primaris vehicles don't look gothic enough comes from. Repulsors are basically grav land raiders with a turret on top instead of side sponsons. If anything, I think it would be far more fair to accuse GW designers of being rather lazy in making a couple of alterations to the land raider and passing it off as a new model. I wouldn't go that far, but I do think repulsors have more in common things in common with each other than they do differences. There are a few big differences, but many of the panel details are pretty much the same. I figure if someone really wants a more gothic looking repulsor they can just get their hands on some aftermarket bits to a fix to it.

The only real reason space marine Terminators have more poses than aggressors or inceptors is the fact they come in a box of 5 vs. 3. Those terminators still basically have the combat crouch slight to right or left which is basically what aggressors have going just a little more subtlety. Honestly, I don't think either of the kits have very good posing.

I personally find Primaris to look far more sleek since they are better proportioned and do have a more modern look to them. I plain don't see any crusader knight aesthetics in the basic tactical marine kit except for maybe the banners. Nor do I in the basic assault marine kit, the devastator kit or even the terminator kit except again with the banners. I think the crusader knight aspects only really appears within the veteran kits. Which I think is an unfair standard to hold Primaris to at this point since they don't have a true veteran style model kit which could very easily incorporate those elements making the argument largely moot. Non-Primaris space marines do have more model options many of which do sell the crusader knight/warrior monk much better than the current Primaris model line though.

I appreciate your opinions on the matter just like most everyone. If we didn't have different tastes we would all be playing Matt Ward's Ultramarines, and I don't think anyone wants that. However, as someone that has a Primaris only army it really does feel like most detractors are dumping on them because they didn't exist during their glory days of playing Warhammer 40k and they are looking for any little mole hill to make into a mountain why army is bad and I should feel bad for buying, building, painting and playing them. I have only been actively playing 40k for a few years but have been exposed to it through more than a few disgruntled ex-players that fled to the war games I also played. I never experienced the same volume of vitriol over a (sub) faction on every aspect of them as I have with Primaris marines. There have been gripes about this and that OP faction or snickers over this and that particular model, but I have never seen as many people straight up say Orks are a worthless comedy faction where Ork Nobs are alright but the rest of the model line is bunch of terrible looking ramshackles that look like a 3 year old rolled a D&D miniature in plasti-card and gave it a gun and have no business in 40k. While I encountered a couple of these people, they were the sort that seemed to have an axe to grind about everything and not really someone I wanted to spend much time around. I am okay with people not liking the Primaris line. Fortunately, 40k has a like a dozen different factions to pick from if they aren't their thing including non-Primaris space marines which are a very extensive model line. I am getting weary of the constant barrage of things that seem like nitpicks to me of stuff that often times doesn't seem all that different yet is sold as practically a different IP. And that just comes across a little intellectually dishonest to me.

Sorry, that went on way too long. Truly thank you if you bothered to read all of that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
30" grenades > 8" flamer

Anyone could play this arbitrary game of good or bad, but a weapon with a long range, ability to engage a wide number of targets is never a bad tool for giving a unit the ability to engage a wide range of threats.

It's only 'not bad' because it's the only choice.

I think I might have missed this - explain? What do these guys lack that normal Marines don't?

The big part that i am talking about here is the loss of different helmet looks and feel all of the primaris helmets are exactly the same for primaris kit, they have very few if any distinguishing features, an example of this is take a bog standard tactical squad kit, you get several different options for helmets, corvus, mk8s with some pipes, some without pipes, some with a tactical eye / bionic eye, others have a smoother ridge etc.

And torsos are self explanatory there are so many different types and looks for the torsos on the front, some have aquillias some don't, and some have no aquillia but a lightning bolt or just a single skull with studs in their armor.

Unforunately most primaris kits do not offer this and we are stuck with very samey minitatures. Though that was my complaint of the deathwatch release where most if not all the helmets were exactly the same. Individuality is a common in all space marine kits, from helmet, torso, legs, and weapons, each has a completely different feel, and these kits do not offer the chance other than through conversion. They are essentially TOO blank. Its like when someone offers you so many myraids of choices that the person freezes because they have no idea which choose to go with. There are so many things to decide to on it becomes overwhelming to the assembler, if the offered more differintation and got rid of the uniformality in these kits they would excel.

Yes they are proportioned correctly but the kits by themselves lack the variety that is offered by other sets like tacticals, sternguard, or assault marines. (While also lacking on options for heavy / special / melee weapons as well!) Their kits are also not able to give you the full functioning torso and legs you can place the legs anyway you want compared to a primaris marine, as the primaris marine torso is apart of the legs. They are all monoposed limiting the creativity and kitbashing that can happen.

I know its very minor as complaints go but i am big builder and kitbasher and I love combining kits as i find that a big part of the hobby.

Sorry, that went on way too long. Truly thank you if you bothered to read all of that.

The beauty of the old space marine kits is that you can get a variety of different poses and equipment on your marines, for example, you can take a bog standard tactical marine kit, combine it with an assault marine kit and make him into a vanguard or a special character. Relatively easily. You can also give them a running pose or any of that without any greenstuff. Which unforunately you cannot do with the new kits. They are very limiting in what they do, which is my primary issue with primaris is how limiting all the kits are to poses, or just overall feel. Goodluck try to find a good running poses for a primaris intercessor with anything but greenstuff.

I have experimented quite a bit and I know they can use other helmets from other space marine kits but they come off as awkward, even the corvus helmet has a bit of trouble fiting into the primaris torsos that i had to cut away with my exacto knife, which is another issue. Their helmets are specifically designed only for the primaris kits.

I think my biggest issue and many others is the lack of personalization.

I've actually got a Repulsor and a Rhino on hand with me right now. They both have an aquila on the front, but aside from that - they have the same amount of ornamentation.

But the repulsor lacks something very basic, feel, and tone. Its really sleek compared to most marine stuff that has recently come out. We do have a few oddities here and there but some of the porportions are just not right. (namely the turret should be twice the size on the executioner like an abrams tank) and the repulsor seems to be more like a razorback than the executioner. Repulsor also has so many guns tied to it is ridicilious.

And the fact its primaris only is really really stupid. This is how it plays out in my head:

Intercessor Sarge : "Chapter Master, sorry you can't ride in this with us, can't you read the rules on page 162? It says Primaris only brother!"

CM : "I am the chapter master I can ride in whatever I want!"

IS : "Sorry there is height requirements!"

CM: "I am wearing terminator armor!"

IS : "SORRY LOOK AT THE TIME!"

CM : "How about you join us in this land raider then so we all can go together."

IS : "No the codex astartes does not allow this action.."

CM : "What a bloody primarch could fit in here."

IS : "Well we aren't primarchs and its too short for us."

CM : "Oh well then lets board a mastodon then."

IS : "Sorry its not primaris."

CM : *sighs deeply* "Okay what can you embark with us with?"

IS : "Well get back to you on that."

CM : "A thunderhawk?"

IS: "Yes."

CM : "But not a mastodon or land raider?"

IS : "Correct."

CM : " The codex sure is picky."

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
*snipping a great, but massive post*

I think you nailed it beautifully.