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.

Karol wrote:

And honestly, if after all this time you still need tomake up claims to justify why you don't like something it might be time to take a step back and realize that you don't have to justify those feelings. They don't need reasons constantly being posted in thread after thread dragging in controversy with people who don't appreciate the misrepresentation of the things they like.

I mean if you constantly need to justify your feelings like that arenyou trying to convince others that your feelings are right, or are you trying to convince yourself? Because it feels more like the latter to see the same people posting about the same topic again and again in thread after thread.

But isn't this a weak argument. Because the same kind of people are saying that primaris are great, over and over again. And with your logic we could as well say that they are also trying to convince themselfs that the primaris are good, or they are paid for by GW to write that over and over again.

Saying that primaris don't destory w40k seems bit strange too. The lore does not include a spot for old marines or old lore, other then slowly dieing out. The esthetics are different. The implementation is also suddeny, I think. Now if for 20-30 years there would be a lot of material, about marine upgrade project, Cawl was a known character etc the Reception of final implementation of primaris could have been different. And no retro activly writing down that this was the plan all along, and Cawl is big and important and right hand mechanicus man of the Emperor does not help.

And then there is the outside of the game stuff. Like the primaris coming to existance, because of market saturation with normal marines and some bizzar trade mark law stuff, I don't fully get. Coupled with GW clearly wanting to do a reset, but being kind of a worried how bad the Warhammer AoS reset being recived.
Now this of course doesn't mean that all primaris models are bad and ugly. That it should be forbiden to like the new models. That GW is evil Procter&Gamble tier of company, that wants everyone to die. Of course not. But the primaris changes to the lore, mean that if someone liked the pre primaris lore, and do not like for objective reasons the new lore, w40k more or less ended for them. Sure they maybe new models, that are primaris, sure there is new lore, which they will not like. But their w40k is dead. Same way if someone like Poland in the 30s, he can't go back to it, because that world is gone and never going back.

no one is saying "primaris are great" some come out to defend them from the constant stream of complaints. the week codex space marines came out we had 5 THREADS started that basicly existed to say "why Primaris are bad" it was rediculas. personally I think Primaris are, like every other model range in 40k a mix of good and bad, some units I love, intercessors, eliminators, the new dreadnought? I really like them. I'm not 100% sold on infiltrators or Incursors yet (I think Incusors are honestly a bit unneeded. do Marines really need a 5th troop choice?)

+the High Lords were never important to the plot until Guilliman showed up(Vandire is the reason the Sisters of Battle and Ordo Hereticus exist, they were wiped out in the War of the Beast and then the replacement council founded the Deathwatch as a result of the conflict, and that's just naming two examples I can think of off the top of my head)

that was me, and my point was that in MODERN 40k the High Lords where present but not terriably involved in the forefront of 40k lore and fiction. so demanding to see the high lords resisting Gulliman is a bit silly as we tend not to get a look at their inner politics. beyond maybe a line in a campaign book about reinforcements not arriving because the high lords where being imbecelles. 40k isn't exactly a political thriller in scope. I mean, realisticly how many 40k fans really want to read a 300 page novel about Gulliman navigating the byzentine labrithne of terran politics to get eneugh shipments of screws delivered to the indomatus crusade fleet? I'm sure some people would enjoy it, but I suspect most wouldn't

 Ishagu wrote:
There is nothing offensive about the lore in the new Astartes Codex.

So what exactly is your complaint again?

My statement was that it is silly to pretend people cannot comment on the new fluff if they have not read specific BL books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
that was me, and my point was that in MODERN 40k the High Lords where present but not terriably involved in the forefront of 40k lore and fiction. so demanding to see the high lords resisting Gulliman is a bit silly as we tend not to get a look at their inner politics. beyond maybe a line in a campaign book about reinforcements not arriving because the high lords where being imbecelles. 40k isn't exactly a political thriller in scope. I mean, realisticly how many 40k fans really want to read a 300 page novel about Gulliman navigating the byzentine labrithne of terran politics to get eneugh shipments of screws delivered to the indomatus crusade fleet? I'm sure some people would enjoy it, but I suspect most wouldn't

This makes me sad, and it's one of the reason I love the 2nd edition SoB codex lore so much, because we get some politics and they are suitably crazy to be awesome! All this cool stuff on the Sebastian Thor trial that never got in subsequent codex…

 ClockworkZion wrote:

But claims that they aren't like Marines visually, or that the old lore didn't have Marines being given new tech (Razorbacks, Stalker tanks, Centurions, MkVIII Errant armour, Hellfire shells, Thunderfire Cannons, Landraider Redeemers and Crusaders, ECT, ECT) when they regulalrly were given new kit to try and bring more pain on the foe despite not being able to bring more troops to a given conflict, or any of the recent claims I posted above and it all sounds like there are a lot of claims being made to justify why we don't like things.

All of the examples you mentioned are variants of the old estabilished units,Stalker and Razorback are just basic Rhino hulls with new armament etc. Except Centurions, which were and are widely derided as stupid so maybe not the best examples there.

Primaris suffer from same generic problem many other new-ish Warhammer models and units: design is studio-derived rather than rules designer derived. In the past, new units were designed by Codex writers and they were made sculpts or kits based on the description given. Nowadays studio comes up with a sketch, somebody decides "this is cool" and writer is told to make up the rules and background for it. But most artists are much less versed on 40k lore than the writers, so this has resulted to units like Daemonic engines, Dreadknights, most of the new fliers etc. which look rather generic or aesthetically disconnected to rest of the range.
For me, worst offenders are Inceptors - the design looks way too different for old Assault marines, and the idea of using two of the same guns is incredibly stupid, only matched in idiocy of putting small tiny shields on guns. The unit makes no sense whatsoever and was clearly derived on someone's doodle how a flying Marine swinging two guns around would look cool.

You're wrong about that. An interview with higher ups from GW at Nova says the rules, lore and model Creaton process are all tightly linked now.

And yes, the kits are starting to look more varied because GW are able to create a bigger range at a faster pace. In the past they used the same kits for many purposes to save costs, space and time.

 Ishagu wrote:
You're wrong about that. An interview with higher ups from GW at Nova says the rules, lore and model Creaton process are all tightly linked now.

Wrong.

That is literally the opposite of what is said in July's WD.

Backfire wrote:
The unit makes no sense whatsoever and was clearly derived on someone's doodle how a flying Marine swinging two guns around would look cool.

To be fair, some of us tried to make dual wielding marines a thing because we thought it would be funny, especially with jetpacks.

One day I'll make my wild west themed chapter.

Backfire wrote:

For me, worst offenders are Inceptors - the design looks way too different for old Assault marines, and the idea of using two of the same guns is incredibly stupid, only matched in idiocy of putting small tiny shields on guns. The unit makes no sense whatsoever and was clearly derived on someone's doodle how a flying Marine swinging two guns around would look cool.

This is an imagine of assault Marines from Rogue trader.



Look familer? Far from being some kiddy attempt at doing something "kewl" it's pretty clear to me that Inceptors are deliberately designed to harken to that image.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You're wrong about that. An interview with higher ups from GW at Nova says the rules, lore and model Creaton process are all tightly linked now.

Wrong.

That is literally the opposite of what is said in July's WD.

And things have changed since. So you're wrong.
Or WD didn't get the accurate picture themselves.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Just because you don't understand the reasons given, does not make them 'invented'. We're back to square one, I guess. You are failing to assimilate the fact that small changes add up to a big change.

There is a marine 'core'. It is not made up, and it has been expressed fairly consistently for decades. You can mess around with it to a degree, but add up too many deviations and you're too far from the 'core'. Stray too far and lose that 'core', and the identity/flavor that goes with it.

I have pointed out several real "reasons" people have given that are completely false and just made up nonsense. You can deflect all you want but not every claim should be treated as valid just because it's made in defense of a valid opinion.

And I never said there wasn't a Marine core, I said that I believe that core is largely untouched and they've mostly changed details around that core. Then again, to me the big things that go into a Marine feeling like a 40k Marine come down to a very short list: backpacks, pauldrons and weapon design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

But claims that they aren't like Marines visually, or that the old lore didn't have Marines being given new tech (Razorbacks, Stalker tanks, Centurions, MkVIII Errant armour, Hellfire shells, Thunderfire Cannons, Landraider Redeemers and Crusaders, ECT, ECT) when they regulalrly were given new kit to try and bring more pain on the foe despite not being able to bring more troops to a given conflict, or any of the recent claims I posted above and it all sounds like there are a lot of claims being made to justify why we don't like things.

All of the examples you mentioned are variants of the old estabilished units,Stalker and Razorback are just basic Rhino hulls with new armament etc. Except Centurions, which were and are widely derided as stupid so maybe not the best examples there.

Primaris suffer from same generic problem many other new-ish Warhammer models and units: design is studio-derived rather than rules designer derived. In the past, new units were designed by Codex writers and they were made sculpts or kits based on the description given. Nowadays studio comes up with a sketch, somebody decides "this is cool" and writer is told to make up the rules and background for it. But most artists are much less versed on 40k lore than the writers, so this has resulted to units like Daemonic engines, Dreadknights, most of the new fliers etc. which look rather generic or aesthetically disconnected to rest of the range.
For me, worst offenders are Inceptors - the design looks way too different for old Assault marines, and the idea of using two of the same guns is incredibly stupid, only matched in idiocy of putting small tiny shields on guns. The unit makes no sense whatsoever and was clearly derived on someone's doodle how a flying Marine swinging two guns around would look cool.

Yeah, a lot of the tanks are new gun plus existing chassis, but that new gun is still new tech. New guns, new power armour, new aircraft, a exoskeleton that let's them carry even more guns....the point was that Marines were constantly innpvaying and adopting new things to be more effective despite the codex cap on number of bodies in a Chapter.

And I'd agree with you more if we weren't talking about something Jes Goodwin designed. Love or hate Primaris, Jes has been the main designer for the new range and the man is basically the father of all things Astartes.

As for Inceptors, twin gun jumpack units are a thing for Sisters and jave been since 2nd. Just mash that concept with a Terminator and give them heavier guns and you basically have an Inceptor. The gun shields are a bit silly though, not going to lie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You're wrong about that. An interview with higher ups from GW at Nova says the rules, lore and model Creaton process are all tightly linked now.

Wrong.

That is literally the opposite of what is said in July's WD.

And things have changed since. So you're wrong.
Or WD didn't get the accurate picture themselves.

Nah, Jervis is on topic that the models are designed first from concept art and influence rules writing. That said, they are likely trying to keep the concept art more in line with whatever design board notes they've made for a faction (see their AoS design for Hedonites for example) to maintain certain themes, but the models do come before the rules and lore. Heck, Jes klis on record that he gets a bot of a kick out of pushing designs that make the rules team need to think about how something fits into the faction (the Suppressors being the example given because Marines never had a jump pack model with heavy weapon before).

BrianDavion wrote:

Backfire wrote:

For me, worst offenders are Inceptors - the design looks way too different for old Assault marines, and the idea of using two of the same guns is incredibly stupid, only matched in idiocy of putting small tiny shields on guns. The unit makes no sense whatsoever and was clearly derived on someone's doodle how a flying Marine swinging two guns around would look cool.

This is an imagine of assault Marines from Rogue trader.

Spoiler:

Look familer? Far from being some kiddy attempt at doing something "kewl" it's pretty clear to me that Inceptors are deliberately designed to harken to that image.

have you ever heard the prase "missed the mark"?

Heck, Jes klis on record that he gets a bot of a kick out of pushing designs that make the rules team need to think about how something fits into the faction (the Suppressors being the example given because Marines never had a jump pack model with heavy weapon before).

That is great, because this gave birth to a unit that is worthless to take. I mean, considering he is the designer and maybe paid, by the model he designs or works on, it is probably very good for him. But if he makes a few models, the design doesn't know how to implement and gives them bad rules, it doesn't really matter how good or bad the units themselfs look, or if they were designed 10 years or 10 days before the rule set.

Crimson wrote:But they really did not come back. Vulcan did not come back to the current setting, he came briefly back in distant past and then vanished again. And Corax is being a shadow ghost in the Eye of Terror in unspecified era, or something bizarre like that, so he really hasn't come back either. And of course, as I said earlier, and you later essentially conceded that I was correct by admitting that most 40K players do not read BL books: happened in obscure BL books.

Corax, I could see perhaps counting as an "obscure" bit of fluff, because it's not linked to a massive event (either in or out of universe). Vulkan, on the other hand, is tied to probably the largest BL series aside from the Horus Heresy. To call that "obscure" would be to imply that practically any BL material is obscure. It's really not. Obscure is "an offhand quote by someone in a standalone book by a less recognisable author", not "I didn't read this bit of fluff".

Again, you're missing my point. Your whole point was "introducing Primarchs ruins the setting and is a massive problem" - fair enough, that's a solid opinion which I disagree with, but it's internally consistent: except that when Primarchs aside from Guilliman have been introduced, surely if they were so ruinous to the setting, they wouldn't be obscure, and should have drawn your ire anyway. The fact that you seem unaware of them implies to me that Primarchs aren't ACTUALLY that inherently bad, you just have a problem with Guilliman in particular, which isn't what you're claiming.

As per usual with what I discuss, it's not so much your opinion I'm talking about. It's your reasoning behind it and what you claim as fact.

But it really isn't. It's set in the 40k universe, but not necessarily M41.

This is simply not true. Like at all. If you cannot be honest and distort the facts in such a blatant way then there is no point in discussing things with you.

Sorry, you can't just call "that's not true" when I'm pointing out your own inaccuracies and assumptions. Otherwise, I could just turn around and just say "nuh-uh, that's not true" when you claim anything. It's a weak argument.

And if someone would argue that the themes and the tone of the setting didn't drastically change between RT and the setting revamp of the second edition they would be obviously and blatantly wrong as well.

I'd argue that the current setting is hardly any different to the one we've had for decades. I understand that's my opinion, and I don't pretend it to be anything more, but I do expect you to accept that your view on it is just as much an opinion as mine.

I'm not calling your opinion wrong. I'm just saying that you can't just claim your opinion as fact. Which, by your rhetoric of "they would be obviously and blatantly wrong", very much sounds like the case.

Insectum7 wrote:Because many of the complaints are not false.

And many are. Which are the ones getting called out.

Insectum7 wrote:There is a marine 'core'. It is not made up, and it has been expressed fairly consistently for decades. You can mess around with it to a degree, but add up too many deviations and you're too far from the 'core'. Stray too far and lose that 'core', and the identity/flavor that goes with it.

Agreed. The problem is that we can't agree on what that core is. You say it's X. I say it's Y. Someone else might claim it's both, or neither.

You can't just claim "it's straying from the core design!" as a factual statement when the core design itself is the thing being debated. I don't have a problem with anyone saying "I do/don't like them because they adhere/stray from *my* idea of what the core design is". That's fine. It's when people say "they stick/deviate from the core design and anyone who doesn't like/likes them clearly doesn't approve of tru-40k!"

I just don't see why we need so many threads for people to rehash the same opinions over and over again, both positive and critical ones. You like them? Great. You don't like them? Great. Just don't pass off your reasoning as some kind of universal truth, because like all art, there really isn't one.

ClockworkZion wrote:I said that I believe that core is largely untouched and they've mostly changed details around that core. Then again, to me the big things that go into a Marine feeling like a 40k Marine come down to a very short list: backpacks, pauldrons and weapon design.

Exactly. Not claiming that your idea of the core is the definitive one is the way to go. You address that your opinion is your own, not something everyone else should be beholden to, and it's why you feel a certain way.

Personal biases. Not universal truths.

And I'd agree with you more if we weren't talking about something Jes Goodwin designed. Love or hate Primaris, Jes has been the main designer for the new range and the man is basically the father of all things Astartes.

I've seen people claim that "there's clearly a new designer, because Jes wouldn't approve of this!", only for that to be completely disproven when this is pointed out. It's the perfect example of the overall point - an opinion is good and enough, just don't make up things to justify it.

As for Inceptors, twin gun jumpack units are a thing for Sisters and jave been since 2nd. Just mash that concept with a Terminator and give them heavier guns and you basically have an Inceptor.

Not just that, but older Space Marine art features twin gun Assault Marines with some really large weapons. Similarly, Legion Destroyers and Moritats have twin pistols too. It's not a foreign concept.

The gun shields are a bit silly though, not going to lie.

Personally, I quite like them, but that's my taste.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Just because you don't understand the reasons given, does not make them 'invented'. We're back to square one, I guess. You are failing to assimilate the fact that small changes add up to a big change.

There is a marine 'core'. It is not made up, and it has been expressed fairly consistently for decades. You can mess around with it to a degree, but add up too many deviations and you're too far from the 'core'. Stray too far and lose that 'core', and the identity/flavor that goes with it.

I have (incorrectly) pointed out several real "reasons" people have given that are completely false and just made up nonsense. You can deflect all you want but not every claim should be treated as valid just because it's made in defense of a valid opinion.

And I never said there wasn't a Marine core, I said that I believe that core is largely untouched and they've mostly changed details around that core. Then again, to me the big things that go into a Marine feeling like a 40k Marine come down to a very short list: backpacks, pauldrons and weapon design.

This is why I used the term "superficial" earlier. You've reduced "marine" to very superficial things. There's more to marines than than big pauldrons and bolters. At the very least, their units need to feel like they can operate independently, and the core Primaris units don't. There's a purposeful doctrine behind the classic organization that's missing. As Aspect Squads are to Eldar, so are Tactical-Dev-Assault to marines.

no one is saying "primaris are great" some come out to defend them from the constant stream of complaints. the week codex space marines came out we had 5 THREADS started that basicly existed to say "why Primaris are bad" it was rediculas. personally I think Primaris are, like every other model range in 40k a mix of good and bad, some units I love, intercessors, eliminators, the new dreadnought? I really like them. I'm not 100% sold on infiltrators or Incursors yet (I think Incusors are honestly a bit unneeded. do Marines really need a 5th troop choice?)

well I missed the codex coming out. So can't comment on what people were doing when I had no internet. But if they are 5 threads for primaris saying they are bad, then just maybe, the number of people disliking them, is bigger then "a few people".

I dislike primaris as a concept, because if GW is really going through the only update primaris in the future thing, then I have not only had more then a year of zero fun playing my army, but I have also wasted money, which I will never get back, because with primaris online the whole circle of every army is good after some time, is not going to happen for my army, because GW said they are not going to give them any primaris, which means they will always get only worse and worse over time.

Every new update, makes my dudes weaker and less fun to play. And it is hard to be stoic about marines getting, a ton of rules for free , point cost drops on units and new units. But it wouldn't have to be just primaris. If GW was updating orc or eldar every 3 months, with a bach of new rules and models, I would feel the same. So it is less the fact that I dislike the primaris, and more that I dislike the idea of them being updated over and over again.

Smudge, the setting of the game is 41st millennium, not 32nd millennium. Thus before Guilliman no Primarch had returned to the setting. Vulkan thing happened over 8000 years ago, it had no effect on the current setting.

It is pointless to discuss with you if you must twist things and lie to support you points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

This is why I used the term "superficial" earlier. You've reduced "marine" to very superficial things. There's more to marines than than big pauldrons and bolters. At the very least, their units need to feel like they can operate independently, and the core Primaris units don't. There's a purposeful doctrine behind the classic organization that's missing. As Aspect Squads are to Eldar, so are Tactical-Dev-Assault to marines.

It is pretty much YMMV stuff what one considers superficial. To me the having a meltagun instead of auxiliary grenade launcher is superficial. And of course you yourself have complained plenty about suprficial visual elements like the primaris armour having slightly more pronounced armoutr plates etc.

Also why the feth should a marine squad need to be able to operate independently? They usually don't, they tend to be deployed with several squads working in unison. I can understand why a Deathwatch killteam which often operates on it's own need to be able to do that, but not tactical marines (or their replacements, the intercessors.)


EDIT: It is kinda weird to be on 'both sides' of this 'battle.'

Well if they can't do everything, or at least better then all other armies, then they wouldn't be worth taking, if they are just all rounders. Then it is better to not take them at all, and just spam superior specialists. I mean eldar players didn
n't run dire avangers either, but dark reapers or shining spears very much.

A tactical or primaris intercessor that isn't superior in rules and point cost to other armies unit choices, will always be overlooked in favour of a cheaper unit choice like the scout. Doesn't even matter if the scout is good or not, just that he is a smaller tax.

Karol wrote:

Heck, Jes klis on record that he gets a bot of a kick out of pushing designs that make the rules team need to think about how something fits into the faction (the Suppressors being the example given because Marines never had a jump pack model with heavy weapon before).

That is great, because this gave birth to a unit that is worthless to take. I mean, considering he is the designer and maybe paid, by the model he designs or works on, it is probably very good for him. But if he makes a few models, the design doesn't know how to implement and gives them bad rules, it doesn't really matter how good or bad the units themselfs look, or if they were designed 10 years or 10 days before the rule set.

We've always had this sort of problem with rules wildly varying in quality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

This is why I used the term "superficial" earlier. You've reduced "marine" to very superficial things. There's more to marines than than big pauldrons and bolters. At the very least, their units need to feel like they can operate independently, and the core Primaris units don't. There's a purposeful doctrine behind the classic organization that's missing. As Aspect Squads are to Eldar, so are Tactical-Dev-Assault to marines.

That's a personal opinion that clearly the studio doesn't agree with. Primaris fiction more like the legions of yore (for now at least) and just because you think Marines should function one way, doesn't mean they have to do that to actually count as Marines.

And you're confusing model design for rules design. I was talking about how the models look, not how they play.

If we want to get into rules, 3+ to hit, T4, 3+ save. That's the core part of a Marine statline to me. It can vary a bit (Gravis, Nurgle, Bikes all have a T5, and there are a fair number of 2+ saves) but generally speaking that's what most of us think of when people say MEQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

well I missed the codex coming out. So can't comment on what people were doing when I had no internet. But if they are 5 threads for primaris saying they are bad, then just maybe, the number of people disliking them, is bigger then "a few people".

Except most of the topic is the same people over and over. Yeah a couple people say their peice and move on, and maybe a couple new names show up, but we definitely have a list of "usual suspects" who drive most of these threads.

Also 5 threads at the same time is ridiculious.

Armament of a squad is also part of it's visual presentation. Visual design and game design are not unrelated.

Classic marines are 1w 1a, Primaris 2w 2a. That is a big stat change.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Armament of a squad is also part of it's visual presentation. Visual design and game design are not unrelated.

Classic marines are 1w 1a, Primaris 2w 2a. That is a big stat change.

I'll give you that. Yes, it can affect the visuals of the squad as well, but I disagree that taking special or heavy weapons makes Marines look like Marines.

MEQ never rolled attacks or wounds into the way we defined units.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Armament of a squad is also part of it's visual presentation. Visual design and game design are not unrelated.

Sure. I just am not attached to the classic loadouts in the same way than you are. Legion marines are still marines, the primaris are marines.

Classic marines are 1w 1a, Primaris 2w 2a. That is a big stat change.

Yes. I am glad that the marines finally feel like supersoldiers.

My biggest issue with primaris marines (other than being a clear money grab and an attempt to get players to essentially rebuy their army) is that innovation and progress on this scale shouldn't be available to the IOM.

They fundamentally change the setting by having the IOM suddenly going from a decaying empire living off relics, STC pattern equipment, and very small changes to essentially tau 2.0. The hover tanks more than anything are what annoy me. Any anti grav tech should be rare for mankind, instead it's now handed out like candy.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
My biggest issue with primaris marines (other than being a clear money grab and an attempt to get players to essentially rebuy their army) is that innovation and progress on this scale shouldn't be available to the IOM.

They fundamentally change the setting by having the IOM suddenly going from a decaying empire living off relics, STC pattern equipment, and very small changes to essentially tau 2.0. The hover tanks more than anything are what annoy me. Any anti grav tech should be rare for mankind, instead it's now handed out like candy.

Except the Hovertanks are based on M30 grav STCs (the same grav STC that are used for other Astartes vehicles).

And even then the Marines are less than 1% of the galaxy and the Imperium's fighting force, even of every one of the 1 million Marines had anti-grav tech it wouldn't make it "common". Confusing how common we see something on the table with how common it is in the setting is a mistake I see repeated regularly.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
My biggest issue with primaris marines (other than being a clear money grab and an attempt to get players to essentially rebuy their army) is that innovation and progress on this scale shouldn't be available to the IOM.

They fundamentally change the setting by having the IOM suddenly going from a decaying empire living off relics, STC pattern equipment, and very small changes to essentially tau 2.0. The hover tanks more than anything are what annoy me. Any anti grav tech should be rare for mankind, instead it's now handed out like candy.

I really have no problem with any of these technologies existing or even them being later developments. Ten thousand years is a mindbogglingly long time, so I would certainly not expect the technology to remain the same, no matter how stagnant or conservative the space empire in question might be. It always seemed utterly implausible to me that most of the tech, down to the specific patterns of armour would remain unchanged that long. Seven marks of power armour were developed in the relatively short span of the Great Crusade and the HH, then in following ten millennia, only one more type was developed. That's completely laughable. Even if the new tech wouldn't be better, there would be new things produced to replace technologies that were lost over time. The problem with the Cawl tech is that is is presented as as sudden rush of many improvements at once, which certainly damages the 'declining empire' theme quite significantly.

I started in 4th, and the background was pretty consistent, even marines could barely keep up a dozen or so light recon vehicles per chapter. Now we have hover super heavies, any ad mech army can take a hover barge and if GW gets around to redoing guard vehicles i'm sure they'll be on a clear base cause innovation and progress is now all the rage.

Again this level of innovation changes the setting in a fundamental way. The IOM went from a stagnant technologically dead empire to having rapidly improving and new tech over night with little to no build up. Cawl just appeared out of no were and he's suddenly the smartest and most innovative guy since the Big E himself, had a secret project that no one else knew or freaked out about in a backward change phobic culture, and continues to just invent new things with no real back lash against him.

It's a boring narrative and the most transparent attempt by GW to change the setting to sell new models

 Insectum7 wrote:
Armament of a squad is also part of it's visual presentation. Visual design and game design are not unrelated.

Classic marines are 1w 1a, Primaris 2w 2a. That is a big stat change.

I am not sure what the point is of armament of a squad also being part of it's visual presentation has to do with anything. I will chalk that up to being very important to you and not so much for me. I often ran my Chaos Space Marines as all bolter squads when 8th first released. I just wanted cheap bodies to capture objectives, didn't want to muddy my mind with extra rules learning the game and I don't like fielding cultists. They felt like Chaos Space Marines to me, and I never thought over wise about it. I just don't get why you are so hung up on the 1 special/heavy per five marine thing. It is certainly a thing that tacticals have that intercessors don't. Just the same, tacticals don't have to take those weapons. They are still tactical marines to me. If anything to equate weapon as the marine seem like a disservice to any marine. Marines are deadly dangerous no matter how they are armed even if they are armed with nothing at all. The Marine makes the weapon, not the weapon makes the marine.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be interesting to take a squad of Intercessors with any combination of Bolt Rifle, Auto Bolt Rifle or Stalker Bolt Rifle. At the same time, I don't know if it would make the squad work any better. I feel it would make them less effective overall. Heck, I would like to have the special/heavy weapon option that tactical have with Intercessors, but I feel that GW doesn't want any direct Primaris replacements to non-Primaris so my Ultima Founding chapter fights without that option. I am fine with that too. I don't want to see non-Primaris marines go.

Warning Custom Chapter Lore
When I painted up my Primaris army, the color actually came from my Kill Team scouts which were Raptors chapter. I realized I didn't like the idea of my army being Raptors as I had no plans to buy non-Primaris. I felt that Raptors would make use of both Primaris and non-Primaris marines. So my army didn't feel right. Fortunately, GW gave me an option with the Ultima Founding. I personally didn't like the test tube, psycho-simulation trained marine introduction of Primaris but that is where the background of my army has to start. At current 40k universe setting date, few of those marines exist in my chapter the Avenging Eagles. The now the chapter works much like other chapters starting with scouts (they call operatives) and spend a longer portion of the career as one.
Fan-fic Stuff Over

As for the stats difference, that is a big jump. Again, to me, the Primaris marines feel like what space marines should have always had. I actually support non-Primaris also having 2W, 2A base. The nature of the game limits the granularity of stat differences. I really don't believe that Primaris are twice as tough and furious as non-Primaris outside the rules. The cawl furnace that allows Primaris a bit more constitution is feels like it should be something more like +1 HP/Level in D&D over what we have now. Just like their combat prowess should probably be more like +1 damage rather than a whole extra attack. But I didn't write the rules. I certainly didn't start an army because of them. I just really like the look of the models.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
My biggest issue with primaris marines (other than being a clear money grab and an attempt to get players to essentially rebuy their army) is that innovation and progress on this scale shouldn't be available to the IOM.

They fundamentally change the setting by having the IOM suddenly going from a decaying empire living off relics, STC pattern equipment, and very small changes to essentially tau 2.0. The hover tanks more than anything are what annoy me. Any anti grav tech should be rare for mankind, instead it's now handed out like candy.

I think that is more than a fair criticism. I know when I first encountered a couple fans of 40k playing the Rogue Trader rpg, I thought to myself that having a stagnant, decaying empire isn't the kind of thing I would want if I was trying to sell model kits. I did think other than that, GW had done a pretty good job of creating setting that covers just about every sci-fi element that would have enough of a fan base to want to build an extensive model collection out of. You like robots? Well here are Necrons. You like xenomorphs? Tyranids. Starship Troopers? Marines. On so on.

Like Ishagu said, that did paint GW into a corner on adding more stuff to the IoM. Part of me thinks it was for the best to rip the band aid off and roll back on that idea the way Primaris have done. I was never all that hung up on that tech regression in 40k (or any setting for that matter). So, it being done never really phased me. Like I said, it is a fair enough criticism.

I will keep stating that I kinda think grav plates was probably the best direction aesthetically for me. I never like the look of the WWI over-the-hull tracks, and I think a more modern track layout would have to remove the side doors (a very Space Marine element) as well as make the model look less like a tank and more like a snow cat. At least the background for the grav makes it seem primative and brutal. Too bad it isn't easy to re-create with the model.

Insectum7 wrote:This is why I used the term "superficial" earlier. You've reduced "marine" to very superficial things. There's more to marines than than big pauldrons and bolters.

And there's more to Marines that their statline, and mixed weapons in squads, right?

Stop implying that what other people do or do not think of as essential to the Space Marine core is less important than your own interpretation of it.
You think that pauldrons and bolters aren't the core aesthetic, other people say they are. You have no right to say "you're being superficial!" - their values on what the core SM design is are just as valid as yours.

At the very least, their units need to feel like they can operate independently, and the core Primaris units don't.

But that's only YOUR opinion on what the core SM design is. That's not a fact, mate.

For me, this is not what I think is the "core" Space Marine design, because the Legions don't adhere to it, but I still think of them as Space Marines. I still think of a squad of only bolter marines as Space Marines. I still think of a unit of Intercessors as Space Marines. If you don't, that's more than fine. If your reason is "they don't follow MY idea what a Space Marine is", then that's fine too, I can chalk that up to difference of opinion. When your reason is "they don't follow the core Space Marine design!", that sounds far more like asserting a fact. Which you simply have no authority to do.

Crimson wrote:Smudge, the setting of the game is 41st millennium, not 32nd millennium.

I disagree. The setting of the game is the Warhammer 40,000 universe, which could be any time from after the Heresy up to M42. Even if we were to only say "only the most recent lore is the setting of the game!", then it's still not M41, it's M42.

Thus before Guilliman no Primarch had returned to the setting. Vulkan thing happened over 8000 years ago, it had no effect on the current setting.

The Horus Heresy occurred 10,000 years ago. It very much has an effect on the setting.

I think Vulkan returning did have an effect, myself. I think his actions of refusing to accept power and abandon his status as Primarch are symbolic of the decline in power and influence of the Space Marines in the Imperial heirarchy, and the ascendancy of the High Lords as the incumbent power in the Imperium. Guilliman acts as the bookend of this effect, but only after 8,000 years have passed and Vulkan's refusal to accept power entrenches the dominance of less scrupulous leaders.

Going back to my main point, I fail to see how Primarchs can simultaneously be these genre-changing whirlwinds, but simultaneously obscure and barely relevant. If your whole point is about Guilliman's return alone, I wouldn't be making this point, but the fact you said "Primarch", and implied that it was only a problem because Guilliman's a Primarch, not because of any other reason, that I'm pointing this out.

 Insectum7 wrote:

This is why I used the term "superficial" earlier. You've reduced "marine" to very superficial things. There's more to marines than than big pauldrons and bolters. At the very least, their units need to feel like they can operate independently, and the core Primaris units don't. There's a purposeful doctrine behind the classic organization that's missing. As Aspect Squads are to Eldar, so are Tactical-Dev-Assault to marines.

It is pretty much YMMV stuff what one considers superficial. To me the having a meltagun instead of auxiliary grenade launcher is superficial. And of course you yourself have complained plenty about suprficial visual elements like the primaris armour having slightly more pronounced armoutr plates etc.

Agreed. It's not fair to reduce someone's point to "oh, it's only superficial so it's not THAT important" and then also say "omg I can't believe you'd call this SUPER IMPORTANT thing superficial HOW DARE YOU".

It's almost like trying to make a point entirely based on what you subjectively value about something and passing it off as an objective fact is a bad argument.

It is kinda weird to be on 'both sides' of this 'battle.'

I can imagine, but I respect it greatly.

Crimson wrote:Legion marines are still marines, the primaris are marines.

Exactly - I've not seen anywhere near the amount of people complaining about Legion Marines, even though they do the same things as Primaris are apparently "not Space Marines" for doing.

HoundsofDemos wrote:They fundamentally change the setting by having the IOM suddenly going from a decaying empire living off relics, STC pattern equipment, and very small changes to essentially tau 2.0.

Actually, the hover tanks you go on to have a problem with? They're based on recovered STCs. The Primaris armour? Considering they've taken 10,000 years to create it, it looks very minimally changed from the standard SM design.

The hover tanks more than anything are what annoy me. Any anti grav tech should be rare for mankind, instead it's now handed out like candy.

Yeah, it's not like the Imperium had:
Custodes skimmers
Jetbikes
Admech skimmers
Sister of Silence skimmers
More Land Speeders than Land Raiders

Oh.

HoundsofDemos wrote:If GW gets around to redoing guard vehicles i'm sure they'll be on a clear base cause innovation and progress is now all the rage.

If that happens, you'll have a point. However, seeing as it hasn't happened, I wouldn't call that a stable argument.

Cawl just appeared out of no were and he's suddenly the smartest and most innovative guy since the Big E himself, had a secret project that no one else knew or freaked out about in a backward change phobic culture, and continues to just invent new things with no real back lash against him.

While I will say that Cawl's introduction was INCREDIBLY quick and unheralded, when we look at the facts from an in-universe perspective, we see that he's technically been active for 10,000 years working on this project. If we'd heard about Cawl 30 years ago, and then his Primaris were unveiled, it wouldn't feel too different, I don't think.

Basically, from what I can see, it's not who and what Cawl's impact on the setting is, it's that it was revealed with very little foreshadowing and forewarning.

It's a boring narrative.

That's a fair opinion, but I personally think the current narrative is far more interesting than "nothing new happens, it's all static". It's a great setting, sure, but it's not a good narrative. The good news is that while narratives can advance, settings don't get abandoned. If you prefer the setting in 999.M41, you can easily set your narrative in it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Seven marks of power armour were developed in the relatively short span of the Great Crusade and the HH, then in following ten millennia, only one more type was developed. That's completely laughable. Even if the new tech wouldn't be better, there would be new things produced to replace technologies that were lost over time. The problem with the Cawl tech is that is is presented as as sudden rush of many improvements at once, which certainly damages the 'declining empire' theme quite significantly.

This, exactly. If we assume that Cawl's tech has been developed over the 10,000 years it actually was, rather than the "oh look, here's all these suits coming out from nowhere!" that happened IRL, it's far less jarring.

Reply to two points on the above.

One almost every hover thing you mentioned was either a more elite faction than even marines or is a very recent addition which furthers my point that they are changing how rare hover tech is. Custodes should never have been released as a full army and I'm still iffy on sisters of silence being a thing in modern 40k.

The biggest issue I have have is they clearly are innovative and the IOM shouldn't have that in their wheelhouse. The main theme is that IOM is on the back slide tech wise and has been for a long time. I would have preferred GW doubled down on that concept rather than pushing the setting to a more generic sci fi setting.

Additionally I'm actually not all that bothered by Bobby G being back, it's that combined with Cawl that bothers me. A Primarch coming back has been hinted at for a long time so when it finally happened it felt natural. It isn't were I would have taken the story (since 40k should focus on being a setting, not an ongoing narrative) but it didn't feel entirely forced.

Cawl was literally pulled out of no where whole cloth (with a little back fill HH love), and suddenly the setting changes massively.

GW focused on thre setting for years and faced criticism for cramming too much into the "current" era and not just moving the narrative on for years.

And they finally listened to that criticism. Sure, some people don't like it now, but more people are happier with the change.

They could have move the time line forward with out any of the primaris though, and had they taken a little more time to set them and Cawl up you might not see the backlash.

GW essentially went from zero to 100 with no build up. Additionally all the Gathering Storm and it's aftermath could have played out the same with out new marines. I've read most of the newer BL novels based around them and they don't really add anything unique to the setting other than being new for news sake.

Most of their story line boils down to (am I real boy or will my founding chapter accept me/ I don't think I can live up to that legacy).

 ClockworkZion wrote:
GW focused on thre setting for years and faced criticism for cramming too much into the "current" era and not just moving the narrative on for years.

This is true. It's okay for your setting to be stagnant, but when it's becoming stagnant out of universe and in real life, that's a bit of a problem.

I'll agree on any point that Cawl was added very hastily without any prior notice. I won't agree that what he's done breaks the setting. If he'd been around for years earlier, I don't think there would be anywhere near the level of annoyance. Think about it, we've got Fabius, who literally clones Primarchs - where's the uproar about him? It's not because of some in-universe contrivance - it's because we've known about him for long enough that we're aware of what he does and that he can do it. Cawl is no different, except that we hadn't heard about him before.