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.

crimson's not entirely right, right now Primaris are being advertised more as reinforcements/supplements. now eventually Primaris Marines will replace the old, but the lore is clear that this isn't going to occur quickly, and that not every marine chapter is producing only primaris marines. Some are, others are only producing a proportion with the new stuff.

I imagine GW will keep old marines around for ages to come, however the depiction of the blending will vary from chapter to chapter. the units with a lot of distinct old marine units as part of their identity will likely be shown with less Primaris Marines. Space Wolves for example in their codex had only 3 or 4 primaris units on their example army

I hope Crimson is not right. Tacticals in Rhinos 4 lyfe.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I hope Crimson is not right. Tacticals in Rhinos 4 lyfe.

Me too.
I specifically asked my GW manager when I ordered Dark imperium. While I recognise that he probably doesn't know any better than us, his comment was - "I went on a trip to HQ to discuss this release. They said they have no intention of getting rid of existing marines because they know how much the fans love them and want to keep building those kits."
I hope that turns out to be true.

I'm not really loving the oldMarines any more after seeing the Primaris models, more specifically Intercessors and Hellblasters. Not a huge fan of Phobos/Reiver stuff personally. I wouldn't mind if they just rebooted the entire Space Marine line, meaning Primaris scale Tacticals/Assault/Devastators... They'd probably sell like hotcakes (especially if they got the proper stat boosts to primaris level).

From a fluff POV, the primaris line doesn't really make any sense: why not give the Emperor's finest the best possible wargear, namely Heavy and Special weapons and a proper assault loadout... Seems GW have carefully designed the Primaris line to not step on the toes of any oldMarines. I guess from a business POV that makes sense, but from any other POV not so much... Probably the biggest peeve I have with the whole Primaris lineup.

The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience - which is the main focus of 40k.

I see people crying about how there's too much grav tech or whatever. News flash - the lore has changed and developed, and it no longer acts as a barrier for new and exciting model releases and stories.

If you value the 3rd and 4th edition more then you are free to play it and focus on the setting as it was then with other like minded players. You are not free to dictate what is and isn't correct 40k currently.

Also realise that as a complainer you are in a tiny minority. The rest of us are more engaged in the hobby than ever.

Going back to the OP, its the helmets that bother me the most.
Really dont like most of the variants of them =/

 Ratius wrote:
Going back to the OP, its the helmets that bother me the most.
Really dont like most of the variants of them =/

Yeah most of the helmets aren't great. I don't mind the Infiltrator one though.

 Ishagu wrote:
The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience - which is the main focus of 40k.

I see people crying about how there's too much grav tech or whatever. News flash - the lore has changed and developed, and it no longer acts as a barrier for new and exciting model releases and stories.

If you value the 3rd and 4th edition more then you are free to play it and focus on the setting as it was then with other like minded players. You are not free to dictate what is and isn't correct 40k currently.

Also realise that as a complainer you are in a tiny minority. The rest of us are more engaged in the hobby than ever.

I don't know if you responded to the OP or me, but like I said, I like most of the new line aesthetically so you can't really accuse me of "complaining". It's just that the rules and loadouts don't really make any sense if you stop to think about it. Think Land Raiders: You can fit Terminators and even Jump Pack marines inside, but for some reason Primaris Marines can't fit? It just feels nonsensical and arbitrary. It is too clearly driven by commercial goals (i.e. more sales).

 Ratius wrote:
Going back to the OP, its the helmets that bother me the most.
Really dont like most of the variants of them =/

at least helmet swaps are easy, I've got a MK 7 helm on one of my intercessors and it looks awesome BTW

IDK the only thing that primaris get is longer legs a bit bigger torso and longer arms....from look of all my marines all can tell (didn't read the 20 pages), shoulders still same check, ammo pouches still same check, heads still same check...all that matters.

shoulders and heads are indeed the same, GW confirmed that when they released them.

 Ishagu wrote:
The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience - which is the main focus of 40k.

I see people crying about how there's too much grav tech or whatever. News flash - the lore has changed and developed, and it no longer acts as a barrier for new and exciting model releases and stories.

If you value the 3rd and 4th edition more then you are free to play it and focus on the setting as it was then with other like minded players. You are not free to dictate what is and isn't correct 40k currently.

Also realise that as a complainer you are in a tiny minority. The rest of us are more engaged in the hobby than ever.

I'm getting really sick of your attitude ishigaru. Why do you have to push this aggressive rethoric against others? Why would people that dont like primaris be any less engaged in the hobby? And why do you constantly need to remind them that they are a minority (wherever you get that from)? Is that important in some way or do you just like to belittle them at every chance you get? You know, some people are actually invested in the setting that was and have no love for these broad retcons/pushes to a new setting and scale.

If someone played napoleonics they would be pretty upset that their rules providers and their opponents start pushing the game into ww1 with tanks etc. and abandoning them and their armies.

retracted- primaris here to stay, norm marines here to stay.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I hope Crimson is not right. Tacticals in Rhinos 4 lyfe.

Given how much time we have spent arguing against you that the tactical marine isn’t “the marine” standard I found this in the new codex and it made me laugh.

And Lysander is a old marine who can’t take his armour with him so will be biased!

Gitdakka wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience - which is the main focus of 40k.

I see people crying about how there's too much grav tech or whatever. News flash - the lore has changed and developed, and it no longer acts as a barrier for new and exciting model releases and stories.

If you value the 3rd and 4th edition more then you are free to play it and focus on the setting as it was then with other like minded players. You are not free to dictate what is and isn't correct 40k currently.

Also realise that as a complainer you are in a tiny minority. The rest of us are more engaged in the hobby than ever.

I'm getting really sick of your attitude ishigaru. Why do you have to push this aggressive rethoric against others? Why would people that dont like primaris be any less engaged in the hobby? And why do you constantly need to remind them that they are a minority (wherever you get that from)? Is that important in some way or do you just like to belittle them at every chance you get? You know, some people are actually invested in the setting that was and have no love for these broad retcons/pushes to a new setting and scale.

If someone played napoleonics they would be pretty upset that their rules providers and their opponents start pushing the game into ww1 with tanks etc. and abandoning them and their armies.

Anything that Ishagu does is of course done by the majority of the players and his opinion reflects the majority. Only a tiny % have any complaints at all with GW if we listen to him. Even if everyone I have met IRL, except indoctrinated GW personel, do have some kind of beef with them. Much more than any other game or games company. People love the Warhammer universe overall but not that many like GW's practices. We still enjoy the game but wish for it to improve.

I think he is mainly just a troll here on dakka. His extremely negative attitude just pisses people off and is way more toxic than all the complainers he thinks he is so much better than. In the threads I see him pop up it's almost never to actually discuss anything. Just show up to poster about how much better he is because he knows how to enjoy crap and everyone else is just a cry baby.

On topic:
Myself I do love the Intercessors and are quite OK with both the aggressors and the redemptor. But the new jump pack guys and the tanks look really really bad. I can see myself playing with them but I would convert the tanks so they look threaded and not flying and put the suppressors on the ground with some bits swapped out. The Invictor has amazing rules but needs some converting before I would ever field it too. Primaris lore is from what I have seen so far quite bad but I will probably get used to it.

Primaris feels very hit or miss and not very cohesive in looks or mechanics. If all we had were the intercessors and Redemptor I would have thought GW were just doing a scale upgrade and been fine with that. With some converting you can make the Primaris marines still feel a bit more like the old marines which I aim to do.

Gitdakka wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience - which is the main focus of 40k.

I see people crying about how there's too much grav tech or whatever. News flash - the lore has changed and developed, and it no longer acts as a barrier for new and exciting model releases and stories.

If you value the 3rd and 4th edition more then you are free to play it and focus on the setting as it was then with other like minded players. You are not free to dictate what is and isn't correct 40k currently.

Also realise that as a complainer you are in a tiny minority. The rest of us are more engaged in the hobby than ever.

I'm getting really sick of your attitude ishigaru. Why do you have to push this aggressive rethoric against others? Why would people that dont like primaris be any less engaged in the hobby? And why do you constantly need to remind them that they are a minority (wherever you get that from)? Is that important in some way or do you just like to belittle them at every chance you get? You know, some people are actually invested in the setting that was and have no love for these broad retcons/pushes to a new setting and scale.

If someone played napoleonics they would be pretty upset that their rules providers and their opponents start pushing the game into ww1 with tanks etc. and abandoning them and their armies.

There's been a fair bit of aggressive rhetoric against others in this thread.

It's also been going on ever since Primaris came out, so I can understand why some people might just be aggressively shutting down such attempts.

Gitdakka wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience - which is the main focus of 40k.

I see people crying about how there's too much grav tech or whatever. News flash - the lore has changed and developed, and it no longer acts as a barrier for new and exciting model releases and stories.

If you value the 3rd and 4th edition more then you are free to play it and focus on the setting as it was then with other like minded players. You are not free to dictate what is and isn't correct 40k currently.

Also realise that as a complainer you are in a tiny minority. The rest of us are more engaged in the hobby than ever.

If someone played napoleonics they would be pretty upset that their rules providers and their opponents start pushing the game into ww1 with tanks etc. and abandoning them and their armies.

That’s not what’s happening though. Primaris aren’t such a huge change that it’s the equivalent of napoleonic warfare vs WW1 warfare. It’s more like WW2 compared to later WW2. Barely a change at all.

 Weazel wrote:

I don't know if you responded to the OP or me, but like I said, I like most of the new line aesthetically so you can't really accuse me of "complaining". It's just that the rules and loadouts don't really make any sense if you stop to think about it. Think Land Raiders: You can fit Terminators and even Jump Pack marines inside, but for some reason Primaris Marines can't fit? It just feels nonsensical and arbitrary. It is too clearly driven by commercial goals (i.e. more sales).

Yeah, that definitely is unnecessary and annoying.

 Ishagu wrote:
The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience - which is the main focus of 40k.

Lore and models are supposed to go along together. If new lore is cranked out and old one is retconned on a large scale in order to produce and sell en masse to the biggest section of the fanbase a new line with clear dissonance in style with the old one, people are going to notice.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
There's been a fair bit of aggressive rhetoric against others in this thread.

It's also been going on ever since Primaris came out, so I can understand why some people might just be aggressively shutting down such attempts.

The only true aggressive rethoric is to shut down any dissenting opinion as inherently silly and invalid. The rest is all consequences and reactions to that.
Ishagu writes his posts as a joke account would.

Visually I think the DE revamp was a bigger shift in aesthetics than this primaris thing. They replace everything with new, better and different looking models. In theory you could have used the old models along with the older ones, but almost no one did as the new ones just looked so much better and quite different. An Intercessor looks more like a Tactical marine than a first generation Kabalite looks like a second generation Kabalite.

I think this entire thread is crazy.

I play both Primaris and/or old marines. I mix, I play mono, I Play marines to their entirety. Is someone going to tell me I'm playing marines wrong?

 Crimson wrote:
Visually I think the DE revamp was a bigger shift in aesthetics than this primaris thing. They replace everything with new, better and different looking models. In theory you could have used the old models along with the older ones, but almost no one did as the new ones just looked so much better and quite different. An Intercessor looks more like a Tactical marine than a first generation Kabalite looks like a second generation Kabalite.

Compare the scourge! They went from Kabalites with Jetpacks to literal bone winged monstrosities.

 Crimson wrote:
Visually I think the DE revamp was a bigger shift in aesthetics than this primaris thing. They replace everything with new, better and different looking models. In theory you could have used the old models along with the older ones, but almost no one did as the new ones just looked so much better and quite different. An Intercessor looks more like a Tactical marine than a first generation Kabalite looks like a second generation Kabalite.

Well, this is a good point, but there is a catch (at least for what concerns me, cannot speak for others). Those were, so to say, the "same" Dark Eldar in concept. Nothing you see implies they aren't the same BDSM Space Pirate/Gladiator/Mad Surgeon/Shadow Unseelie. They just updated the aesthetics to the same concept. Nothing in the new models, to my knowledge, implies changes in their background.
They just look better, for most people. Me included. The line is gorgeous I think. Maybe the only exception is the new Archon.
Defenders of the Primaris state that these are just the new marines but the original concept is not betrayed (that is, it's like with the dark eldar), detractors (at least myself) think that (disregarding details concerning specific body parts, proportions, specific concept concerning a given model) there is too much that changed, and the changes also imply a "new" relationship of the imperium with tradition and tech.
Those that love the new fluff think that this is a good thing and fits the advent of Guilliman. For me it removes character from the Imperium. But I am also of the opinion that Guilliman and the primarchs should not be there, for a number of reasons included the fact that they make the galaxy a small place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I think this entire thread is crazy.

I play both Primaris and/or old marines. I mix, I play mono, I Play marines to their entirety. Is someone going to tell me I'm playing marines wrong?

You think that discussing one's opinion about a model line in a wargaming dedicated forum is crazy? Why?
And why you think I want you to stop playing with your marines just because I dislike the models?
Do people refrain from fielding Wulfen because of the DIGGANOBZ joke?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Well, this is a good point, but there is a catch (at least for what concerns me, cannot speak for others). Those were, so to say, the "same" Dark Eldar in concept. Nothing you see implies they aren't the same BDSM Space Pirate/Gladiator/Mad Surgeon/Shadow Unseelie. They just updated the aesthetics to the same concept. Nothing in the new models, to my knowledges, implies changes in their background.
They just look better, for most people. Me included. The line is gorgeous I think.
Defenders of the Primaris state that these are just the new marines but the original concept is not betrayed (that is, it's like with the dark eldar), detractors (at least myself) think that (disregarding details concerning specific body parts, proportions, specific concept concerning a given model) there is too much that changed, and the changes also imply a "new" relationship of the imperium with tradition and tech.
Those that love the new fluff think that this is a good thing and fits the advent of Guilliman. For me it removes character from the Imperium. But I am also of the opinion that Guilliman and the primarchs should not be there, for a number of reasons included the fact that they make the galaxy a small place.

But that's fluff, this thread was originally about aesthetics. Also, while I certainly agree that how the Primaris were introduced was hella awkward, I sill do not think that the basic concept of the Marines has been changed. They're still brutal, brainwashed supersoldiers who wear power armour and purge the xenos with bolt weapons. That's the concept. Exactly how many extra organs they have or the exact shape of kneepads, helmets, the length of the bolters etc are just details. Changing them doesn't change the basic concept.

Fluff and aesthetics go along. Think that they are separate is illogical. There are a lot of models in 40k that would seem really baffling to an outsider but we take for granted because we know the background.
And fluff and aesthetics influence each other all the time. I mean even Ishagu admitted this above.
"The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience".
I disagree, but I agree with the basic assumption - that there is a correlation, and very strong. Otherwise one would not need to write that.

And on the basic concept in the way you present it - people can disagree on that, sorry. You have to reduce it on a very generic level in order to fit new and old, to the point that is no longer 3rd-7th 40k marine.

I made a post in another thread that I feel applies here as well.

GW has no idea what direction they want to go with Space Marines. They're just tossing all of their ideas into the pot and seeing what happens. It's the same thing that happened with Stormcast Eternals for AoS. No direction... Just feel it out as it goes.

My prediction is that what we'll end up with / what we are currently getting is on par with what GW did with Stormcast Eternals in AoS in the sense that the Space Marines faction is no longer just one cohesive model line, but rather the Space Marines faction will become an umbrella with 3,4 or 5+ independent model lines under it and while we can/could mesh everything together we're not really meant to.

The intention being that SM armies become sub-divided...
a SM (i.e. classic) army consisting of only the classic models or...
a SM Primaris army consisting of only <Primaris> units or...
a SM Phobos army consisting of only the <Phobos> units, etc.

 fraser1191 wrote:
I think this entire thread is crazy.

I play both Primaris and/or old marines. I mix, I play mono, I Play marines to their entirety. Is someone going to tell me I'm playing marines wrong?

I hope not. This thread is supposed to be about how primaris are so different from marines as to be offensive. And. How they are not. They are exactly the same as marines because they are marines. No one on the pro primaris side is saying old marines are wrong or pad. We are just defending primaris against false claims. ( said out loud it sounds dummer than it is).

 fraser1191 wrote:
I think this entire thread is crazy.

I play both Primaris and/or old marines. I mix, I play mono, I Play marines to their entirety. Is someone going to tell me I'm playing marines wrong?

No. In fact, more power to you,, as I rarely see Primaris and non mixed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I hope Crimson is not right. Tacticals in Rhinos 4 lyfe.

Given how much time we have spent arguing against you that the tactical marine isn’t “the marine” standard I found this in the new codex and it made me laugh.

And Lysander is a old marine who can’t take his armour with him so will be biased!

**ck yeah, dude! Lysander's on point!

BrianDavion wrote:
also just because the blood tide hasn't been MENTIONED doesn't mean it was retconned out of existance

Well it was retconned to be less "kill the sisters" and more of a "sacrifice" by the sisters themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Weazel wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience - which is the main focus of 40k.

I see people crying about how there's too much grav tech or whatever. News flash - the lore has changed and developed, and it no longer acts as a barrier for new and exciting model releases and stories.

If you value the 3rd and 4th edition more then you are free to play it and focus on the setting as it was then with other like minded players. You are not free to dictate what is and isn't correct 40k currently.

Also realise that as a complainer you are in a tiny minority. The rest of us are more engaged in the hobby than ever.

I don't know if you responded to the OP or me, but like I said, I like most of the new line aesthetically so you can't really accuse me of "complaining". It's just that the rules and loadouts don't really make any sense if you stop to think about it. Think Land Raiders: You can fit Terminators and even Jump Pack marines inside, but for some reason Primaris Marines can't fit? It just feels nonsensical and arbitrary. It is too clearly driven by commercial goals (i.e. more sales).

Ignore him, he is not adding anything to the conversation. he has been constantly coming in here and talking down to people. i don't think anyone here has been ultra nostalgic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
I made a post in another thread that I feel applies here as well.

GW has no idea what direction they want to go with Space Marines. They're just tossing all of their ideas into the pot and seeing what happens. It's the same thing that happened with Stormcast Eternals for AoS. No direction... Just feel it out as it goes.

My prediction is that what we'll end up with / what we are currently getting is on par with what GW did with Stormcast Eternals in AoS in the sense that the Space Marines faction is no longer just one cohesive model line, but rather the Space Marines faction will become an umbrella with 3,4 or 5+ independent model lines under it and while we can/could mesh everything together we're not really meant to.

The intention being that SM armies become sub-divided...
a SM (i.e. classic) army consisting of only the classic models or...
a SM Primaris army consisting of only <Primaris> units or...
a SM Phobos army consisting of only the <Phobos> units, etc.

Probably.

I mean someone literally made this photo:



Honestly its very annoying but makes sense.

Next up Primaris Psykers. Super powerful....

You get the point, we are heading down a path of another space marine unit each year.

While my poor eldar are left behind with 3rd edition Phoenix Lords and Aspect Warriors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I think this entire thread is crazy.

I play both Primaris and/or old marines. I mix, I play mono, I Play marines to their entirety. Is someone going to tell me I'm playing marines wrong?

I hope not. This thread is supposed to be about how primaris are so different from marines as to be offensive. And. How they are not. They are exactly the same as marines because they are marines. No one on the pro primaris side is saying old marines are wrong or pad. We are just defending primaris against false claims. ( said out loud it sounds dummer than it is).

False Claims? I think everyone has a point they agree on.

Primaris Marines have issues, but so did the classical marines.

Everyone has their issues with the classical marine line up, just like Primaris.

But that's fluff, this thread was originally about aesthetics. Also, while I certainly agree that how the Primaris were introduced was hella awkward, I sill do not think that the basic concept of the Marines has been changed. They're still brutal, brainwashed supersoldiers who wear power armour and purge the xenos with bolt weapons. That's the concept. Exactly how many extra organs they have or the exact shape of kneepads, helmets, the length of the bolters etc are just details. Changing them doesn't change the basic concept.

No basic concept hasn't changed marines, they are just taller. But they have become ultra specailized which is annoying, as marines are supposed to be generalists.

About the fluff.

I used to care about the 40K background, think it was great. But years of Matt Wards and various Black Library authors eroding it had led it to become full of clinically stupid things, the original themes and the subtle satire being lost. The return of a loyalist Primarch was the last straw, the setting was irreparably damaged. So if you are lamenting the loss of 'decaying empire and barely remembered myths of the past' aspect of the setting, I'm right there with you. But at the same time I think that getting rid of some of the entrenched details was a good thing. I would have personally preferred had they just retconned the setting instead of making this awkward upheaval that damaged its themes. But considering how invested people are in all sort of trivial minor details, I am sure retconning would have caused a much greater backlash.

And I might not like how we got there but I like what we have. The Primaris are the Space Marines I have always wanted. They're amazing looking models which are large and detailed, they have rules which make them fell like individually powerful supersoldiers on the table, and as a bonus I got some cool new unit types like grav tanks and shooty jump pack marines. That I would shun them because in the background some lameass Primarch ordered them to be deployed or that they the fluff says that they have couple of made up organs more than before would be pure madness.