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.
2019/08/19 03:42:48
Subject: Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
Insectum7 wrote: @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.
Except, in the classic setup, there isn't any number of anti-tank weapons. You get ONE. Just the ML and that's it. Now you COULD attempt to specialize (maybe you buy the Melta Gun and Multi-Melta), but that's not exactly a flexible squad as it lost some portion of its anti-infantry power. Against pure hordes, you lost out. So this squad can't be doing what you're saying. It CAN'T be TAC because of the weapon swap out, ergo the only way you can make that happen is two ML. Simple as that.
Compare that to two Aux Grenade launchers, you have the range on your grenade to effectively target those units, with a complimentary range for the rest of the weapons to boot (and for free). Is the single Aux Grenade Launcher worse than a single ML? Yeah sure I can't deny that. HOWEVER your precious Tactical Squad can't double up on an ML unless you're doing 5 man squads, and the range isn't complimenting the rest of the Tactical Bolters.
Number of choices doesn't actually matter when the choices are mostly bad. Yeah we could make it so that we have Power Weapon Boots or Power Weapon Bats with Nails In Them, but if they have worse stats and cost the same as the Power Axe, is there REALLY a choice? The answer is no. Simple as that.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2019/08/19 04:27:49
Subject: Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
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.
Honestly, the repulsor doesn't feel sleek at all to me coming from real WWII tanks. The thing is way too tall probably because it is still a transport. It also has way to flat sides and rear that even if the thing had the same armor thickness on all sides it might as well suffer toughness penalties to the sides and read since shots are probably land directly perpendicular. But those things make it a space marine vehicle. In some ways I agree with you that the even the executioner turret is too small, but at the same time it doesn't fire a shell like modern tanks. Instead it has a big laser or plasma shot. Why it needs a big cannon to fire a laser is kinda beyond me. I guess the optics to need some distance to focus the light or something. Still doesn't explain why the twin lasers in the hull is the most power weapon available on the repulsor when they thing has a turret to make better use of that firepower.
As for the guns, it does seem like a lot. But I think that is only because they are all considered full weapons systems that can all fire in game. Modern-ish (WWII to now) have had a hull mounted forward machine guns, they often had a co-axial machine along with the main gun and they have had a pintle mounted one as well. All of those were very common with WWII tanks, but they weren't all used at the same time. I would have actually preferred that the player had to chose between firing the main gun or co-axial-ish gun. Problem is the repulsor with the mini-gun option would make the stubber worthless while equipped. As for the over the doors weapons and turret munition packs, I personally would have preferred them to be an anti-assault weapons used during overwatch and/or during the assault by the tank to make CQC a very risky move that doesn't really pay off anyways since it can fly away, but even trying to do a little close combat damage is going to sting the would be attacker(s). The rear weapon I will agree is kinda a waste since the tank already has a pintle weapon, or supporting infantry that should be filling in for anything it is doing. When it comes to the Repulsor Executioner, all I really want is the main gun anyways and don't like all the extras baked into the cost of the vehicle.
I completely agree that the primaris/non-primaris transport separation is stupid. I would honestly like if the vocal (read: players that discuss things on forums, reddit, facebook, etc.) player base simply told GW no, that isn't how those rules going work so they might as well errata/FAQ/publish them right. Non-Primaris space marines should be capable of use the repulsor line and Impulsor and the Primaris should be able to make use of non-Primaris transports. I think it would awesome if ITC, NOVA and any other tournament organizer straight up said they think GW only put this separation in to try to make more money and they refuse to follow those rules. Probably not going to happen, so the best I can go for is playing with like minded people that also decide to not follow that particular rule so I can have Reivers jumping out of Storm Ravens both saving me 6 points and costing me like 300 points because I think the idea of skull masked dudes with chainswords (my Reivers have chainswords) fast roping out of a gun ship would be awesome.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/19 04:30:54
2019/08/19 04:34:52
Subject: Re:Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
B: If you want to talk about quality of choices, A single quality AT weapon is better than two Grenade Launchers. A single Lascannon is nearly 3x as effective against T7 3+ over two Krak Grenades. A Single Lascannon is more effective than the entirety of a 5 man Intercessor squad with Bolt Rifles and Launcher against T7 3+. And the Tac Bolters will be free to engage other targets in that case, while the Intercessors aren't. That might have changed a bit with the new book, but the point is made. Grenade Launchers do not compare. You could take a Grenade Launcher on every one of those 5 Intercessors, and still not average the same amount of damage as a single Lascannon. Grenade Launchers are not adequate anti armor, and the frag is barely better than the Bolt Rifle against almost any light infantry. A Storm Bolter is better, and a 5 man Tac Squad can have both the Las and the Storm Bolter. Or just a GravCannon, which is even better against both vehicles and infantry.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/19 19:51:28
BrianDavion wrote: how many distinct poses for vanilla tac marines where there? almost all tac marines where some varient of "squatting with my rifle across my chest"
Heres the thing there are several thousand different poses because you can move the torso around and move the legs. Primaris Intercessors YOU CANNOT move their torso without using greenstuff!
Thus their pose is different. They have running, they have jumping, they can have anything relatively easily because you have more freedom with their torso than any OTHER primaris model!
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
2019/08/19 05:05:15
Subject: Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
You talk aboit flexibility to handle a number of targets and then brush off weapons can do that in favor for weapons specialized to single types of targets.
At this point I'm wondering what country the goal posts will be in when they stop moving.
2019/08/19 05:16:00
Subject: Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
ClockworkZion wrote: You talk aboit flexibility to handle a number of targets and then brush off weapons can do that in favor for weapons specialized to single types of targets.
At this point I'm wondering what country the goal posts will be in when they stop moving.
Tactical squads are extremely flexible and the primaris interestingly are inflexible in their abilities, they cannot handle heavy tanks or have equipment for walkers or horde clearing. Primaris are infact too specialized as they are. Which is the huge problem most people have with the current primaris line. Hellblasters are anti-infantry but they are solely heavy support, aggressors are only for close quarters and do not have anything for heavy tank. Because this there is a huge disparity in each unit that you need to buy each primaris unit in order to have a good army. This is why i would say that the primaris as an entire line does not make sense in their current form because of their tactical inflexibility. When you send a squad of marines out in real life, you want someone to at least carry a rocket launcher, you don't want your mainline troops running up against a tank and saying "oh well we are only meant for this role!"
Even in the annuals of history military forces want to be tactically flexible and the current primaris are tactically inflexible and only work as a force if they have each and every unit on the battlefield to work. Which really ruins the whole "specialists generalist" theme marines have been having for decades.
Now I do agree it is nice to have some specialized units, but we have so many.... Incursors, Infilitrators all occupy a similar role and should just upgrades to one another like intercessors.
of course that is just my opinion and could be entirely wrong
I am of the opinion we should just have primaris as a straight upgrade for normal marines in general, and we need primaris to have more tactical abilities than they currently have, as they are relatively boring because of their specialization.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/19 05:17:03
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
2019/08/19 05:48:14
Subject: Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
ClockworkZion wrote: You talk aboit flexibility to handle a number of targets and then brush off weapons can do that in favor for weapons specialized to single types of targets.
At this point I'm wondering what country the goal posts will be in when they stop moving.
Did you not take in the part where the Tac Squad can engage both infantry and a tank at the same time, while an entire Intercessor Squad struggles to have comparable anti armor firepower?
What do you think the original goal posts were, exactly? They don't move with a Lascannon because the rest of the squad has guns, too. Marines come equipped to deal with light infantry as standard equipment. The big differentiator is the anti armor/anti elite potential, imo. Intercessors have better stock AP, but Tac marines can close the gap in a number of ways.
Lol some of the Primaris criticism in this topic is so comical and subjective.
I'm very happy that GW are breaking records year after year. The haters are free to vote with their wallets, but it's a vote they'll lose.
Like I keep saying - you've all had two years to accept Primaris. Either do so or move on. Right now some of you are acting like some guy who was jilted by an ex can't move on lol - always bringing up the topic, complaining about stuff.
-~Ishagu~-
2019/08/19 06:02:22
Subject: Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
Ishagu wrote: Lol some of the Primaris criticism in this topic is so comical and subjective.
I'm very happy that GW are breaking records year after year. The haters are free to vote with their wallets, but it's a vote they'll lose.
Like I keep saying - you've all had two years to accept Primaris. Either do so or move on. Right now some of you are acting like some guy who was jilted by an ex can't move on lol - always bringing up the topic, complaining about stuff.
Not a toxic opinion there is there?
Honestly I think I've been rather fair. pointing out Minor issues that could be easily fixed.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
2019/08/19 06:04:57
Subject: Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
Ishagu's not wrong. Space Marines get a new codex and some new Primaris stuff and we get 5 thread of "Primaris are the devil who ate my baby" level exaggeration. Primaris are here and wel, theyr';e not going anywhere nor presumably are old school space marines for the immediate future. you just gotta learn to deal with them (not nesscarily like em, but deal with the fact that they're in the game now) or, if it's really THAT big a deal maker for you, quit 40k.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/19 07:45:34
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/08/19 08:26:53
Subject: Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
The issue with old marine posing was the waists could only rotate. Not bend. So you got lots of very similar and unrealistic poses. Having the single pose torso means really you have the same number of poses really but they look more organic and natural. My opinion only. Built hundreds of old marines and new ones.
2019/08/19 08:43:10
Subject: Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
ClockworkZion wrote: I think people forget that, outside of after market kits like FW doors all heraldry is a function of paint and/or transfers.
Not quite, the main chapters have plastic bits for this purpose also.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: how many distinct poses for vanilla tac marines where there? almost all tac marines where some varient of "squatting with my rifle across my chest"
There are 10 different legs in the tac squad box. But you can easily interchange legs between marine sets so in reality, the choice is much larger. The variety of bits in the tac squad kit also add to the variation and stops models being samey - stuff like the different chestplates and variant helmets.
Almost all Intercessors and Helblasters are some variant of squatting with the rifle across the chest as well. The 'squatting' knees braced firing/ready to fire stance is actually quite realistic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: Ishagu's not wrong. Space Marines get a new codex and some new Primaris stuff and we get 5 thread of "Primaris are the devil who ate my baby" level exaggeration. Primaris are here and wel, theyr';e not going anywhere nor presumably are old school space marines for the immediate future. you just gotta learn to deal with them (not nesscarily like em, but deal with the fact that they're in the game now) or, if it's really THAT big a deal maker for you, quit 40k.
Everyone has accepted they are part of 40k now. That doesn't exempt them from being criticised if people find flaws with the models or fluff. Especially when new models come out. There is obviously going to be an extensively long furore when GW makes changes to their most prominent faction Primaris fans need to accept some people don't like the models and are going to express a negative opinion. This is life and part of discussion and debate. If you are secure in your love of them, you shouldn't be so bothered by critcism
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/08/19 09:22:11
2019/08/19 09:47:46
Subject: Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
ClockworkZion wrote: I should had been clearer: when I was talking heraldry on models I meant vehicles.
Yeah I know. The main chapters have plastic bits to stick on vehicles as well (and or specific kits with molded on heraldry). Some more than others, but they are there.
There are icons for the big 4 chapters in the Land Speeder kits, and in the drop pod kit the big 4 + Black Templars and Imperial Fists.
The dark angels have loads of bits on the Ravenwing sprue (for the DA as a whole, not just ravenwing), probably the most out of anyone.
BA have some bits in the Baal Predator, Storm Raven and Furioso
Space Wolves have bits in their dreadnaught and gunship.
Grey Knights have some bits on the Storm Raven.
Black Templars have their vehicle sprue with the doors and dreadnaught bits, plus a couple of icons on their main sprue.
You get some generic bits like eagles and scrolls and sheilds in some SM vehicle kits as well
2019/08/19 11:26:48
Subject: Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
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.
I agree, except that the primaris are easy to customise if you have a decent collection of old marine bits like most long time hobbyists do. I haven't literally had this much fun building marines since the third edition. It wouldn't of course hurt if the basic boxes offered more variety already, but it is a trivial problem.
Though this makes me think what Jes said about upgraded marines on the podcast. How they keep bits of their old armour etc. I think one thing GW should do and which might help to win some classic marine fans over if they did an dedicated 'Primaris Veterans' or Primaris Ascended' kit which had models which had more eclectic look, bits of old armour and equipment mixed with the Primaris stuff.
and according to the codex, vetern primaris tend to just deploy as normal primaris units. I imagine that'll change in a few years once they start giving us prtimaris veteran units. but right now if you where building a Primaris 1st company it'd be no differant from a battle company
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/08/19 11:45:05
Subject: Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
BrianDavion wrote: Ishagu's not wrong. Space Marines get a new codex and some new Primaris stuff and we get 5 thread of "Primaris are the devil who ate my baby" level exaggeration.
Some people don't like Primaris. There are legitimate reasons to not like the addition of Primaris armies to 40K. Here is an OP attempting to define what he/she doesn't like about them. Cue responses "There's no difference!", when there plainly are. We could have an adult discussion about it, I find it pretty interesting, personally. But no, we're all 'haters' apparently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: 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.
You must me mixing me up with someone else because you are asserting that I've made claims that I haven't. You're also breezing past points that have been made which you've shown no answer to.
"Why is mk10 so wrong when 1-8 were ok changed for you."
I didn't say Mk10 looked bad, or was even wrong. Point to where I have.
"It has been shown here that they are to old marines what they were to rtb01 marines." I've shown that the difference between RTB01 marines and 2nd-8th edition Tacs is entirely superficial. (same squad makeup, same equipment, etc.)
"You have failed to give any reasons why they aren’t imperial enough for you."
Imperial = land vehicles, few exceptions. Primaris = all skimmers (like Eldar and Tau) For starters. Non-mix squad options is another.
"They haven’t done anything that any other major release has done to the game or setting." No other faction release has threatened to replace the army collections and lore of an existing faction. Squats were written out, but Squats were not replaced. Classic Space Marines, according to some in this thread, are being actively replaced in the lore. There is a threat that my primary army will die. This isn't an odd-build army like a White Scars all-biker army that only lasts for 2 editions, or like a Kroot List army available for a short time during 4th. This is an army that has been playable since Rogue Trader, and has seen immense stability for that entire time. Tactical Squads, Devastator Squads, Terminator Squads etc. are virtually unchanged since that time. And there is a real threat that they will go away. That IS a difference. THAT is why this is a hot topic.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/19 18:05:46
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.
Not enough of a counter. Occasional drawing (can you find it/them?) is no match for fieldable units for ascertaining army/faction identity.
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.
Bikes max at 10. 8 Bikers and 1 Attack Bike, which is two marines. They Combat Squad from there into two units each containing 5 marines. Fair point of Scout Bikers. Power levels have no bearing on organization. Max is still 10 Biker marines.
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.
I don't believe I did. My claim was about proportion. My claim remains about common army appearance, organization and expectations. My claim is about trends. You not understanding an argument doesn't mean goalposts have moved. It means you didn't understand the argument.
As for Centurions, if you don't accept that they are A: controversial, and B: against the classic trends, I'll just point out that exceptions to a trend do not mean the lack of a trend.
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.
As pointed out above, Bikers are actually 10. Suppressors seem to me to be mainline units, which would make this 0 - 3, not 1-2.
"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." Which is also my point about proportion. Primaris have a higer proportion of odd-sized units.
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".
Marines have been billed as flexible generalists since. . . at least since when I started 40K. Not being able to get decent anti-armor weapons in your squad makes a unit much less capable at being a "flexible generalist." Other factions being able to do it (many of them Imperial Factions) doesn't matter so much as marines having basically always followed that format.
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.
And you know what? Even though I understand the Legion format having read about it on the forums. I never noticed that the Word Bearers forces were pictured as a 20 man bolter blob. I'm pretty sure they weren't pictured as that online. Certainly as the kit was advertised, they advertised the options in the kit. The optics of 20-man bolter-blob are just not common to the franchise. Chaos Marines can take squads of 20 but even they get specialists in there. And again, the kits were sold as 10 with Sergeant, Special and Heavy.
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?
A bunch of subtle things can add up to a not-subtle thing. Multiple minor deviations add up to a much larger deviation.
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".
You not understanding the argument doesn't make the argument wrong. I believe the "silhouette argument" is essentially "Classic Marine units are primarily arranged around an identical core silhouette, that of Power Armor." The primary deviations are simply a variety of additions on top of that core silhouette. A bike is still, marine-in-power-armor, just on a bike. An Assault marine is marine-in-power-armor, with a Jump Pack. A Devastator is marine-in-power-armor, with a Heavy Weapon. The armor itself doesn't change. Yes, there are marks of armor that differ superficially in terms of decoration, but the silhouette of those marks is virtually identical, and more importantly, it doesn't change from unit to unit. Make a Mk4 army and you'll have identical Mk4 guys with different extras.
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.
On the tabletop there are more deviations in armor silhouette.
You really want to attempt to discuss even more aesthetic differences between models with a stranger on the internet? Do you see how well this is going?
Honestly I'll just lean on the statistics of the model. A Repulsor has an . . . "extensive" array of various weapons on it. It's got a ton of bits and baubles on it, many of them with their own stats and minor deviations. Classic Marine vehicles are pretty straight forward with their form and armament. Box-with-turret. Box-with-sponsons-and-turret. Primaris vehicles have a bunch more bits and form-breakages and the details are less integrated, etc. You've probably seen the memes that poke fun of this. It's clear that there are others who observe the same differences.
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.
Inability for individual units to be armed against a variety of targets makes them less Astartes-ey, to me.
Some people don't like Primaris. There are legitimate reasons to not like the addition of Primaris armies to 40K.
Absolutely, but it gets tiresome to hear it over and over and over again. especially when many of the reasons given are based along poor logic at best.
don't get me wrong, losing the paradime of the classic marine trio of tac, assault and devestator is something I 100% agree would be a shame and thematicly I like that lay out, but running around saying "PRIMARIS MARINES HAVE X THEY'VE NEVER HAD X" when they've had X for 25 years.. etc it comes off as simply intellctually dishonest. A lot of the resistance to Primaris Marines is, to be brutally honest, just resistance to change. Even before Primaris Marines came out I'd noticed that regarding Space Marines a lot of players are inheriantly pretty conservitive. And I'm not talking their politics but rather they're resistant to new additions to the line. you saw it with the stormhawk, with centurions, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not enough of a counter. Occasional drawing (can you find it/them?) is no match for fieldable units for ascertaining army/faction identity.
Since you asked
they where also described as using grav land raiders back in the day.
Personally I think people who claim Primaris are more Tau like while ignoring the custodes vehicle range are a bit odd. Primaris tanks may be grav it's true but they maintain the Imperial Aestetic, Bulky, somewhat crude looking etc. Custodes stuff is all smooth lines etc. Mix a custodes grav tank in with a buncha Tau units and tell someone whose never seen them ebfore it's a new tau tank and they might belive it
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/19 20:16:52
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/08/19 20:18:48
Subject: Re:Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
Some people don't like Primaris. There are legitimate reasons to not like the addition of Primaris armies to 40K.
Absolutely, but it gets tiresome to hear it over and over and over again. especially when many of the reasons given are based along poor logic at best.
don't get me wrong, losing the paradime of the classic marine trio of tac, assault and devestator is something I 100% agree would be a shame and thematicly I like that lay out, but running around saying "PRIMARIS MARINES HAVE X THEY'VE NEVER HAD X" when they've had X for 25 years.. etc it comes off as simply intellctually dishonest. A lot of the resistance to Primaris Marines is, to be brutally honest, just resistance to change. Even before Primaris Marines came out I'd noticed that regarding Space Marines a lot of players are inheriantly pretty conservitive. And I'm not talking their politics but rather they're resistant to new additions to the line. you saw it with the stormhawk, with centurions, etc.
Personally that's because a lot of changes are in some way silly/stupid or just added for the sake of adding things. For example the new Invictor is something I find stupid because the pilot is easily hit by anything so rather than being a good heavy lifter unit it just seems like something that makes infiltration harder for no gain.
Another example is Centurions, they were just added in as "Oh look Marines have had these all along except some of them don't have them." It comes across as just adding a unit to sell things with almost no effort. It wouldn't have been hard to write some lore about how Centurion suits were made as an attempt to get around Terminator suits being hard to make and they ended up with what's a discount terminator suit for younger Chapters.
Then are things like Stormwolves which just look awful and confuse me. Why not just use a Stormraven for transport like everyone else? It actually fits with their aesthetic.
tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam
2019/08/19 20:22:29
Subject: Re:Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
every new unit added to codex space marines has been "ohh look space marines have ahd these all along, except some don't get them" the thudnerfire canon? had all along but for some reason DAs, BAs and SWs don't have. when they where introduced DAs, BAs and SWs couldn't use tarantos or cataphracti terminators, despite visual evidance that those terminators where indeed owned by the chapters etc
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/08/19 20:27:40
Subject: Re:Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
Some people don't like Primaris. There are legitimate reasons to not like the addition of Primaris armies to 40K.
Absolutely, but it gets tiresome to hear it over and over and over again. especially when many of the reasons given are based along poor logic at best.
don't get me wrong, losing the paradime of the classic marine trio of tac, assault and devestator is something I 100% agree would be a shame and thematicly I like that lay out, but running around saying "PRIMARIS MARINES HAVE X THEY'VE NEVER HAD X" when they've had X for 25 years.. etc it comes off as simply intellctually dishonest. A lot of the resistance to Primaris Marines is, to be brutally honest, just resistance to change. Even before Primaris Marines came out I'd noticed that regarding Space Marines a lot of players are inheriantly pretty conservitive. And I'm not talking their politics but rather they're resistant to new additions to the line. you saw it with the stormhawk, with centurions, etc.
I'd argue half of that is in response to the fact that they're ugly AF. Add salt but they're more "toylike". Like, the Vindicator was added and it's a rhino variant, no biggie. The Land Raider additions are Land Raider variants, no biggie. I'm okay with the Storm Raven in concept but I feel the need to build my own because I just can't stand the model. I get that Space Marines themselves are somewhat inherently goofy, but it's a well established level of goofy. Centurions, like Dreadknights, go to far with it. Forge World makes a ton of new Space Marine units, but they're more "serious" in tone and execution, even if the setting itself is inherently goofy.
Personally at least, half of my resistance to new marine units is because I'd rather see new Necron Units, or Eldar Aspect Warriors in plastic, or just something not marines, marines, marines all the time. But I get it, it's a business. I just wonder if the setting doesn't suffer because marines get soooo much attention. Like, as a marine player I feel marines are suffering because they get too much attention. First world problems, I know, but I hope you get my drift.
"especially when many of the reasons given are based along poor logic at best. " It's a difficult thing to explain. Made waaay more difficult by the ease in which disingenuous "gotcha" arguments can be made. But it is interesting from a design standpoint. But I don't know specifically which arguments you are referring to, so maybe I shouldn't presume. I'm sure dumb things have been said, too.
Edit: @ the Custodes picture. LOL, I guess I do remember that from. . . somewhere. The literal flying Rhino.
About Custodes in general. . . I dunno. I'm not particularly fond of them either, but at least I could sorta ignore them. It's very hard to Ignore Primaris when my Chapter Master* has become one, and they're billed as replacements for my army.
*Counts as
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/19 20:34:21
Like, as a marine player I feel marines are suffering because they get too much attention. First world problems, I know, but I hope you get my drift.
I get it very much. I rememebr when Primaris Marines first came out there being discussions about the need for them. And I'm very much of the opinion that we've got Primaris not because they wanna discard the old line, but because the old line is done, finished, complete. GW's ran out of places to go with old marines without going with hyper specialized stuff that began to be a bit.. off. things like well. centurions. So Primaris are the solution
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/08/19 20:51:56
Subject: Re:Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs
Like, as a marine player I feel marines are suffering because they get too much attention. First world problems, I know, but I hope you get my drift.
I get it very much. I rememebr when Primaris Marines first came out there being discussions about the need for them. And I'm very much of the opinion that we've got Primaris not because they wanna discard the old line, but because the old line is done, finished, complete. GW's ran out of places to go with old marines without going with hyper specialized stuff that began to be a bit.. off. things like well. centurions. So Primaris are the solution
Totally agree. And if it becomes clear that Primaris are not replacing classics, I will stop complaining.
