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.

Andykp wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
but but but being able to rotate the torso a half degree is vital to customization!

No, it's convenient.
I wish also to add that this is exactly the type of answer that makes you come out as immature in a thread concerning plastic space soldiers.

No it isn’t. It’s a common sense answer. Twisty but not bendy = infinitely customisable. Fixed waist in realistic pose = monopose. It’s a Nonsense. You don’t respond to logic so sarcasm is the only way to get it across to you.

I think people above reported the issues with kitbash, so anything you wrote here is wrong and obsolete.

I wish just to add (not answering to Andy directly) that I find baffling the fact that it's assumed that if one criticizes the proportions of Primaris, it means that automatically considers the old marines better proportioned. I stated again and again that the "gold standard" should be the new CSMs. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Also, concerning what others said, in light of the fact that that the proportions of (say) the legs of the old marines are less good than the ones of the primaris (albeit these still have "wrong" legs in my opinion), people converting models could still find more convenient to use for a conversion older model that has yes less than optimal proportions/style but will end up with a better pose, better aligned limbs and body parts, and overall more elegant result. The fact that probably just because of the Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder we have to see these kits doing everything to kill creativity is not a good thing, and you should feel bad for defending them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Insectum7
Kaiyanwang

Spoiler:

Kaiyanwang wrote:Did you see me or other post in the "I love primaris" thread? Nope.
This is a thread that asked what people feel is wrong in the line. The rest of the answers and the long discussion happened because for some unexplained reason, criticize the line is nothing short of blasphemous.

If people have said that, I disagree with them. What I *have* said is "give your reasons for why you don't like them, and you're welcome to it, but I will point out that your arguments may also apply to classic marines too".

It would be inopportune to spam a primaris appreciation thread with criticism, but your inability to accept that other people can have a different opinion on the line is baffling.

Again, there's nothing wrong with a different opinion. But when people invent facts to support those opinions, what's wrong with calling out and discussing those points?

You have been given reasons. You saying essentially "NU-HUUU" closing your eyes and your ears will never be an argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Probably the last time someone cried about Primaris replacing their Manlet Marines and when people created dumb arguments regarding customization as though torsos being rotated was the be-all-end-all for that. Oh and the weapons options that aren't used for your Tactical Marinea because everyone used the more specialized squads. Hard to imagine, huh?

FYI - calling an argument dumb with no arguments given is not going to make you seem smarter, or right. You brought nothing on the table other than low-level and unfunny sarcasm.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Kaiyanwang

Spoiler:

Kaiyanwang wrote:Did you see me or other post in the "I love primaris" thread? Nope.
This is a thread that asked what people feel is wrong in the line. The rest of the answers and the long discussion happened because for some unexplained reason, criticize the line is nothing short of blasphemous.

If people have said that, I disagree with them. What I *have* said is "give your reasons for why you don't like them, and you're welcome to it, but I will point out that your arguments may also apply to classic marines too".

It would be inopportune to spam a primaris appreciation thread with criticism, but your inability to accept that other people can have a different opinion on the line is baffling.

Again, there's nothing wrong with a different opinion. But when people invent facts to support those opinions, what's wrong with calling out and discussing those points?

You have been given reasons. You saying essentially "NU-HUUU" closing your eyes and your ears will never be an argument.

If that's all you're getting from the points being made, then I'd suggest reading them a little more closely.


Many of the reasons (not all) are based on information and reasons that simply are illogical. Disliking Repulsors is fine. Disliking Repulsors because they're 'not the Space Marine aesthetic because they float"? Doesn't make sense compared to the Land Speeders, and grav-Rhinos and such of the Custodes.
Disliking Primaris because they don't have nice round 5/10 unit sizes? Fine. Ignoring that classic marines also have units that do this, and actively admitting that you're moving the goalposts to not include a certain unit? Not fine.

If someone's reasoning was actually flawlessly logical, or they admitted "hey, I don't really have a logical rational reason why I like one and not the other", that would be fine. Even simply saying "this is why I think I don't like them" at least is open to discussion. But when false equivalence is being made and we can't even all agree on what the Space Marine aesthetic and design is, how can any reason given be treated as universally accepted?

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Rhino, Predator, Vindicator, Land Raider etc. counts-as?

Whilst I really like the Repulsor chassis, there really isn't a reason why the Primaris couldn't use the old vehicles. Granted, the fact that the rules are written so that they can't might imply that those vehicles will be removed from the Space Marine arsenal eventually.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Many of the reasons (not all) are based on information and reasons that simply are illogical. Disliking Repulsors is fine. Disliking Repulsors because they're 'not the Space Marine aesthetic because they float"? Doesn't make sense compared to the Land Speeders, and grav-Rhinos and such of the Custodes.
Disliking Primaris because they don't have nice round 5/10 unit sizes? Fine. Ignoring that classic marines also have units that do this, and actively admitting that you're moving the goalposts to not include a certain unit? Not fine.

That's because at this point I have to suspect you are not actually reading what people write.
As stated above, the a-grav tech was supposed to be rare among the Imperium, less so among xenos. The Land Speeder is supposed to be an exception. So are the custodes, the elites of the elites of the elites, albeit nowadays we see them battle some random Ork on the tabletop for whatever reason.
The fact that Custodes had the a-grav rhino was supposed to be exceptional. "wow, these guys are so special that their rhino flies!".
Now everyone is special, therefore none is.
Of course, you can answer saying that you prefer this new tech paradigm and that's perfectly fine. But you are not limiting your answer to this. What you are trying to do is to depict the other opinion (a-grav tech was supposed to be special for the imperium) as inherently wrong, even if it's something that was considered the norm in editions 3rd-7th.

I find the Repulsor really jarring for an Imperial vehicle. Literally all of their tanks are on tracks or wheels. The idea of tanks just rolling over and through things while more scientific races devlop skimmers seemed fitting. Then they have a weird floating tank that just looks odd. Both because it seems out of place and I think it looks like it's about to drop like a cartoon vehicle that lost its wheels.

Everyone here agrees on the basic :

Intercessors need more special weapons.

Primaris need veterans.

Primaris should be able to get into certain vehicles likkkeee : land raiders, mastodons, and storm ravens for transport.. Especially Land Raiders and Mastodons. If a primarch can enter a land raider, a Primaris can enter one.

Primaris should have termies....

Primaris were rushed into the lore a bit too quickly and should've been introduced over time....

The current codex while mending some of the issues does not address the firstborn vs primaris struggle that has been going on.

All the books seem to be doing this.

Primaris should be different chapter by chapter, and how they were implemented into the space wolves, dark angels, and black templars especially is very VERY rushed. As I don't think we would see Space wolves really caring at all about what Guilliman brought other than warriors and would induct them into the wolves as blood claws then grey hunters. They and most melee oriented chapters would want to fight in close combat.

Plus no melee combat is common at all among the primaris and they are towing the gunline a bit too much.

Chain weapons now are rare? For what reason?

The primaris lists themselves are very wierdly placed : Reivers being elites? Really? Aggressors not being heavy support? Etc.

Some are just oversights, others are just stupid mistakes.

Models wise I do like them, some issues here and there but overall its a great range of models.

Or. . . maybe there's no reason to get rid of the old line at all. It's withstood the addition of:

Special Blood Angels units,
Special Space Wolves units
Special Dark Angel Units
Grey Knights getting their own entire codex
Deathwatch getting their own entire codex
Custodes
And an entire expanded line of FW Horus Heresy products AND Forge World plastics.

Primaris might just be another marines up/side/down-grade in a loooong line of doods in power armor.

20+ years of marines+<blank>

I mean we could keep old marines but get rid of the units no one uses....

Like... Vindicators, Centurions, Attack Bikes, Scout Bikers, Stalkers, Hunters, etc are just horribly underpowered and boring units. (plus their kits are just bleh)

I wouldnt mind them scrapping down on all the units in the codex.

I wouldn't mind if they upgraded the old rhino kits and just give us new repulsor stuff, I would be fine with that as it would round out the kits.

But they need to fix the stupid rule of Primaris not being able to board stuff and old marines not being able to use impulsors, repulsors, or exterminator.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Everyone here agrees on the basic :

Intercessors need more special weapons.

err no not everyone agrees with that GW designed intercessors so that they could exist alongside Tac Marines giving them special weapons would just make them tac marines +1

BrianDavion wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Everyone here agrees on the basic :

Intercessors need more special weapons.

err no not everyone agrees with that GW designed intercessors so that they could exist alongside Tac Marines giving them special weapons would just make them tac marines +1

Well giving them access to only special weapons and not heavy weapons. I can see that though.

Like my argument has been to give them access to old legion weapons like volkite weaponry. where the old marines still have tactical flexibility or moving tactical marines to be more 'neophytes' than what they are right now.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Or. . . maybe there's no reason to get rid of the old line at all.

Irrespective of how either of us feel how this should be done, I am pretty convinced that GW is planning to get rid of them sooner or later. The fluff in the new codex makes it crystal clear that this is what's happening in the setting, and I'm sure the rules will catch up eventually. They axed the entire Fantasy game* several armies and many units in armies that got ported into AOS. This is not necessarily what I want to happen, but it is what I believe will happen, and no one really should be surprised when it does. The writing is on the wall.

Primaris might just be another marines up/side/down-grade in a loooong line of doods in power armor.

I believe it is more like when they changed the marine fluff a bit before the second edition, giving them extra organs and making them more super with better stats. New, bigger and better models soon followed. Some of the old gear choices such as shuriken catapults and webbers vanished, many new ones along with new unit types were added. This time they just tried to write this as a progression in the setting instead of just retconning things like then, leading to this awkward state of affairs where both types of marines exist simultaneously.

20+ years of marines+<blank>

Marines are not going anywhere. They're bigger and better than ever. You're just refusing to accept the primaris as marines. It is like someone would cling to their RT beakies, saying that real marines are penal legionaries that have Toughness 3, can use shuriken catapults and wear no stinking Darth Vader helmets!


* (Granted, like with old FB armies, some legacy rule support is likely to remain to foreseeable future.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Well giving them access to only special weapons and not heavy weapons. I can see that though.

I think instead of special weapons Intercessors could get new types of auxiliary weapons for their bolters. Auxiliary flamer would be an obvious choice, and there could be some more exotic variants.

The fluff in the new codex really doesn’t make it crystal clear. If anything it reinforces how vital classic units are, and how effectively things like Intercessors and Tacticals work together for example.

I suspect we will see new updated classic units further in the future when most of the classic kits are around 15 years old or so. Upscaled a bit, but not as big as a Primaris, with some fluff explaining they have all the Primaris organs now, but their Magnificat is tuned so they don’t grow so big, so they can still use the traditional gear whilst having Primaris stats. Something like that.

Afterall it would be a bad decision really to get rid of your most iconic and popular units.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Kaiyanwang

Spoiler:

Kaiyanwang wrote:Did you see me or other post in the "I love primaris" thread? Nope.
This is a thread that asked what people feel is wrong in the line. The rest of the answers and the long discussion happened because for some unexplained reason, criticize the line is nothing short of blasphemous.

If people have said that, I disagree with them. What I *have* said is "give your reasons for why you don't like them, and you're welcome to it, but I will point out that your arguments may also apply to classic marines too".

It would be inopportune to spam a primaris appreciation thread with criticism, but your inability to accept that other people can have a different opinion on the line is baffling.

Again, there's nothing wrong with a different opinion. But when people invent facts to support those opinions, what's wrong with calling out and discussing those points?

You have been given reasons. You saying essentially "NU-HUUU" closing your eyes and your ears will never be an argument.

If that's all you're getting from the points being made, then I'd suggest reading them a little more closely.


Many of the reasons (not all) are based on information and reasons that simply are illogical. Disliking Repulsors is fine. Disliking Repulsors because they're 'not the Space Marine aesthetic because they float"? Doesn't make sense compared to the Land Speeders, and grav-Rhinos and such of the Custodes.
Disliking Primaris because they don't have nice round 5/10 unit sizes? Fine. Ignoring that classic marines also have units that do this, and actively admitting that you're moving the goalposts to not include a certain unit? Not fine.

Not understanding what "historical trends/precedent" and "proportion" mean, and/or just not admitting they have any bearing? Not worth discussing things with. I moved no goalposts, my argument has always been about historical precedent and macro-level faction design. I believe this is clear to anybody who isn't disingenuously reading my arguments.

And if this is an attempt at an argument:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But Orks also have land vehicles! Are Orks Imperial?

You are plainly not worth taking seriously.

Up until 2016 ish, to my knowledge the only skimmers available to the Imperial armies were Land Speeders, there was one Dark Angel guy on a skimmer-bike. Everything else was a tank, wheeled or tracked. As opposed to Tau and Eldar, which to my knowledge have never had a non-skimmer vehicle. Trend and historical precedent is obvious. Now all of a sudden, Imperial skimmers everywhere. It is a clear and demonstrable change in faction optics.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

This I disagree with. There cannot "plainly" be a difference if about 50% of people in this thread are saying that there isn't one.
Maybe it's plain to you, but clearly not to everyone - which, in the general sense, means it's not plain overall.

If 50% say there is a difference, enough to have a lively debate about it, that's evidence that there's a difference. 15 pages of this thread would not exist otherwise. However, I'd put it at least 80% of people can tell there is a difference. Many Pro-Primaris build Primaris only armies. Few people mix them in armies. People can clearly discern a difference, or they would not do these things.

Some people are really good at wine tasting. I am not. I can taste any wine, and my palette will tell me "Yup, that's wine!" and nothing further. Perhaps this is what you are with Space Marines. You see boxy tank and a power armored guy with a bolter, and you think "Yup, that's a Space Marine." Fine. That does not mean there are no differences, it means you are simply not qualified to see them, but more likely just don't care to admit to them.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
It is like someone would cling to their RT beakies, saying that real marines are penal legionaries that have Toughness 3, can use shuriken catapults and wear no stinking Darth Vader helmets!

RT Marines did not have 25 years of relative stability behind them.

Kaiyanwang wrote:That's because at this point I have to suspect you are not actually reading what people write.
As stated above, the a-grav tech was supposed to be rare among the Imperium, less so among xenos. The Land Speeder is supposed to be an exception. So are the custodes, the elites of the elites of the elites, albeit nowadays we see them battle some random Ork on the tabletop for whatever reason.
The fact that Custodes had the a-grav rhino was supposed to be exceptional. "wow, these guys are so special that their rhino flies!".
Now everyone is special, therefore none is.

When Chapters seemed to have as many Land Speeders as they had Land Raiders, I don't know if I'd call them *that* rare.
Like, yes, they're rare, but so are Land Raiders.

Custodes grav-tech to me was to showcase their general access to good tech and prioritisation in the Imperium. With Guilliman coming back and the armoury of the Space Marines being improved via direct support from the Lord Regent of the Imperium, I think Marines getting some grav is perfectly fine. It's not like the Imperium as a whole had no grav-tech. Not to mention that general look of the Repulsor's hull has all the trappings of a Space Marine vehicle. I'm sure if you put treads on it, there would be far less complaints.
Plus, how about the Sisters of Silence? Or the Admech skimmers? I've not been seeing anywhere near as much vitriol directed at them as I have seen against Primaris tanks.

Of course, you can answer saying that you prefer this new tech paradigm and that's perfectly fine. But you are not limiting your answer to this. What you are trying to do is to depict the other opinion (a-grav tech was supposed to be special for the imperium) as inherently wrong, even if it's something that was considered the norm in editions 3rd-7th.

And at the same time, you're advocating that grav-tech WAS supposed to be special, and showing that as a fact. I'm okay with admitting that it's my opinion that the current stuff is fine, that there is no issue with the grav-tech, and I'm not saying it's a fact. However, at the same time, saying that it goes against the Imperial design philosophy and it's out-of-character for Marines to have it is also an opinion.
That's my point - you're just backing up opinions with opinions, but a lot of the time, they sound like (so perhaps I'm just reading wrongly into it) they're meant as facts.

robbienw wrote:
The fluff in the new codex really doesn’t make it crystal clear. If anything it reinforces how vital classic units are, and how effectively things like Intercessors and Tacticals work together for example.

Now that Rubicon Primaris exist, the only minimarines that remain are those who are too scared to take the upgrade, end there will be less and less of them every day.

I suspect we will see new updated classic units further in the future when most of the classic kits are around 15 years old or so. Upscaled a bit, but not as big as a Primaris, with some fluff explaining they have all the Primaris organs now, but their Magnificat is tuned so they don’t grow so big, so they can still use the traditional gear whilst having Primaris stats. Something like that.

Not going to happen.

Afterall it would be a bad decision really to get rid of your most iconic and popular units.

Please understand that to vast majority of people the primaris are just better looking space marines. New fans really will not care that their kneepads are slightly different shape or other nonsense like that. They're recognisably space marines.

The new Star Trek Discovery show is still on a ship with a big saucer and some warp nacelles. It's obviously Star Trek, never mind what it might mean for the Star Trek brand as a whole.

Insectum7 wrote:Not understanding what "historical trends/precedent" and "proportion" mean, and/or just not admitting they have any bearing? Not worth discussing things with. I moved no goalposts, my argument has always been about historical precedent and macro-level faction design. I believe this is clear to anybody who isn't disingenuously reading my arguments.

You literally admitted that you were ignoring Centurions because they didn't fit your narrative. Not to mention that if we're discussing macro-level faction design, it would be helpful if we actually could agree of discuss what the design of Space Marines even is.

And if this is an attempt at an argument:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But Orks also have land vehicles! Are Orks Imperial?

You are plainly not worth taking seriously.

When you make arguments like "Primaris have skimmers*, they're stepping on the toes of the Eldar!", I felt this was a suitable point.

*skimmers which were already present in the Space Marine range, and hell, if we're including Forge World, had 4 separate chassis variants.

Up until 2016 ish, to my knowledge the only skimmers available to the Imperial armies were Land Speeders, there was one Dark Angel guy on a skimmer-bike. Everything else was a tank, wheeled or tracked. As opposed to Tau and Eldar, which to my knowledge have never had a non-skimmer vehicle. Trend and historical precedent is obvious. Now all of a sudden, Imperial skimmers everywhere. It is a clear and demonstrable change in faction optics.

And up to my knowledge, there were more skimmer variants than there were Land Raider variants, and they were present across the Imperium (from the Land Speeders, to the Custodes, to mag-levs and air-cars and such from various fiction works, mostly Eisenhorn and Ravenor). The only faction I can say hasn't had anti-grav displayed is the Imperial Guard, and with how simply large and non-standardised their organisation is, there easily could be a regiment with access to rare hover barges.

However, I'd put it at least 80% of people can tell there is a difference.

Got a source? Or really anything beyond the number?

Many Pro-Primaris build Primaris only armies. Few people mix them in armies. People can clearly discern a difference, or they would not do these things.

Most people's reason for not mixing is height difference. It's not an aesthetic difference and more so than if I took a scaled up version of one of my models to a game. Sure, they're aesthetically identical, but it's taller, and I'd prefer my guys to be at the same height.

Some people are really good at wine tasting. I am not. I can taste any wine, and my palette will tell me "Yup, that's wine!" and nothing further. Perhaps this is what you are with Space Marines. You see boxy tank and a power armored guy with a bolter, and you think "Yup, that's a Space Marine." Fine. That does not mean there are no differences, it means you are simply not qualified to see them, but more likely just don't care to admit to them.

'Not qualified' by what metric - yours? And does that make my perception of it any less valuable than yours? Am I not allowed to make an opinion because I'm 'not qualified'?

What your example would be better as would be:
A - This wine tastes like oak wood. (I don't know, I don't drink wine )
B - This wine tastes like wine.
A - Can't you taste that oak wood flavour?
B - No. It's still wine though.
A - It's an oaky wine.
B - It's a wine.

Both A and B are correct. If A started saying "but clearly it has an oaky flavour", that's still not a fact. It's their perception of it. If B cannot taste an oaky flavour, then it cannot "clearly" have an oaky flavour for everyone. Neither is 'not qualified', and both can enjoy/dislike the wine however they like.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The new Star Trek Discovery show is still on a ship with a big saucer and some warp nacelles. It's obviously Star Trek, never mind what it might mean for the Star Trek brand as a whole.

So the discussion then should be "is what makes Star Trek the fact it takes place on a big saucer ship with warp nacelles".

 Insectum7 wrote:
The new Star Trek Discovery show is still on a ship with a big saucer and some warp nacelles. It's obviously Star Trek, never mind what it might mean for the Star Trek brand as a whole.

Yes. And whilst I have my share of nitpicks about that show (the cast is amazing though) to overwhelming majority of people it is just Star Trek and they certainly do not care if the ships or uniforms look different than before. I'm a long time Star Trek nerd, so I do care about the minutiae somewhat, but most people really don't. And of course with that show the props looking a bit different is a pretty minor issue compared to the fact that they cannot write a seasonal arch that would make even a modicum of sense.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The antigrav tech being somehow rare didn't really ever make much sense. If they can casually produce land speeders and servo-skulls are buzzing everywhere then it means they have the tech and they know how to use it.

There's a lot about 40k that doesn't make sense. That's a major aspect of its branding. Aka, in the future, the elite human armies drive around in tanks that aren't too dissimilar from WW1 designs and carry chainsaw swords.

Personally, I find Primaris 'sterile'.

 Insectum7 wrote:
There's a lot about 40k that doesn't make sense. That's a major aspect of its branding. Aka, in the future, the elite human armies drive around in tanks that aren't too dissimilar from WW1 designs and carry chainsaw swords.

Sure that is cool. But I think brutal boxy grav tanks are cool too, so I'm fine with them. 40K is a chaotic collection of contradictions and nonsense, thus I find it a bit weird to be super dogmatic about what can and cannot exist in it.

Personally, I find Primaris 'sterile'.

I did too, a bit. That's why I personalised them. Lots of fun was had.

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
There's a lot about 40k that doesn't make sense. That's a major aspect of its branding. Aka, in the future, the elite human armies drive around in tanks that aren't too dissimilar from WW1 designs and carry chainsaw swords.

Sure that is cool. But I think brutal boxy grav tanks are cool too, so I'm fine with them. 40K is a chaotic collection of contradictions and nonsense, thus I find it a bit weird to be super dogmatic about what can and cannot exist in it.

It's much less about "what can exist", and far more about "what is the norm/what is expected or presented." If you nixxed classic marines at the moment, marines would have no tracked vehicles and no chainswords, apparently. That's far less anachronistic, aesthetically, and imo a degradation of the setting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Spoiler:

Insectum7 wrote:Not understanding what "historical trends/precedent" and "proportion" mean, and/or just not admitting they have any bearing? Not worth discussing things with. I moved no goalposts, my argument has always been about historical precedent and macro-level faction design. I believe this is clear to anybody who isn't disingenuously reading my arguments.

You literally admitted that you were ignoring Centurions because they didn't fit your narrative. Not to mention that if we're discussing macro-level faction design, it would be helpful if we actually could agree of discuss what the design of Space Marines even is.

And if this is an attempt at an argument:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But Orks also have land vehicles! Are Orks Imperial?

You are plainly not worth taking seriously.

When you make arguments like "Primaris have skimmers*, they're stepping on the toes of the Eldar!", I felt this was a suitable point.

*skimmers which were already present in the Space Marine range, and hell, if we're including Forge World, had 4 separate chassis variants.

Up until 2016 ish, to my knowledge the only skimmers available to the Imperial armies were Land Speeders, there was one Dark Angel guy on a skimmer-bike. Everything else was a tank, wheeled or tracked. As opposed to Tau and Eldar, which to my knowledge have never had a non-skimmer vehicle. Trend and historical precedent is obvious. Now all of a sudden, Imperial skimmers everywhere. It is a clear and demonstrable change in faction optics.

And up to my knowledge, there were more skimmer variants than there were Land Raider variants, and they were present across the Imperium (from the Land Speeders, to the Custodes, to mag-levs and air-cars and such from various fiction works, mostly Eisenhorn and Ravenor). The only faction I can say hasn't had anti-grav displayed is the Imperial Guard, and with how simply large and non-standardised their organisation is, there easily could be a regiment with access to rare hover barges.

However, I'd put it at least 80% of people can tell there is a difference.

Got a source? Or really anything beyond the number?

Many Pro-Primaris build Primaris only armies. Few people mix them in armies. People can clearly discern a difference, or they would not do these things.

Most people's reason for not mixing is height difference. It's not an aesthetic difference and more so than if I took a scaled up version of one of my models to a game. Sure, they're aesthetically identical, but it's taller, and I'd prefer my guys to be at the same height.

Some people are really good at wine tasting. I am not. I can taste any wine, and my palette will tell me "Yup, that's wine!" and nothing further. Perhaps this is what you are with Space Marines. You see boxy tank and a power armored guy with a bolter, and you think "Yup, that's a Space Marine." Fine. That does not mean there are no differences, it means you are simply not qualified to see them, but more likely just don't care to admit to them.

'Not qualified' by what metric - yours? And does that make my perception of it any less valuable than yours? Am I not allowed to make an opinion because I'm 'not qualified'?

What your example would be better as would be:
A - This wine tastes like oak wood. (I don't know, I don't drink wine )
B - This wine tastes like wine.
A - Can't you taste that oak wood flavour?
B - No. It's still wine though.
A - It's an oaky wine.
B - It's a wine.

Both A and B are correct. If A started saying "but clearly it has an oaky flavour", that's still not a fact. It's their perception of it. If B cannot taste an oaky flavour, then it cannot "clearly" have an oaky flavour for everyone. Neither is 'not qualified', and both can enjoy/dislike the wine however they like.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The new Star Trek Discovery show is still on a ship with a big saucer and some warp nacelles. It's obviously Star Trek, never mind what it might mean for the Star Trek brand as a whole.

So the discussion then should be "is what makes Star Trek the fact it takes place on a big saucer ship with warp nacelles".

No acknowledgement of trends or proportion for like the 5th post in a row. No reply warranted.

 Insectum7 wrote:

It's much less about "what can exist", and far more about "what is the norm/what is expected or presented." If you nixxed classic marines at the moment, marines would have no tracked vehicles and no chainswords, apparently. That's far less anachronistic, aesthetically, and imo a degradation of the setting.

They have chainswords. And I think feral genetically enhanced killer driving around in grav tank so that they can punch robo-skeletons with their flamer-fists (and chainswords!) is anachronistic enough. Besides, marine having the grav stuff while IG has the tracked tanks creates a nice distinction between them.

Whilst I really don't like how they have advanced the time line, the design space was getting too constrained by adhering to the dogma. The designers were restricted by what was written decades ago when the game was completely different. Codifying the space marine chapter in such detail such an early stage and then adhering to that for decades was super limiting. I am really glad that that straitjacket has been demolished, and the developers are free to make any new stuff that they think is cool. And sure, some of it will be dumb, but some of it will be awesome too!

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

It's much less about "what can exist", and far more about "what is the norm/what is expected or presented." If you nixxed classic marines at the moment, marines would have no tracked vehicles and no chainswords, apparently. That's far less anachronistic, aesthetically, and imo a degradation of the setting.

They have chainswords. And I think feral genetically enhanced killer driving around in grav tank so that they can punch robo-skeletons with their flamer-fists (and chainswords!) is anachronistic enough. Besides, marine having the grav stuff while IG has the tracked tanks creates a nice distinction between them.

Whilst I really don't like how they have advanced the time line, the design space was getting too constrained by adhering to the dogma. The designers were restricted by what was written decades ago when the game was completely different. Codifying the space marine chapter ins such detail such an early stage and then adhering to that for decades was super limiting. I am really glad that that straitjacket has been demolished, and the developers are free to make any new stuff that they think is cool. And sure, some of it will be dumb, but some of it will be awesome too!

Can't really say I disagree with anything here.

They have chainswords. The grav-tanks are suitably brutal and "space marine-y", and aren't the more elegant kinds of skimmers like Land Speeders and Eldar types.
The fact that we're seeing the Primaris get fleshed out in real-time is also quite fresh for new ideas, and they've still kept the old stuff around.

You're welcome to like them

Edit:
You are as welcome to like them as I am to dislike them.

The fluff in the new codex really doesn’t make it crystal clear. If anything it reinforces how vital classic units are, and how effectively things like Intercessors and Tacticals work together for example.

Now that Rubicon Primaris exist, the only minimarines that remain are those who are too scared to take the upgrade, end there will be less and less of them every day.

Come on, such a flippant remark is just silly. Space Marines know no fear, none of them are going to be scared of a surgical procedure. But whilst chapters still require vital classic units and make both types of marine, added to the current fact the rubicon has a high casualty rate, you are still going to see large amounts of classics around.

I suspect we will see new updated classic units further in the future when most of the classic kits are around 15 years old or so. Upscaled a bit, but not as big as a Primaris, with some fluff explaining they have all the Primaris organs now, but their Magnificat is tuned so they don’t grow so big, so they can still use the traditional gear whilst having Primaris stats. Something like that.

Not going to happen.

It could happen. GW has long and successful history of going back to old armies and concepts that haven’t been touched for a long time.

I mean what do you think they are going to do in 10 to 15 years time when they have released loads of Primaris units and have run out of ideas for them, and the designers are fed up of them? Continue producing ever more chunky marines with even larger greaves, more armour plates on armour plates, and tacticool accessories on top of tacticool accessories? Jes will have retired by then, so someone else with possibly different ideas will be in charge of marines.

Afterall it would be a bad decision really to get rid of your most iconic and popular units.

Please understand that to vast majority of people

Please understand you have no idea what the ‘vast majority’ of people think

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

It's much less about "what can exist", and far more about "what is the norm/what is expected or presented." If you nixxed classic marines at the moment, marines would have no tracked vehicles and no chainswords, apparently. That's far less anachronistic, aesthetically, and imo a degradation of the setting.

They have chainswords. And I think feral genetically enhanced killer driving around in grav tank so that they can punch robo-skeletons with their flamer-fists (and chainswords!) is anachronistic enough. Besides, marine having the grav stuff while IG has the tracked tanks creates a nice distinction between them.

Whilst I really don't like how they have advanced the time line, the design space was getting too constrained by adhering to the dogma. The designers were restricted by what was written decades ago when the game was completely different. Codifying the space marine chapter ins such detail such an early stage and then adhering to that for decades was super limiting. I am really glad that that straitjacket has been demolished, and the developers are free to make any new stuff that they think is cool. And sure, some of it will be dumb, but some of it will be awesome too!

Can't really say I disagree with anything here.

They have chainswords. The grav-tanks are suitably brutal and "space marine-y", and aren't the more elegant kinds of skimmers like Land Speeders and Eldar types.
The fact that we're seeing the Primaris get fleshed out in real-time is also quite fresh for new ideas, and they've still kept the old stuff around.

Space marines did not have grav tanks. Now they do. That is a change in the overall aesthetic of space marines.
The fact that other parts of the imperium may have had grav tanks all along does not alter the fact that this is a change in the space marine aesthetic.
It's a change I don't like and don't feel should have been done. I think insectum7 would agree with me. As has been pointed out, this change moves space marines one step away from their existing identity and very slightly blurs the line between marines and other armies such as Eldar and tau.

Similarly, all marines prior to Phobos, including scouts, had mirrored shoulder pads. Phobos marines have smaller shoulder pads on one side. All marines had flared greaves, Phobos have a gap that breaks up the line of the flare. These two changes alter the silhouette in a way that bothers me. If I ever get any, I'll be looking for a way to resolve these two problems.

Other things that came up in thread that need to be addressed:
Flexibility in the way a unit can be set up before the battle and flexibility on the tabletop itself are two unrelated things. Tactical marines have many more the options than intercessors, they are more flexible at army selection time.
The auxiliary grenade launcher is bad at nearly everything, especially anti tank. While I grant that having two ammo types is more flexible than a meltagun, the missile launcher has the same number of options. This invalidates the grenade launcher as a consideration of unit flexibility on the tabletop. It is equal to the missile launcher in number of ammo types but inferior at both roles.
Prior to the introduction of centurions, squad size did indeed follow a common theme of the max squad size being 10 marines. Most started at 5 with bikes as a notable exception. Attack bikes and land speeders being bigger exceptions to that common theme. Note that for a time land speeders could be up to 5 in one unit. i.e. 10 marines.

I personally would be happier if all that design time on centurions, stalker, hunters and primaris had instead been spent on refreshing other parts of the range. Eldar, Orks, sisters and so on. Think where those armies would be now with that many kits updated. No more resin!

Space marines did not have grav tanks. Now they do. That is a change in the overall aesthetic of space marines.

a statement that can be applied to literally any new addition to any line.

people act like there is a major aestetic change from one to the other, but it's not. if you look at a repulsor or a impulsor you can definatly that not only is it an Imperium design, but it's got design elements in common with space Marine tanks.

Let's take a look at it.




you have the same boxy front with a slope and view visor so common among space Marine tanks. the same headlights seen across rhinos, land raiders etc the hover plates are reminiscant of a land speeder. honestly if you saw that picture without knowing what it was and someone told you it was a special heresy era land raider varient cobbled together by Arkham land? you'd belive it. (BTW Arkham Land HAD a custom hover Land Raider, wanna bet thats what Cawl started with?)

I'm not saying it's not differant and something new, cause it is, but claiming that it has no aestetic ties to the space marine line is... inaccurate. you can tell just looking at the thing it's a space marine tank

Yeah, instead of treads you now have stupid looking antigrav plates.

And stubbers all over the shop

Not Online!!! wrote:
Yeah, instead of treads you now have stupid looking antigrav plates.

And stubbers all over the shop

opinions on the changes aside (the tank BTW looks better in person.) my point is that you can see it's very much related to space marine tanks.

it's not say a case of primaris tanks suddenly being smooth and rounded eldarish looking things.

BrianDavion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Yeah, instead of treads you now have stupid looking antigrav plates.

And stubbers all over the shop

opinions on the changes aside (the tank BTW looks better in person.) my point is that you can see it's very much related to space marine tanks.

it's not say a case of primaris tanks suddenly being smooth and rounded eldarish looking things.

That for sure, but the overburdening with Dakka of the non bolter variation really takes it's toll though, doesn't it?