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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

Well, you're simply wrong. Aside from the detail that due errors in chronology it apparently still is 41st millennium, the setting is not same 8000 years in the past. Many of the factions of the game do not even exist then.

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.

If we were playing Warhammer 31000, then indeed Vulcan returning during that era would be super setting altering and relevant. But we are not.

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.

Except even though he supposedly developed it over ten millennia he stashed it all in his cupboard and it was all unleashed at once, resulting a sudden setting altering influx of new technology.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
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.

Agreed. And while I concur that it doesn't look great out of universe, from an in-universe perspective, it shouldn't be impossible. The concept of Cawl doing his work isn't impossible, IMO.

Additionally all the Gathering Storm and it's aftermath could have played out the same with out new marines.

And we could also have had Primaris added like the Centurions were and there be no development in the setting. Hell, you could set the Primaris joining the fray after the War of the Beast, and nothing would change. You could make Space Marine squads all carrying Volkite weapons, and Gathering Storm and it's aftermath would have played out the same.

What I'm saying is that while they *could* have kept it all the same, they didn't, and I don't have a problem with that.

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).

And is that any different to most Space Marine storylines which are all about "muh honour" or "muh purpose in the galaxy/chapter/squad" or "muh humanity" or some other similar plot line?

I'm happy that they're actually doing Primaris-specific storylines, instead of just glossing over that there's a difference between the two and pretending like there isn't a generational gap (even if it won't erupt into civil war - you can have conflict between the two generations without something as cliche as "THEY'RE INTRODUCING NEW SOLDIERS LET'S REVOLT!!")

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 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.

The armament, both the game design and the visuals are there to represent something about the army. What it represents is, "as the marine is a generalist, so are their units". The Chapter (not Legion) is the 'modern marine', and is based around individually capable unit that can operate on their own. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's a doctrinal thing. What it also means for the "character of marines" is, not only is each individual a bada**, but just a single unit of them can make a difference. When they can't be given weapons other than rifles, they don't cut it as a flexible unit anymore. They can no longer function in the way that chapters are organized to function.

The Tactical Squad is the epitomizes that doctrine. Each squad is a mini army with the tools for the task. Intercessors need support.

 Insectum7 wrote:


The armament, both the game design and the visuals are there to represent something about the army. What it represents is, "as the marine is a generalist, so are their units". The Chapter (not Legion) is the 'modern marine', and is based around individually capable unit that can operate on their own. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's a doctrinal thing. What it also means for the "character of marines" is, not only is each individual a bada**, but just a single unit of them can make a difference. When they can't be given weapons other than rifles, they don't cut it as a flexible unit anymore. They can no longer function in the way that chapters are organized to function.

The Tactical Squad is the epitomizes that doctrine. Each squad is a mini army with the tools for the task. Intercessors need support.

Space marine chapters have always been organised into somewhat specialised units that function in unison to achieve the results. This is why assault marines, devastators etc exist. Furthermore, tactical squads are rarely deployed on their own, so I'm really not sure why they should be particularly multipurpose.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

Well, you're simply wrong.

And on what authority?

You can't just turn around and say "you're wrong" when you have no actual hard evidence.

Aside from the detail that due errors in chronology it apparently still is 41st millennium, the setting is not same 8000 years in the past. Many of the factions of the game do not even exist then.

We don't even know what time it is in 40k. It could be M42. It could be M41. Point is, it really doesn't matter.

Even with your valid point of "many factions wouldn't have been around then", 40k is a setting with active time travel potential. Tau from the 4th sphere expansion showing up anywhere is a certain potential. Plus, if you want to limit the setting purely to the game itself, then I guess Tau turning up at any campaigns that weren't near the Tau Empire just weren't legal? Because they certainly couldn't have shown up at the Eye of Terror, not by any stretch.

The setting covers far more than just the most recent stuff.

If we were playing Warhammer 31000, then indeed Vulcan returning during that era would be super setting altering and relevant. But we are not.

So we're playing Warhammer 40k/41k, are we? Because as it's pointed out, it could easily be M42 right now. So I guess we're not allowed to play with Tycho, Aun'Va, or anyone like that now, because they're dead in M42?

This is ridiculous. I'm not going to argue about if you have to play games in the 41st millennium in Warhammer 40k. It's clearly a brand name, not a set of rules.

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.

Except even though he supposedly developed it over ten millennia he stashed it all in his cupboard and it was all unleashed at once, resulting a sudden setting altering influx of new technology.

I don't really see a problem with that. It's not like those suits have been made in a day or whatever.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
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).

I agee that is the biggest thing they dropped the ball on. We needed more set up (and tying Primaris to the Cursed foundings would have helped).

 Crimson wrote:
Space marine chapters have always been organised into somewhat specialised units that function in unison to achieve the results. This is why assault marines, devastators etc exist. Furthermore, tactical squads are rarely deployed on their own, so I'm really not sure why they should be particularly multipurpose.

This. Aside from arguing that apparently the Legions weren't composed of Space Marines, suggesting that Space Marines were the hallmark of versatility when their very range of squads and combat doctrines differed from this is amusing.

Let's take the 6 or 7th companies. Purely composed of Tactical Marines and suchlike, apparently the most versatile Astartes. How were they deployed? Reserves, rarely ever as an en masse force, reserves for the Battle Companies, the main Space Marine strikeforces, which had a variety of specialised units.

The strength of Space Marines was that their strikeforces had everything they needed (unlike the division of Guard regiments) and every guy was skilled to do those roles (like how Primaris are), not that every guy or every squad necessarily was supposed to do them.

 Crimson wrote:
Space marine chapters have always been organised into somewhat specialised units that function in unison to achieve the results. This is why assault marines, devastators etc exist. Furthermore, tactical squads are rarely deployed on their own, so I'm really not sure why they should be particularly multipurpose.

Tactical squads are billed as providing the flexible backbone of the chapter, since basically forever. Traditionally, Assault and Devastator Squads are merely variations of that theme.

And yeah, Squads are intended to operate alone as well. That's part of the organizational capability.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Space marine chapters have always been organised into somewhat specialised units that function in unison to achieve the results. This is why assault marines, devastators etc exist. Furthermore, tactical squads are rarely deployed on their own, so I'm really not sure why they should be particularly multipurpose.

Tactical squads are billed as providing the flexible backbone of the chapter, since basically forever. Traditionally, Assault and Devastator Squads are merely variations of that theme.

Backbone, yes. Intercessors are billed as the same.

A backbone without arms and legs is still ineffective.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

And on what authority?

You can't just turn around and say "you're wrong" when you have no actual hard evidence

The evidence is the rulebooks and codices used for the game. They predominantly describe the setting as it exists in the 41st (ish) millennium. The setting of 32nd millennium is radically different. You of course can use the rules for historical games, or indeed for games set on Star Wars universe or Equestria, but that is not the expectation.

We don't even know what time it is in 40k. It could be M42. It could be M41. Point is, it really doesn't matter.

The exact date doesn't matter. That the setting is not the same than it was 8000 years ago does.

This is ridiculous.

Well, we agree on something!

Your insistence that some event that happened 8000 years ago, in the distant past of the setting is somehow comparable to events happening in the current era of the setting is indeed ridiculous.

Your insistence that some event that happened 8000 years ago, in the distant past of the setting is somehow comparable to events happening in the current era of the setting is indeed ridiculous.

Reasons for war are based on religious texts and describe stuff that happened around 3-4k years ago, so it is not like it is relevant today. Other countries base their right to trade control of specific areas, based on their historical control of those places 2000-2500 years ago.

 Insectum7 wrote:


The Tactical Squad is the epitomizes that doctrine. Each squad is a mini army with the tools for the task. Intercessors need support.

I am not so sure about that. The Bolt Rifle covers slightly larger range of targets than the standard bolter. It has better range and some armor penetration. That doesn't make up for some the special/heavy weapons Tacticals can take. But just taking those weapons, the Tactical squad is more tailored and less general. Additionally, in a setting that involves quite a bit of CQC, Intercessors are much better than Tacticals. The one area Tacticals clearly excel over Intercessors is anti-armor. Just the same, an independent unit isn't likely to engage armor which usually travel in platoons. Man portable weapons even in 40k just don't allow good odds over 1 squad vs. tank platoon. Additionally, if that Tactical squad is operating independently, how many shot could it realistically carry without an ammo drop? My guess is not many given the size of missiles modeled. So most of the special weapons serve limited purpose for an independent squad. And if the squad has a re-supply line, what does it matter? Primaris can just easily change both their armor configuration and weapon loadout if they have resupply now tailored to the intel the have gathered.

If you are talking about game only, again; what does it matter? In a full game, no squad is going to operate independently unless you are talking about Kill Team. Funny enough, Primaris basically double down being expensive generalists that is already leveled criticism against space marines in Kill Team. They are good at everything but great at nothing, but they work pretty well against completely blind match ups/missions (that just isn't how Kill Team is played). My last Kill Team game was 1 Reiver Sgt and the rest Intercessors in a 125 x2 vs. 250 pt game of Marines x2 vs. Tyranids. I made use of the flexibility to weaken the Tyranids at range while still having decent melee to hold my own when they got close. If they didn't have the second wound I would have probably lost half my team instead of just 1 marine. I used the flexibility of the Intercessors range, firepower and CQC to keep the nids as manageable as I could.

I sort of get what your after there, I just don't see the gulf being all that big both in terms of lore or game mechanics. Tacticals and Intercessors had a lot of overlap being generalists. If it were a Venn diagram I would imagine they would cover about the same area while excelling at slightly different things. I also happen to like that. Intercessors are not the plasma guns of space marine Troop options. They do slightly different things to Tacticals and a player has to decide which of the slight differences is more important to them. As I often say, I often feel limited having a Primaris only army. There simply aren't options available to me compared to a composite army. I happen to think that is a good thing that non-Primaris are still very much viable. At least at the casual level I play at.

 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.

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

I don't think I ever once saw criticism for it being a setting or not moving a narrative. I've seen far more complaints about the narrative since Gathering Storm.

pm713 wrote:

 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.

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

I don't think I ever once saw criticism for it being a setting or not moving a narrative. I've seen far more complaints about the narrative since Gathering Storm.

I've seen plenty either side - either for everything being crammed into 999999999.M41 and things not developing, or the rushed narratives of late.

pm713 wrote:

 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.

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

I don't think I ever once saw criticism for it being a setting or not moving a narrative. I've seen far more complaints about the narrative since Gathering Storm.

As a grognard in my own right it's been a common complaint that I've witnessed both on and offline.

People have been looking for the "story" to move forward for ages, and there were some great fanfics done about it.

Personally, I prefered the 41st millenium as a static setting. The original setting is genius, tonnes of great ideas crammed into a sandbox big enough to swallow any personal modelling or story project. To my mind, the later stuff has been pretty poor, becoming noticeable to me in late 4e supplements and codices. The frequency of bad writing increased from then, along with an increase in the severity of the bad writing. The 5th edition space marine books in particular seemed to be written by a fanboy rather than someone who had a bit of distance from the fiction and could see the murderous fascist lunatics for what they are rather than swallowing the in-universe propaganda.

It is interesting that 8th has moved the setting on, and I am not against the changes per se, they are another kind of fan fiction now that the setting is mostly written by GW employees who started as fanboys. Interesting, but not particularly well thought out or well written. Primaris seem particularly poorly justified in the background, more like a players personal headcannon than something that properly fits.

I will keep playing around in my headcannon version of the universe, and ignore the new stuff.

At least GW did not blow up the 40K universe and then get rid of loads of factions and miniatures. It could be worse.

 Da Boss wrote:
The 5th edition space marine books in particular seemed to be written by a fanboy rather than someone who had a bit of distance from the fiction and could see the murderous fascist lunatics for what they are rather than swallowing the in-universe propaganda.

I am glad that other people have noticed this too.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote: ]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

There was only one known jetbike left by M41 - that of the Ravenwing - that's what made it so special. Admech skimmer is a new addition to the game like the Primaris gravtank, but at any rate, it is believable that if there is an Imperial faction capable of building and operating gravtanks, it is AdMech. Land Speeder employs relatively weak form of technology, only able to power a light vehicle, even then it has apparently become scarce in the Galaxy.

40k is kinda suffering from the same syndrome many fictional universes are, that they have been around long enough that the fans of said setting have become employees. Once the inmates are running the asylum you end up with nonsense like the 5th edition space marine or grey knights codex.

Backfire wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote: ]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

There was only one known jetbike left by M41 - that of the Ravenwing - that's what made it so special. Admech skimmer is a new addition to the game like the Primaris gravtank, but at any rate, it is believable that if there is an Imperial faction capable of building and operating gravtanks, it is AdMech. Land Speeder employs relatively weak form of technology, only able to power a light vehicle, even then it has apparently become scarce in the Galaxy.

The Imperium operates on misinformation and lost records. Saying that we only know of anything means little in the long run.

Especially since many assume the Dark Angels might be hiding more than one of those bikes or have an STC for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
40k is kinda suffering from the same syndrome many fictional universes are, that they have been around long enough that the fans of said setting have become employees. Once the inmates are running the asylum you end up with nonsense like the 5th edition space marine or grey knights codex.

Still better than the 5th ed Space Wolves codex which was written by Phil Kelly whose been around since roughly 3rd.

Keeping the setting frozen in time vs advancing the storyline is always a mixed bag. Keeping it frozen maintains the intrigue and mystery, and allows the players to write or play out their own lore. But in the long term it might start to feel stale, and as a game needs to constantly publish new content, it will become hard to justify additions "oh these Michelin Man looking Space Marine suits have always existed...". This was especially true in Warhammer Fantasy, somewhat less so in 40k which had enormous galaxy where you could fit plenty of stuff and it wouldn't conflict earlier written lore.

On the other hand, advancing the storyline runs into same problem many estabilished serial works have, you have to exceed yourself every time with the end result that the events you write become ever more ludicrous and implausible as you keep jumping over the laser shark tanks. I don't know too many people who liked how the L5R world storyline progressed towards the end, for example. Estabilished characters become another problem, if you kill them off, well, they're not there to draw fans in anymore but if you don't, you will end up bubblewrapping them with plot armour and it will look silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The Imperium operates on misinformation and lost records. Saying that we only know of anything means little in the long run.

Especially since many assume the Dark Angels might be hiding more than one of those bikes or have an STC for them.

Of course. But if you sell a piece of lore on how it is supposed to be a relic or unique, and then suddenly it turns out it is not, it is futile to argue that the premise has not fundamentally changed.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Still better than the 5th ed Space Wolves codex which was written by Phil Kelly whose been around since roughly 3rd.

Phil Kelly wrote some truly marvellous lore, unfortunately he sometimes did not know when to stop and all his codices have these cringey moments where you realize he has taken things too far.
Still better what Ward or Vetock wrote.

Ward nailed the Sisters of Battle WD lore. I feel like a good editor was what he needed the most.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


The Tactical Squad is the epitomizes that doctrine. Each squad is a mini army with the tools for the task. Intercessors need support.

I am not so sure about that. The Bolt Rifle covers slightly larger range of targets than the standard bolter. It has better range and some armor penetration. That doesn't make up for some the special/heavy weapons Tacticals can take. But just taking those weapons, the Tactical squad is more tailored and less general. Additionally, in a setting that involves quite a bit of CQC, Intercessors are much better than Tacticals. The one area Tacticals clearly excel over Intercessors is anti-armor. Just the same, an independent unit isn't likely to engage armor which usually travel in platoons. Man portable weapons even in 40k just don't allow good odds over 1 squad vs. tank platoon. Additionally, if that Tactical squad is operating independently, how many shot could it realistically carry without an ammo drop? My guess is not many given the size of missiles modeled. So most of the special weapons serve limited purpose for an independent squad. And if the squad has a re-supply line, what does it matter? Primaris can just easily change both their armor configuration and weapon loadout if they have resupply now tailored to the intel the have gathered.

For efficacy of the heavy weapon, that really depends on which version of the game you're playing. From 1st through 4th edition a single Missile or Las shot was actually quite capable of knocking out many vehicles. In the latter editions this has declined somewhat, but to me the earlier editions seemed more lore appropriate while the later editions were pushing for more vehicle/large unit sales. In any case, in-universe an anti-tank weapon like a lascannon seems adequate for the job.

As for Intercessors covering a slightly wider gamut of targets. . . Ehh, sorta? In game ths Bolt Rifle is only more effective against harder targets because of the 8th Ed design paradigm. I'm not sure how well it translates to lore in terms of capability. Certainly somewhat more capable than a bolter, but then again, the bolter sees a wide range of ability out of plot necessity, basically. This gets tricky. As it stands, S4 wouldnt have made a dent in Armor 11+ in prior editions, nor T8+. We understand that a Bolt Rifle is not as capable as a heavy bolter, so I'm not sure where that leaves us in terms of 'more targets'.

As for the weapons specializing the squad, I disagree. Each other marine carries a bolter which we're told is a highly effective anti-personnel weapon. (Plus bolt pistols, grenades and marine-fists). I think they still adequately cover the bases.

For supply (and I like that you're thinking about it) you make a reasonable point. However I'd say that in-universe, amusingly, Soace Marines spend a lot of time fighting PDF forces, which often happen to carry the same weapons. I like to think that sure, they can resupply, but they can also raid and get what they need if necessary because it's not specialized equipment. Like the Missile Launcher pattern might be specific, but the ammunition generic.

CQC Intercessors are better, sure. Although lore-wise normal marines aren't lacking in this regard, so it's not like they lack the toolkit.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
If you are talking about game only, again; what does it matter? In a full game, no squad is going to operate independently unless you are talking about Kill Team. Funny enough, Primaris basically double down being expensive generalists that is already leveled criticism against space marines in Kill Team. They are good at everything but great at nothing, but they work pretty well against completely blind match ups/missions (that just isn't how Kill Team is played). My last Kill Team game was 1 Reiver Sgt and the rest Intercessors in a 125 x2 vs. 250 pt game of Marines x2 vs. Tyranids. I made use of the flexibility to weaken the Tyranids at range while still having decent melee to hold my own when they got close. If they didn't have the second wound I would have probably lost half my team instead of just 1 marine. I used the flexibility of the Intercessors range, firepower and CQC to keep the nids as manageable as I could.

Definitely not talking game only, as the game adjusts from time to time. The feel of a faction/unit comes from all the sources combined. Some sources are more important than others maybe, it sorta depends how many peoole come into contact with it. More people come into contact with the codexes than Black Library maybe. Video game lore seems less relevant than tabletop, etc.

For Kill Team, that's obviously a very limited scope in terms of battle. I dont think it plays into the larget picture too much. I'd say the situation is entirely reversed if we gave 2nd Edition, for example. Where a single Lascannon shot can cripple or destroy a major strategic asset like a tank or monster, while a Bolt Rifle or Krak Grenade wouldn't even be capable of damage at the slimmest margin of odds.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

I sort of get what your after there, I just don't see the gulf being all that big both in terms of lore or game mechanics. Tacticals and Intercessors had a lot of overlap being generalists. If it were a Venn diagram I would imagine they would cover about the same area while excelling at slightly different things. I also happen to like that. Intercessors are not the plasma guns of space marine Troop options. They do slightly different things to Tacticals and a player has to decide which of the slight differences is more important to them. As I often say, I often feel limited having a Primaris only army. There simply aren't options available to me compared to a composite army. I happen to think that is a good thing that non-Primaris are still very much viable. At least at the casual level I play at.

From a strict game design standpoint I think GW has given both units ample reason to exist, mechanically speaking, which is admirable. The scale of the game is such that "independent operation" isnt a thing.

From a slightly abstracted game-design standpoint I take issue with Primaris design as specialized units, as it's historically been something more for other factions, such as Eldar. I liked that both Eldar and Marines are 'elite', but go about it in a different way, and both being entrenched in their respective doctrines (marines with their codex and Eldar with Paths).

Also, I dislike greatly the move to two wounds. For a long time there was a relative parity between certain factions in terms of core-troop elite-ness. Now Marines have just been bumped up arbitrarily, and Eldar, Necrons, maybe most imporyantly Chaos, have been left behind. I really hate it. Some people say "it's what marines are supposed to be!" I say "designed by fanboys". There's a tension in the setting that's lost when your protagonists are just superior to everything else. 2w is a significant blow to that balance.

Lore-wise, the lack of ability to meaningfully attack armor at range, or equip with more specialized equipment for particular tasks is a move in the needle away from "realistic" towards "viddeo-game". Now 40k is not "realistic", obviously, but there are aspects of it that are grounded. Individual unit capability is one of these things. Even if it doesn't play out as much on the tabletop anymore, what the unit represents is still meaningful. Deploying against PDF or Orks? Vastly superior numbers with some vehicles? Bring that Lascannon and knock out some armor before fading away to set up an ambush against retalitory forces. Attacking a Bunker? Bring that Multimelta to melt away hardened doors and a flamer to clear passages and cook.occupants. There are more variables to the story you can tell with your unit of super-commandos.

I cant help but see Intercessors like Starcraft marines. Zergling horde? Bolt Rifles!, Enemy tank? Bolt Rifles! Low Orbiting Spacecraft? Bolt Rifles! This is obviously a tongue-in-cheek take but hopfully it illustrates a point. There's some texture that's lost, the story of the unit is different.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Lore-wise, the lack of ability to meaningfully attack armor at range, or equip with more specialized equipment for particular tasks is a move in the needle away from "realistic" towards "viddeo-game". Now 40k is not "realistic", obviously, but there are aspects of it that are grounded. Individual unit capability is one of these things. Even if it doesn't play out as much on the tabletop anymore, what the unit represents is still meaningful. Deploying against PDF or Orks? Vastly superior numbers with some vehicles? Bring that Lascannon and knock out some armor before fading away to set up an ambush against retalitory forces. Attacking a Bunker? Bring that Multimelta to melt away hardened doors and a flamer to clear passages and cook.occupants. There are more variables to the story you can tell with your unit of super-commandos.

I cant help but see Intercessors like Starcraft marines. Zergling horde? Bolt Rifles!, Enemy tank? Bolt Rifles! Low Orbiting Spacecraft? Bolt Rifles! This is obviously a tongue-in-cheek take but hopfully it illustrates a point. There's some texture that's lost, the story of the unit is different.

I don't want to get to much into how vehicles used to take damage. It isn't how things are done anymore, and I don't think it is completely fair to Primaris much the same way comparing anything to taking on flyers when they first came out. Who knows how things would have been done back in the glance/pin days. There nothing to say Intercessors wouldn't have the capacity to carry melta bombs or something.

The way I see it is sure you can have a Tactical marine kill team ambush a some armor or a key concentration of troops. Being marines they will probably be okay versus PDF or Orks. At the same time, why not make use of Infiltrators with a comms array to make use of an orbital bombardment or air/artillery strike instead on an even greater target. A bit of swinging a sledgehammer to swat a fly yes, but that kind feels space marine to me as well. If I had air and space superiority to do so to further reduce the chance of losing some 200 years x size of the kill team, I know I would waste the ordinance.

I think you are spot on with the Starcraft marine comparison. The intercessor answer to everything is pretty much is more bolt rifle like the Starcraft marine's answer is more Gauss rifle. That doesn't really bother me as they are both providing an answer to any kind of enemy target making them both very generalist, backbone units. At the same time, I never felt that adding special weapons to tactical/CSM squads in Dawn of War were doing much more than upgrades in Starcraft. Probably because I am super terrible at RTS games. Part of me thinks that Warhammer 40k's scope has largely outgrown the minutia individual weapon loadout concerns when it went from a platoon to company level game. So I am not all that fussed about the loss. Obviously you are far more concerned about it.

I think I get the point you are trying to make. I just don't value that aspect nearly as much as you do since I didn't even when there was only Tacticals/CSMs, and I often didn't bother equipping more than bolters anyways. As a primarily a Kill Team player these days, I also don't see much of an issue since your units are per man not per unit so I can have mixed weapons kill teams for the independent operation you speak of. I would like to think that Kill Team is how the setting does put together small elite strike teams. I think the per datasheet mechanics of the game are what prevents things like Hellblasters being in Kill Team since it would allow a whole team of nothing but plasma incinerators. Maybe next Kill Team. I mean we finally got Terminators in this time, so progress.

I would like to mix weapons with Intercessors like it can be done with Tacticals. I just think when is possible, it is just a matter of fleshing out all the weapon options for Primaris that they are no longer reinforcements for marines but replacements. Even though my army doesn't have non-Primaris, I am not eager for that day to come. I want non-Primaris armies to be viable for a long while to always. There will always be people that hate Primaris but want to play loyalist marines. I don't want see them lose the ability. I like the idea of 3 ways (non-Primaris, Primaris, Composite) to play space marines.

. From 1st through 4th edition a single Missile or Las shot was actually quite capable of knocking out many vehicles. In the latter editions this has declined somewhat, but to me the earlier editions seemed more lore appropriate while the later editions were pushing for more vehicle/large unit sales. In any case, in-universe an anti-tank weapon like a lascannon seems adequate for the job.

It's also why Vehicles didn't really get used outside of niche cases that had massive benefits to cost ratio (Skimmerspam 4th, rhino spam to get assault troops quickly).

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

. From 1st through 4th edition a single Missile or Las shot was actually quite capable of knocking out many vehicles. In the latter editions this has declined somewhat, but to me the earlier editions seemed more lore appropriate while the later editions were pushing for more vehicle/large unit sales. In any case, in-universe an anti-tank weapon like a lascannon seems adequate for the job.

It's also why Vehicles didn't really get used outside of niche cases that had massive benefits to cost ratio (Skimmerspam 4th, rhino spam to get assault troops quickly).

Imo the infantry to vehicle ratio at that time was pretty good. 5th edition saw parking lots for deployment, a step in the wrong direction if you ask me. My 4th ed army saw a lot of success using about 50-something infantry and 3 vehicles (whirlwind, dreadnought, vindicator). I definitely knew Ork and Guard players that had more vehicles at the same time.

Talking about the wounds, I'd argue that it has to do with granularity being added into the setting. Marines have supposed to be harder to drop than most other races walking off wounds that would kill a normal man. And while they were harder to wound, they failed at representing the ability to keep fighting while wounded.

The extra wound gives them that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Talking about the wounds, I'd argue that it has to do with granularity being added into the setting. Marines have supposed to be harder to drop than most other races walking off wounds that would kill a normal man. And while they were harder to wound, they failed at representing the ability to keep fighting while wounded.

The extra wound gives them that.

They now feel like marines, I would say similar to RT.

Gravis are an invuln away from being what a Term suit should be, T5 3W 3+.

They really should've helped differentiate Terminators by giving them WS/BS2+. Would've felt like a more complete codex to me.

More people come into contact with the codexes than Black Library maybe.

Just to diverge a bit, I actually suspect you'd be wrong on that score, I suspect Black Library books might actually outsell codices. You're assuming that only 40k players read 40k novels and that not all 40k players read them. but I know a lotta people who have never touched 40k the game who read some of the books