Are Primaris finally being accepted? No negativity in this topic!

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**

Huh, no idea where my latest post has gone? Apologies for that.

robbienw wrote:There is a specific Mk8 helmet.

See the deathwatch kill team kit.

Its similar in look to the mk 7 helm but has noticeable differences.

I wasn't aware that was actually the Mark 8 helmet. I assumed it was just a Deathwatch variant of the Mark 7. Still, the majority of Mark 8 art has them wearing Mark 7 helmets, so I'm sure you can understand my misinformation.

Nitro Zeus wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I always love when this sort of comment gets brought up.

As usual, my response is unchanged: What about 30k Marines? Are they not Space Marines? If they're not Space Marines, then what did the Primarchs lead into battle, if not their Legions of Space Marines?

What about Assault Terminators and Centurions? They have very one-dimensional loadouts (fewer than nearly all Primaris units, in fact!)

Assault Terminators are already a sub customization of Terminators. They are identical in everything other than loadout, they are just separated on the FOC, as GW recognises that their role customization is SO broad that they didn't want the FOC to intrude upon the use of them in either aspect. Terminators in the game can have a ton of different load outs ranging from assault, shooting, mixed, etc, and they are one of the units I think have also been designed better in other editions when not put to the side for newer units. Aggressors options are literally a two way choice of either Flamestorm or Boltstorm. The example you give highlights it.

But then surely we should technically be classing Inceptors and Aggressors together, because they wear the same armour, just with loadout differences (loadout including such aspects as their jump packs). Not to mention that GW could easily have kept Terminators as a catch-all entry. Instead, they've been split into two separate units specifically to outline that their combat doctrine is distinct from the standard Terminators.

I just don't think it's a fair argument to claim that Terminators have a broad loadout, but it's spread over multiple types of unit entry, but when Primaris do similar, it doesn't count.

I'm not sure what you mean about 30k. I specifically said 40k, not 30k. The chapters are VERY different from the Legions. You know 30k was a setting that was filled in well after 40k was? In the history of the hobby it's actually quite a new thing, and hasn't retroactively changed the identity of the 40k chapters. When there was 100,000+ strong legions, individual specialisation was not a needed strength as much (except for the ones who operated in smaller teams, and in which case they were given that sort of specialization - an Alpha Legionnaire is trained for every different combat role for example). In 40k, Chapters are a fraction of this size, and customization of individual squads has always been a thing for tac marines in gameplay. Which is why I don't like the move away from that. The difference between Devastators and Hellblasters is a pretty stark example of what I dislike so far for example, if you point at units that aren't as bad at this, well it's probably not an issue I have. You aren't really trying to say that the Primaris range has been designed for the sort of squad customization that squat Marines have right? Surely you recognise what I dislike here?

I do recognise that the Legions aren't the Chapters, but they ARE both Space Marines.

If the whole "mono-weapon squads" was such an affront to the ideals of what it means to be a Space Marine, then why haven't I been seeing thread after thread on "why the Legion Space Marines aren't PROPER Astartes"? Just feels like a massive double standard to complain about the Primaris doing something, and then not a word when the Legions do the same. The identity of the Chapters are still unchanged. You still have roughly 10 Companies, of 10 Squads (or 20 Combat Squads), with each squad fulfilling a certain battlefield role, with the Battle Companies consisting of a mix of battlefield roles in order for maximum combat effectiveness. I'm sorry, but I don't think the customisation of one in every five guys in a Tactical Squad was a critical part of the Space Marine image, at least for me. I respect that people may think differently, but then I must insist - if embedded special weapons is *so important*, are Legion Astartes not what you consider to be Space Marines?

Fair enough on the aesthetics. It just feels like they are pushing TAC marines to the back with the rules writing, they are significantly worse than Primaris, and the difference is jarring, it appears to be some of the best units in the game sharing a codex with some of the worst units in the game, and you can just about draw that line by separating the primaris from the old marines, with some few exceptions.

I'd concede this point if it weren't for the fact that mono-Primaris build aren't exactly the best Marine armies out there, and that the supplements are buffing old Marines just as much as Primaris. Hell, most people seem to preferring Scouts to Tacticals, because they're cheap and act as chaff better as a result - which also feels like removing Tactical Marines from the picture.

End of the day, I don't think Primaris rules are much better than standard Marine ones to make me think that GW is pushing them away.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Calling someone a 'hater' just because they dislike parts of it just screams of reductive antagonism. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with subjective opinion, as long as everyone remembers what the distinction between opinion and fact is. Now, this isn't directed at you (you've not done this), but when someone might claim something like 'XYZ are the core foundations of what it is to be a Space Marine, and Primaris are objectively bad because they don't fit that!", that's not accurate, because XYZ are not universal features - therefore, the statement can't be anything more than an opinion.

Well, as you said, I haven't done that, so I don't really have any response to that, and I can't quite tell why you included it in your response to me. I haven't fully read through this thread though so maybe I'm missing some context, but I don't speak for anyone bar myself, and I was pretty clear to say in my post, "these things are the most iconic parts of 40k to me personally."

I did point that out, it's not directed at yourself. I just happened to mention that point in the same post. It's not directed at you, it's a general comment, which happened to be part of my general response. My apologies for any confusion.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Fair point. Likewise, I would say that feeling the compulsive need to go onto a thread specifically requesting that negative opinions be left at the door, and leaving a negative opinion is equally unhealthy.

Let people enjoy things. It's not like there's a shortage of threads where you can vent about Primaris Marines.

Eh? Where's the "negativity"? That I have one or two personal dislikes of the Primaris range, and time hasn't changed that for me? It's literally an answer to the thread topic, there's zero negativity aimed at anybody for what they like. You can't make a thread titled "Poll question - but only 'yes' answers though!", that's utterly absurd. I have no issue with anybody enjoying anything they want to - it's all entirely subjective and I'd never tell someone they are wrong for liking what they like, I didn't imply anything of the sort, I'm just sharing my personal feedback on whether or not time has alleviated the issues I had with the range. As you tell to let others like what they like - absolutely, and I've never intrude on that, but perhaps you should take a heavy dose of your own advice and also let others dislike what they dislike, that was my entire point about the obsession some people seem to have with what other people think about this range, and why it's an unhealthy one.

I think the OP was more asking "have people started accepting Primaris, but we don't need to talk about if we personally like them or not, just what our perceptions of the community are". It's not exactly a 'discuss what we like and what we don't', because those seem to be a dime a dozen here.

The negativity is more referring to "we don't need to have a debate on what we like or don't like, there's been so many other threads for that" - sure, that may have made this thread a bit of a dull one for discussion as we can't throw in opinions so much, but it would have felt less like 'generic Primaris thread number 45' - however, I think by this point, it's gone a little off that original stipulation.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Ishagu wrote:
I believe the attitudes are starting to shift, albeit slowly. So... let's keep this civil.

I can accept that Primaris might have been a shock to the system of long term hobbyists when they were first unveiled. I certainly wasn't happy myself and I remember it very clearly!

Rewind back in time a few years. 7th edition was starting to wind down and the game was a bloated, broken mess - magnitudes worse than anything today. I had literally just completed a massive re-build of my extensive Ultramarines army. I had fallen in love with the Heresy era Mk4 armours and had painfully replaced most of the infantry in my army with these more exotic looking Astartes. I was also a big collector of Forgeword and had invested in multiple vehicles (I was also playing a lot of 30k back then too).
One day I stopped by my local GW and saw that the store manager was re-basing the store's Astartes army; He was putting every model on a raised base. I asked why he was doing this but he couldn't tell me. This was mere days before the Primaris reveal and I believe many of the store managers had been briefed about the huge release. He was literally trying to raise the Astartes to the same height as the up-coming Primaris. Funny enough he had only just completed the army – same as me with the Ultras...

The big reveal happened and at first I didn't know how to feel. I was both upset and mildly in disbelief and that feeling continued until I saw the models in person. That's when things changed for me and I decided to take the plunge.
As we all remember the rules were not particularly exciting when they first dropped - The Primaris were absolutely not required for an Astartes army to function, and the model line was extremely limited on top of that. I was actually grateful for this! I knew that this wouldn't be the case forever, and it allowed me to collect the army at a leisurely pace as there was no game related need to include the models or rush. Gradually over the course of a year I amassed a big army and continued to add to it as new things were released. I now find myself with over 4000 points of fully painted Primaris and have enjoyed using them very much - especially with the new codex.

I think a lot of people were upset or angry with the release and I do understand the feeling, however after two years I firmly believe it should be subsiding or even gone. I think GW focused heavily on the Ultras for a long time and that also upset people. The Primaris and the Ultramarines were merged as a single enemy of the lore and hobby in people's minds, even though this was not going to be the case in the long term - as we can evidently see now.
I also think that the lack of variety was turning people off as well, but again that was only ever going to be a temporary state for the Primaris. The old range wasn't released in its final state from the start - it began with a few basic kits and it grew over many years and releases. The new range was never going to compete with this in terms of sheer variety out of the gate. It's the same with the lore.

The new codex has been a great success for the hobby and fans of Astartes. The book is high in quality and powerful (perhaps too powerful) and the supplements are allowing for more unique ways to play the various chapters than ever before. Finally they are getting the lore and rules support they deserve and also quality, unique models in most cases. I think this is finally starting to separate the Primaris from the hated Ultras in people's minds lol.

So, more than two years after Primaris were revealed. After many months of complaining from certain parts of the community, after much rage and anger, are we finally starting to see the community shift?
I think so! I'm seeing more topics discussing the Primaris units that aren't being derailed and far less hostility, and the chapter unique models have been very well received by the vast majority - and that is not something that typically happens with a Primaris release! Of course there are still those who have pledged themselves to Nurgle and don't want to see any new releases or change of any kind....

Thoughts?

Personally, I have essentially never been really enthusiastic about space marines in any capacity until fairly recently. The infantry was butt-ugly and anything "cool and unique" about them the Sisters of Battle do better with better looking models and a more fun approach to the themes. I do have a Space Wolf army as my third army, but it's been long neglected and I acquired it for $0 secondhand from somebody looking to get out of the hobby.

However, when Shadowspear came out, I was like "Wow. If Space Marines had the aesthetic of Eliminators from the beginning, I would probably also play Raptors" I love the new ridiculous tacticool aesthetic that the new Space Marines have. It's distinctive and synchronizes with the genetically-engineered soldiers part of the lore in a perfect over-the-top and funny 40k way. I'm now actually reasonably excited about playing my Space Wolves and acquiring new models for them [I haven't done so yet since my second army's first major release of my lifetime is coming up]; I want to get a Vindicator squadron and a Executioner.

**fraser1191**

I always liked Cato's model. It's why I play UM so I hope he doesn't get sidelined.

**Stormonu**

Personally, I think with the state of the game that building any unit that doesn’t have some form of anti-tank weaponry is bad design. Same with any melee-only unit with no ranged weaponry. These were things that could work back through early 5E, but with super-heavies, monsters, vehicle squadrons and knights abound the average infantryman armed with a semiautomatic rifle just doesn’t cut it - even less so the axe-wielding maniac running at his opponent as he screams at the top of his lungs.

**Saturmorn Carvilli**

Funny story from this weekend. One of the newer players has been somewhat collecting a Crimson Fists kill team. He didn't even really know their was a difference between Primaris and Firstborn. He has just getting what he liked for the most part. He has even played both my Avenging Eagles Primaris and my Dark Angels Fallen (Dark Angel Vet models) in Kill Team too. Granted he is more of a social gamer than caring too much about the lore, but he doesn't seem to mind too much when I explain a few of the basics.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
However, when Shadowspear came out, I was like "Wow. If Space Marines had the aesthetic of Eliminators from the beginning, I would probably also play Raptors" I love the new ridiculous tacticool aesthetic that the new Space Marines have. It's distinctive and synchronizes with the genetically-engineered soldiers part of the lore in a perfect over-the-top and funny 40k way. I'm now actually reasonably excited about playing my Space Wolves and acquiring new models for them [I haven't done so yet since my second army's first major release of my lifetime is coming up]; I want to get a Vindicator squadron and a Executioner.

This is why I have a Primaris space marine army in Raptors colors though I made them a custom chapter. It started with some scouts I repainted for a friend of mine who I though would like his kill team in more military colors. I bought Shadowspear more for the CSM, but decided to paint the space marines to match the scouts. Then I decided to get First Strike so I could have Primaris and Death Guard kill teams. Working on the Reiver models changing their knives to chainswords, they quickly over took Terminators as my favorite 40k unit. Reivers just epitomize everything about 40k to me. They are well sculpted, nice looking models that combine 90's comics tacticool with all their pouches and straps while retaining a hint of fantasy (bucket boots, leather belt, etc.) that is ever present in 40k, and finally; they have that super edgy but ultimately silly skull mask which feels like they are taking themselves too seriously which comes all they way back around and is silly which pretty much any element of 40k is if you scrutinize it too closely. Reivers combined with me finding Primaris to be a blast to paint, I decided to make a full army. Now I have a decent collection of Primaris space marines and they are probably my best painted anything.

**Nitro Zeus**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But then surely we should technically be classing Inceptors and Aggressors together, because they wear the same armour, just with loadout differences (loadout including such aspects as their jump packs). Not to mention that GW could easily have kept Terminators as a catch-all entry. Instead, they've been split into two separate units specifically to outline that their combat doctrine is distinct from the standard Terminators.

I just don't think it's a fair argument to claim that Terminators have a broad loadout, but it's spread over multiple types of unit entry, but when Primaris do similar, it doesn't count.

But Inceptors and Aggressors are vastly different base model. Look at the rules that differ between the two. 2+ armor, relentless, deepstrike, that's the difference between Marines and Terminators right there alone. Then massive rules differences like doubleshooting, 10" move speed, fly, etc. They aren't even remotely similar base profiles. Terminators and Terminator assault squads literally have one difference ruleswise - what weapon they take in their hands. There is no comparison here, but even if there was - that would still be literally 3 different possible Primaris loadouts factoring in every single upgrade possible, and all of them affect the entire squad as whole. They lack the customizability that I love about Marines at squad level, the modular nature of them just isn't present in Primaris and we both know it. This is one of those things that you can say "I don't personally care about this" but if you are genuinely going to argue that it's not even the case I'd say you aren't even conceding the tiniest point. You have to accept that there is big differences in design between Primaris and old marines.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If the whole "mono-weapon squads" was such an affront to the ideals of what it means to be a Space Marine, then why haven't I been seeing thread after thread on "why the Legion Space Marines aren't PROPER Astartes"? Just feels like a massive double standard to complain about the Primaris doing something, and then not a word when the Legions do the same. The identity of the Chapters are still unchanged. You still have roughly 10 Companies, of 10 Squads (or 20 Combat Squads), with each squad fulfilling a certain battlefield role, with the Battle Companies consisting of a mix of battlefield roles in order for maximum combat effectiveness. I'm sorry, but I don't think the customisation of one in every five guys in a Tactical Squad was a critical part of the Space Marine image, at least for me. I respect that people may think differently, but then I must insist - if embedded special weapons is *so important*, are Legion Astartes not what you consider to be Space Marines?

I feel like you didn't even read my response. This entire post is thoroughly countered by just quoting what I just said again, but I'll try reword it again. The legions are VASTLY different entity's to 40k. Chapters inside the legion do not match up with chapters today. I feel like you either have a lax understanding of one of the two settings to think this, but which one I'm unsure. Regardless, even if what you were saying is true - the Tactical Support Squad (the unit that went on to be the TAC squad of 40k) is exactly this. I don't expect 30k units to be customizable like I expect of 40k marine troops, and most infantry. And regardless the topic here was 40k, not 30k, so don't think that I don't have issue with some of the design of units in 30k too, pointing at this doesn't alleviate any of my dislikes of the Primaris range.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
then why haven't I been seeing thread after thread

Addressing this point concerning, well, anything - I don't know. This is my second time ever posting about Primaris in my lifetime, in a thread dedicated to the topic and polling for answers related to it. I don't care or need to know what others spend their time making thread after thread about, it has no bearing on my personal subjective opinion and you bringing it up to me (over and over) is just transparent deflection.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
End of the day, I don't think Primaris rules are much better than standard Marine ones to make me think that GW is pushing them away.

Then you're wrong. Not even by a small margin. Everything doing well is almost thoroughly Primaris. 100-200 points of Scouts are showing up in lists thanks to their cheap cost and scoring. Basically every single other unit is a mixture of vechicles and every single Primaris unit. Aggressors, Infiltrators, Eliminators, Intercessors, Repulsors, Redemptors, Invictors, etc, all getting HEAVY play. These units account for a fraction of the dex yet comprise the majority OF a majority of lists. Other than scouts and HQ, I think the only non-Primaris infantry unit to get played was a unit of Bikes in one list lol.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I think the OP was more asking "have people started accepting Primaris, but we don't need to talk about if we personally like them or not, just what our perceptions of the community are". It's not exactly a 'discuss what we like and what we don't', because those seem to be a dime a dozen here.

Cool, well then this thread should probably get locked if that's the case as it asks a two-way question but dictates only one answer being acceptable. Do I think the members of the community have moved on from issues with the primaris range because of time? No, I don't think so at all, and it certainly hasn't for me as my issues are still just as present today. "Stop being so negative about Primaris in this thread!".

**Sgt_Smudge**

Nitro Zeus wrote:
But Inceptors and Aggressors are vastly different base model. Look at the rules that differ between the two. 2+ armor, relentless, deepstrike, that's the difference between Marines and Terminators right there alone. Then massive rules differences like doubleshooting, 10" move speed, fly, etc. They aren't even remotely similar base profiles. Terminators and Terminator assault squads literally have one difference ruleswise - what weapon they take in their hands. There is no comparison here, but even if there was - that would still be literally 3 different possible Primaris loadouts factoring in every single upgrade possible, and all of them affect the entire squad as whole. They lack the customizability that I love about Marines at squad level, the modular nature of them just isn't present in Primaris and we both know it. This is one of those things that you can say "I don't personally care about this" but if you are genuinely going to argue that it's not even the case I'd say you aren't even conceding the tiniest point. You have to accept that there is big differences in design between Primaris and old marines.

Not really. They both wear Gravis Armour (which is basically Terminator Armour), and only differ in their weaponry and wargear. I don't think they're vastly that different, no more so than between Tacticals and Devastators and Assault Marines, or Assault Terminators and regular Terminators.

I genuinely don't think that that there's big differences between Primaris and Firstborn wargear.

I feel like you didn't even read my response. This entire post is thoroughly countered by just quoting what I just said again, but I'll try reword it again. The legions are VASTLY different entity's to 40k. Chapters inside the legion do not match up with chapters today. I feel like you either have a lax understanding of one of the two settings to think this, but which one I'm unsure. Regardless, even if what you were saying is true - the Tactical Support Squad (the unit that went on to be the TAC squad of 40k) is exactly this. I don't expect 30k units to be customizable like I expect of 40k marine troops, and most infantry. And regardless the topic here was 40k, not 30k, so don't think that I don't have issue with some of the design of units in 30k too, pointing at this doesn't alleviate any of my dislikes of the Primaris range.

My point is that they're still both SPACE MARINES. To argue that Primaris do not fill the Space Marine design paradigm is to argue that the Legions were not made up of Space Marines too.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
then why haven't I been seeing thread after thread

Addressing this point concerning, well, anything - I don't know. This is my second time ever posting about Primaris in my lifetime, in a thread dedicated to the topic and polling for answers related to it. I don't care or need to know what others spend their time making thread after thread about, it has no bearing on my personal subjective opinion and you bringing it up to me (over and over) is just transparent deflection.

I'm not blaming you for it, but am I not allowed to ask open-ended general questions in my posts? Or can I only talk directly to you?

It's not deflection. It's drawing attention to the pretty big double standard on Primaris doing something, and it being endlessly criticised, but those same things not being brought up when anything else does it. I'm not directing that at anyone in particular, but I think it is important to have a sense of perspective when it comes to the sheer volume of people vocally criticising Primaris.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
End of the day, I don't think Primaris rules are much better than standard Marine ones to make me think that GW is pushing them away.

Then you're wrong. Not even by a small margin. Everything doing well is almost thoroughly Primaris. 100-200 points of Scouts are showing up in lists thanks to their cheap cost and scoring. Basically every single other unit is a mixture of vechicles and every single Primaris unit. Aggressors, Infiltrators, Eliminators, Intercessors, Repulsors, Redemptors, Invictors, etc, all getting HEAVY play. These units account for a fraction of the dex yet comprise the majority OF a majority of lists. Other than scouts and HQ, I think the only non-Primaris infantry unit to get played was a unit of Bikes in one list lol.

Two words: Leviathan Dreadnought.

**Nitro Zeus**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:
But Inceptors and Aggressors are vastly different base model. Look at the rules that differ between the two. 2+ armor, relentless, deepstrike, that's the difference between Marines and Terminators right there alone. Then massive rules differences like doubleshooting, 10" move speed, fly, etc. They aren't even remotely similar base profiles. Terminators and Terminator assault squads literally have one difference ruleswise - what weapon they take in their hands. There is no comparison here, but even if there was - that would still be literally 3 different possible Primaris loadouts factoring in every single upgrade possible, and all of them affect the entire squad as whole. They lack the customizability that I love about Marines at squad level, the modular nature of them just isn't present in Primaris and we both know it. This is one of those things that you can say "I don't personally care about this" but if you are genuinely going to argue that it's not even the case I'd say you aren't even conceding the tiniest point. You have to accept that there is big differences in design between Primaris and old marines.
Not really. They both wear Gravis Armour (which is basically Terminator Armour), and only differ in their weaponry and wargear. I don't think they're vastly that different, no more so than between Tacticals and Devastators and Assault Marines, or Assault Terminators and regular Terminators.

I genuinely don't think that that there's big differences between Primaris and Firstborn wargear.

This is just bizarre.

You said Assault Terminators are an example of a marine unit without much squad level customization - I point out that other than the weapons you are choosing for them, they are already a subcustomization of a unit that they are otherwise identical to in every single way including rules, name, and aesthetics.

You say "well the same is true of Inceptors and Aggressors", I list all some of the plentiful reasons they are completely different, they dont have the same armor save, they dont have the same move speed, the same deployment options, the double shooting rule, the relentless rule, deepstrike rule, fly rule etc., And your response is just to say "nah not really different units, they wear the same armor in the lore". .... okay.... Well, they are to me?

On top of that, they still don't have the squad customization even if you DO include them as the same unit.

What on earth is this? Why are you so obsessed with what I do and what I don't like? Why are you trying to tell me I'm wrong for disliking an aspect of Primaris to the extent of making such reaches? Remember when you said to let people like what they like - that statement goes both ways.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
My point is that they're still both SPACE MARINES. To argue that Primaris do not fill the Space Marine design paradigm is to argue that the Legions were not made up of Space Marines too.

I said it in my initial post that I was talking about 40k Marines. I've then reclarified for you every single post that I was indeed talking about 40k marines. The Legions AREN'T made up of the Space Marines of 40k, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Nobody familiar with the lore would claim otherwise. So can we get back to the talk about primaris in 40k please? Thanks.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
It's not deflection. It's drawing attention to the pretty big double standard on Primaris doing something, and it being endlessly criticised, but those same things not being brought up when anything else does it. I'm not directing that at anyone in particular, but I think it is important to have a sense of perspective when it comes to the sheer volume of people vocally criticising Primaris.

Okay, cool.

In future I'm just not going to bother reading these tangents you seem to be incapable of avoiding straying into, unless they are addressing some statement I've actually made (rather than just being framed as though they are).

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
End of the day, I don't think Primaris rules are much better than standard Marine ones to make me think that GW is pushing them away.

Then you're wrong. Not even by a small margin. Everything doing well is almost thoroughly Primaris. 100-200 points of Scouts are showing up in lists thanks to their cheap cost and scoring. Basically every single other unit is a mixture of vechicles and every single Primaris unit. Aggressors, Infiltrators, Eliminators, Intercessors, Repulsors, Redemptors, Invictors, etc, all getting HEAVY play. These units account for a fraction of the dex yet comprise the majority OF a majority of lists. Other than scouts and HQ, I think the only non-Primaris infantry unit to get played was a unit of Bikes in one list lol.
Two words: Leviathan Dreadnought.

Barely played at all so far, also isn't an infantry unit, nor one of the big iconic parts of the SM range to me and most people I know, in fact it's a recent addition and Forgeworld only relic dreadnought unit. Maybe you view it differently, but that's not all relevant to my personal subjective tastes.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Nitro Zeus wrote:This is just bizarre.

You said Assault Terminators are an example of a marine unit without much squad level customization - I point out that other than the weapons you are choosing for them, they are already a subcustomization of a unit that they are otherwise identical to in every single way including rules, name, and aesthetics.

You say "well the same is true of Inceptors and Aggressors", I list all some of the plentiful reasons they are completely different, they dont have the same armor save, they dont have the same move speed, the same deployment options, the double shooting rule, the relentless rule, deepstrike rule, fly rule etc., And your response is just to say "nah not really different units, they wear the same armor in the lore". .... okay.... Well, they are to me?

Okay - so Assault Terminators and regular Terminators are distinct units "to me".

The reason that Assault Termies and regular Termies are separate is because of their wargear options. The reason Inceptors and Aggressors are separate is because of their wargear options. Ergo, I see no difference. If Assault Terminators were actually just folded into the Terminator Squad entry (as I think they should be, personally), then I'd concede this point, but they're simply not. Assault Terminators are regarded as a distinctly separate unit from normal Terminators, and as a result do not have mixed squad loadouts. Therefore, my point stands.
Again, my initial discussion of this was to challenge and inquire into your opinion on "Primaris have mono-options, and regular Marines don't!" - by highlighting how there really isn't much difference in my eyes. Remember, as you said: "they are to me".

On top of that, they still don't have the squad customization even if you DO include them as the same unit.

What on earth is this? Why are you so obsessed with what I do and what I don't like? Why are you trying to tell me I'm wrong for disliking an aspect of Primaris to the extent of making such reaches? Remember when you said to let people like what they like - that statement goes both ways.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just pointing out inconsistencies with your argument. As per normal - this isn't a critique on your opinion. It's a deconstruction of things claimed to be facts. Things like "Primaris Marines not having customisation is alien to what old Marines had", when that's simply not true.

I haven't got a problem what you like or don't. It's claiming things as factual instead of just personal perception that's what I'm pointing out. I don't hide the fact that my opinion on Primaris are based on my perception of what I think Space Marines are. I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page that we're discussing our personal biases and perceptions of what Space Marines even are.

I said it in my initial post that I was talking about 40k Marines. I've then reclarified for you every single post that I was indeed talking about 40k marines. The Legions AREN'T made up of the Space Marines of 40k, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Nobody familiar with the lore would claim otherwise. So can we get back to the talk about primaris in 40k please? Thanks.

And I don't see that there's any difference between 30k and 40k Space Marines. They're Space Marines. What, should I be classing Primaris as 41k Marines?

There's no reason why I should be ignoring 30k Space Marines simply because they come from a different time period, because if I were doing that, surely I should be ignoring 40k Marines, because they're older than Primaris.

This whole point is to highlight the fact that we can't even settle on what a Space Marine is - hence my prior comment on not making statements as if they were facts.

Barely played at all so far,

Pardon? They've been incredibly popular for years! Hell, there's two rather divisive threads on them right now, and they seem to be in nearly every competitive SM list these days.

also isn't an infantry unit, nor one of the big iconic parts of the SM range to me and most people I know, in fact it's a recent addition and Forgeworld only relic dreadnought unit. Maybe you view it differently, but that's not all relevant to my personal subjective tastes.

Perhaps, but it IS a Space Marine non-Primaris unit. Maybe according to your personal subjective tastes, it's not a "real" Space Marine unit, fair enough, but from mine, it's clearly a part of the Space Marine range, so is relevant to *my* argument.

If you want to pick and choose what is and isn't part of the old Marine line to support your argument that Primaris are favoured in rules, fair play - but please don't pretend that you're not ignoring certain units in that.

**Slayer-Fan123**

All the Terminators need to be consolidated into just a single entry. Seems silly that no Tactical Terminator squad EVER used one dude that has one of the last Tart armors that has an Autocannon. Ever. Noooooooooo different armors must not mix!

**pm713**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
All the Terminators need to be consolidated into just a single entry. Seems silly that no Tactical Terminator squad EVER used one dude that has one of the last Tart armors that has an Autocannon. Ever. Noooooooooo different armors must not mix!

Easy solution: Go back to just one kind of armour.

**Slayer-Fan123**

pm713 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
All the Terminators need to be consolidated into just a single entry. Seems silly that no Tactical Terminator squad EVER used one dude that has one of the last Tart armors that has an Autocannon. Ever. Noooooooooo different armors must not mix!

Easy solution: Go back to just one kind of armour.

That was kinda my point, yes. I suppose I could've made that slightly more clear though.

**Moriarty**

New players only have the Primaris to look at, so they inevitably have accepted them.

Old players have mixed views, for aesthetic and rules reasons.

New Marines models are not problematic for me, just another example of 'scale creep'. Compared my RT (standing) Marine with the latest Primaris character, had the whole 'Ant Man' experience. Thinking of playing them as Sisters - size wise they would fit better.

New Marines rules seem full of 'gotcha' clauses. Missed the Hit roll? Have a re-roll. I have no problem with these 'movie marine' rules, just the points they (don't) cost. I'd rather play against an army with _some_ weaknesses, or be able to cope with the damage inflicted by them.

**Nitro Zeus**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:This is just bizarre.

You said Assault Terminators are an example of a marine unit without much squad level customization - I point out that other than the weapons you are choosing for them, they are already a subcustomization of a unit that they are otherwise identical to in every single way including rules, name, and aesthetics.

You say "well the same is true of Inceptors and Aggressors", I list all some of the plentiful reasons they are completely different, they dont have the same armor save, they dont have the same move speed, the same deployment options, the double shooting rule, the relentless rule, deepstrike rule, fly rule etc., And your response is just to say "nah not really different units, they wear the same armor in the lore". .... okay.... Well, they are to me?
Okay - so Assault Terminators and regular Terminators are distinct units "to me".

The reason that Assault Termies and regular Termies are separate is because of their wargear options. The reason Inceptors and Aggressors are separate is because of their wargear options. Ergo, I see no difference. If Assault Terminators were actually just folded into the Terminator Squad entry (as I think they should be, personally), then I'd concede this point, but they're simply not. Assault Terminators are regarded as a distinctly separate unit from normal Terminators, and as a result do not have mixed squad loadouts. Therefore, my point stands.
Again, my initial discussion of this was to challenge and inquire into your opinion on "Primaris have mono-options, and regular Marines don't!" - by highlighting how there really isn't much difference in my eyes. Remember, as you said: "they are to me".

Okay, cool. I'm unsure what you difference you think it makes to anything I've said so far, and your unwillingness to drop this just seems to highlight the fact that you aren't capable of taking a single step back on anything here. But thanks for sharing your completely mind-melting definition of how Aggressors and Inceptors are the same base unit, but two different weapon load outs for Terminators aren't. It's pretty irrational, but you're entitled to your opinion, so let's just agree to disagree!

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just pointing out inconsistencies with your argument.

LOL. You really said that with a straight face didn't you?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
As per normal - this isn't a critique on your opinion. It's a deconstruction of things claimed to be facts. Things like "Primaris Marines not having customisation is alien to what old Marines had", when that's simply not true.

I haven't got a problem what you like or don't. It's claiming things as factual instead of just personal perception that's what I'm pointing out.

But that's absolutely and unmistakably not what you're freaking out about here. I've said about 30 times this is entirely subjective and all my personal opinion, and that new marines don't capture what old marines did for me personally. You've had to trim this stuff out of quotes to make extremely dishonest attempts at pretending otherwise, but nobody is fooled.

You're blatantly just unhappy that someone dislikes something you like. Get over it.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
said it in my initial post that I was talking about 40k Marines. I've then reclarified for you every single post that I was indeed talking about 40k marines. The Legions AREN'T made up of the Space Marines of 40k, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Nobody familiar with the lore would claim otherwise. So can we get back to the talk about primaris in 40k please? Thanks.
And I don't see that there's any difference between 30k and 40k Space Marines. They're Space Marines. What, should I be classing Primaris as 41k Marines?

There's no reason why I should be ignoring 30k Space Marines simply because they come from a different time period, because if I were doing that, surely I should be ignoring 40k Marines, because they're older than Primaris.

.... I'm sorry... did you just read what you said... ? There's no reason that that we should be ignoring 30k marines for being different because they are from a different era, because that would mean that 40k marines are different to Primaris, since they are from a different time period?

My entire point is that 40k marines are different to the new Primaris! What did you think we were saying? They ARE from a different era, and they are different, and I'm saying I like the design of the old ones better! It's literally what the topic of the thread is about.

You're so caught up in not backing down from this absurd argument you've began that you are just arguing for the sake of being right, without even considering what you are saying anymore.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And I don't see that there's any difference between 30k and 40k Space Marines.

Okay, cool. So you're unfamiliar with the setting. That's all you had to say.

Look up "Codex Astartes" for starters. And no, its not the rulebook that you use to push around toy men across the table. The difference in setting is vast, as are the rules to reflect it, and the issues you describe aren't even present anyway, but you continually ignore that, so have fun "pointing out inconsistencies" I guess.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
they seem to be in nearly every competitive SM list these days.

They are in a grand total of 2 of the 13 SM lists to place so far. Both were the gimmicky "leviathan spam" list.

Like most things competitive, what actually does well competitively does not reflect what places like dakka are making thread after thread complaining about. We had what, 4 threads about the Kelermorph being OP last release? Leviathan isn't even halfway to there yet. It's irrelevant though, as it could be in every list, and my point would remain unchanged.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
also isn't an infantry unit, nor one of the big iconic parts of the SM range to me and most people I know, in fact it's a recent addition and Forgeworld only relic dreadnought unit. Maybe you view it differently, but that's not all relevant to my personal subjective tastes.
Perhaps, but it IS a Space Marine non-Primaris unit. Maybe according to your personal subjective tastes, it's not a "real" Space Marine unit, fair enough, but from mine, it's clearly a part of the Space Marine range, so is relevant to *my* argument.

If you want to pick and choose what is and isn't part of the old Marine line to support your argument that Primaris are favoured in rules, fair play - but please don't pretend that you're not ignoring certain units in that.

I didn't pretend anything of the sort - I outright said here that my complaint is that I feel like they are sidelining the things that are, and I quote AGAIN, "are the most iconic parts of 40k to me personally." If you find this a difficult topic to argue, that's probably because it's impossible seeing as it's entirely subjective feedback, yet you're literally sitting here trying to tell me that mine is wrong.

Anyway, this was productive, but you seem like the strongest candidate possible for utilising dakkadakka's blocklist, so I'm going to ahead and call it here. Today has only served to reinforce the stereotype for me, and I'd rather distance myself from that.

**Alcibiades**

Daba wrote:

Primaris are literally 'bigger and cooler' Marines.

I'm not seeing it. They don't play like traditional marines, and it's pretty clear that they have been designed so as not to take the place of traditional marines. They are highly specialized. Hellblasters are not better Devastators, that can do different things. Intercessors are not better Tacticals -- their lack of special and heavy weapons means that they cannot fill that roll. There is no assault marine equivalent, And so on.

**Nitro Zeus**

Alcibiades wrote:
Daba wrote:

Primaris are literally 'bigger and cooler' Marines.

I'm not seeing it. They don't play like traditional marines, and it's pretty clear that they have been designed so as not to take the place of traditional marines. They are highly specialized. Hellblasters are not better Devastators, that can do different things. Intercessors are not better Tacticals -- their lack of special and heavy weapons means that they cannot fill that roll. There is no assault marine equivalent, And so on.

careful, to say that is heresy for some people around these parts

**VAYASEN**

As somebody who has known 40k since launch in 1987 and just recently bought Dark Imperium after 20 years away(but generally abreast of a lot of things due to Horus Heresy Novels etc)....I can honestly say I find Primers baffling.

where are the Assault Marines, where are the devastators? I get it...im old school but I just dont get it. Intercessors??

Im only gluing/painting atm...will look at the rules after but all very alien to me...and we all know the alien is unclean.

**beast_gts**

VAYASEN wrote:
where are the Assault Marines, where are the devastators? I get it...im old school but I just dont get it. Intercessors??

Tactical / Assault / Devastator has been updated to Battleline / Close Support / Fire Support, with several (Primaris) options for each - Intercessors & Infiltrators are both Battleline units, for example.

**BrianDavion**

that said old school tactical, assault and devestator squads are still a thing.

**Grimtuff**

VAYASEN wrote:
As somebody who has known 40k since launch in 1987 and just recently bought Dark Imperium after 20 years away(but generally abreast of a lot of things due to Horus Heresy Novels etc)....I can honestly say I find Primers baffling.

where are the Assault Marines, where are the devastators? I get it...im old school but I just dont get it. Intercessors??

Im only gluing/painting atm...will look at the rules after but all very alien to me...and we all know the alien is unclean.

Intercessors is an in-universe thematic name (an intercessor is someone who intervened on behalf of someone usually through prayer) reflecting their arrival after the Great Rift formed. I expect the name to get changed at some point when the old SMS are either gone or they are integrated more fully.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Nitro Zeus wrote:Okay, cool. I'm unsure what you difference you think it makes to anything I've said so far, and your unwillingness to drop this just seems to highlight the fact that you aren't capable of taking a single step back on anything here. But thanks for sharing your completely mind-melting definition of how Aggressors and Inceptors are the same base unit, but two different weapon load outs for Terminators aren't. It's pretty irrational, but you're entitled to your opinion, so let's just agree to disagree!

Agreed. It's clearly a difference in perception.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just pointing out inconsistencies with your argument.

LOL. You really said that with a straight face didn't you?

That's not saying you're wrong. If your opinion is XYZ, that's cool. It's just that said opinion is inconsistent with similar things, and I wish to get an understanding of why that is.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
As per normal - this isn't a critique on your opinion. It's a deconstruction of things claimed to be facts. Things like "Primaris Marines not having customisation is alien to what old Marines had", when that's simply not true.

I haven't got a problem what you like or don't. It's claiming things as factual instead of just personal perception that's what I'm pointing out.

But that's absolutely and unmistakably not what you're freaking out about here. I've said about 30 times this is entirely subjective and all my personal opinion, and that new marines don't capture what old marines did for me personally. You've had to trim this stuff out of quotes to make extremely dishonest attempts at pretending otherwise, but nobody is fooled.

You're blatantly just unhappy that someone dislikes something you like. Get over it.

That's really not the case. While I respect your personal opinions (hell, I'm a massive advocate for the importance of opinion over anything else), that doesn't mean I won't point out things claimed as factual. My trimming of quotes isn't an attempt to misrepresent your argument at all - it's to make sure that we're not leaving massive ziggurats of text blocks. As you said yourself - it's not fooling anyone, because it's not hard to go back and see the full comment. There's no need to believe that I'm misrepresenting your argument.

I honestly don't care if you don't like something I do - but is challenging an opinion not accepted? I'm not attacking you, or your beliefs beyond asking a question to get an understanding of why there's a inconsistency in it. It's not personal.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
said it in my initial post that I was talking about 40k Marines. I've then reclarified for you every single post that I was indeed talking about 40k marines. The Legions AREN'T made up of the Space Marines of 40k, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Nobody familiar with the lore would claim otherwise. So can we get back to the talk about primaris in 40k please? Thanks.
And I don't see that there's any difference between 30k and 40k Space Marines. They're Space Marines. What, should I be classing Primaris as 41k Marines?

There's no reason why I should be ignoring 30k Space Marines simply because they come from a different time period, because if I were doing that, surely I should be ignoring 40k Marines, because they're older than Primaris.

.... I'm sorry... did you just read what you said... ? There's no reason that that we should be ignoring 30k marines for being different because they are from a different era, because that would mean that 40k marines are different to Primaris, since they are from a different time period?

My entire point is that 40k marines are different to the new Primaris! What did you think we were saying? They ARE from a different era, and they are different, and I'm saying I like the design of the old ones better! It's literally what the topic of the thread is about.

You claimed that the Primaris Marines had a distinctly non-Space Marine "one dimensional loadout". I asked "what does that make 30k Marines who also have a one-dimensional loadout?" You're saying we should just ignore 30k Marines, because they're not from the same time period - but why? Are they not Space Marines? Why does them being older affect if they're Space Marines or not?

Remember - your initial comment was "Also, their one dimensional loadouts is antithetical to everything marines imo." That's fine - but you haven't specified 40k Marines. You just said "Marines" - and I don't see why 30k Marines are not also Space Marines.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And I don't see that there's any difference between 30k and 40k Space Marines.

Okay, cool. So you're unfamiliar with the setting. That's all you had to say.

No, you're ignoring it. It's okay to say "I don't class Legion Astartes as Space Marines" - it gives me an idea on what your view is. Unfortunately, just saying "30K IS IRRELEVANT!" doesn't help with that.

Also, so much for letting people have their own opinions, eh? Claiming that I'm "unfamiliar with the setting" because my opinion is different from yours? I've made it clear that this is entirely subjective and all my personal opinion, and that 40k Marines are functionally the same as 30k Marines for me.

Look up "Codex Astartes" for starters. And no, its not the rulebook that you use to push around toy men across the table. The difference in setting is vast, as are the rules to reflect it, and the issues you describe aren't even present anyway, but you continually ignore that, so have fun "pointing out inconsistencies" I guess.

You're saying that like it's a fact. That's your opinion. I respect yours. Now respect mine, instead of needing to get condescending.
Also, I'm not sure we're talking about the same aspect of 30k vs 40k. I'm not talking about every part of 40k/30k being the same, I'm talking about their combat doctrines - which I don't think have changed massively. Tacticals are still Tacticals.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
they seem to be in nearly every competitive SM list these days.

They are in a grand total of 2 of the 13 SM lists to place so far. Both were the gimmicky "leviathan spam" list.

Like most things competitive, what actually does well competitively does not reflect what places like dakka are making thread after thread complaining about. We had what, 4 threads about the Kelermorph being OP last release? Leviathan isn't even halfway to there yet. It's irrelevant though, as it could be in every list, and my point would remain unchanged.

Likewise, I'm not seeing mono-Primaris lists taking anything by storm. Most of it seems to be dreadnoughts.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
also isn't an infantry unit, nor one of the big iconic parts of the SM range to me and most people I know, in fact it's a recent addition and Forgeworld only relic dreadnought unit. Maybe you view it differently, but that's not all relevant to my personal subjective tastes.
Perhaps, but it IS a Space Marine non-Primaris unit. Maybe according to your personal subjective tastes, it's not a "real" Space Marine unit, fair enough, but from mine, it's clearly a part of the Space Marine range, so is relevant to *my* argument.

If you want to pick and choose what is and isn't part of the old Marine line to support your argument that Primaris are favoured in rules, fair play - but please don't pretend that you're not ignoring certain units in that.

I didn't pretend anything of the sort - I outright said here that my complaint is that I feel like they are sidelining the things that are, and I quote AGAIN, "are the most iconic parts of 40k to me personally." If you find this a difficult topic to argue, that's probably because it's impossible seeing as it's entirely subjective feedback, yet you're literally sitting here trying to tell me that mine is wrong.

I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just pointing out that, in *my* opinion, I don't think they are removing those things. There's no need to take that as a personal attack.

Anyway, this was productive, but you seem like the strongest candidate possible for utilising dakkadakka's blocklist, so I'm going to ahead and call it here. Today has only served to reinforce the stereotype for me, and I'd rather distance myself from that.

By all means, do as you will.

VAYASEN wrote:where are the Assault Marines, where are the devastators? I get it...im old school but I just dont get it. Intercessors??

Reivers are the closest equivalent to Assault Marines - pistol and close combat weapon, rapid redeployment shenanigans (don't forget, Assault Marines don't all have jump packs!).
Hellblasters are the closest to Devastators - heavy weaponry, strong firepower. Alternatively, Eliminators with las-fusils aren't far from lascannon Devastators.
Intercessors are your Tactical Marine equivalents.

**Nitro Zeus**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:Okay, cool. I'm unsure what you difference you think it makes to anything I've said so far, and your unwillingness to drop this just seems to highlight the fact that you aren't capable of taking a single step back on anything here. But thanks for sharing your completely mind-melting definition of how Aggressors and Inceptors are the same base unit, but two different weapon load outs for Terminators aren't. It's pretty irrational, but you're entitled to your opinion, so let's just agree to disagree!
Agreed. It's clearly a difference in perception.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just pointing out inconsistencies with your argument.

LOL. You really said that with a straight face didn't you?
That's not saying you're wrong. If your opinion is XYZ, that's cool. It's just that said opinion is inconsistent with similar things, and I wish to get an understanding of why that is.

listen maybe we got off on the wrong foot. Let's just agree to disagree. As I said, I like the new range overall, I just have a couple of issues with Primaris in some aspects but not all.

**Kanluwen**

Moriarty wrote:
New players only have the Primaris to look at, so they inevitably have accepted them.

Demonstrably wrong. The codices are still full of Old Marines and they're still on the shelves.

Old players have mixed views, for aesthetic and rules reasons.

New Marines models are not problematic for me, just another example of 'scale creep'. Compared my RT (standing) Marine with the latest Primaris character, had the whole 'Ant Man' experience. Thinking of playing them as Sisters - size wise they would fit better.

And I'm thinking about playing my 2E Cadians as Grots, after all the size would fit better!

You can't honestly think that they're supposed to keep things 'in scale' with releases from RT, right?

New Marines rules seem full of 'gotcha' clauses. Missed the Hit roll? Have a re-roll. I have no problem with these 'movie marine' rules, just the points they (don't) cost. I'd rather play against an army with _some_ weaknesses, or be able to cope with the damage inflicted by them.

The rerolls are present on the non-Primaris characters as well.

**The_Real_Chris**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
All the Terminators need to be consolidated into just a single entry. Seems silly that no Tactical Terminator squad EVER used one dude that has one of the last Tart armors that has an Autocannon. Ever. Noooooooooo different armors must not mix!

They should definitively be one entry with a choice of weapons. As each suit is a special work of technological art they should have different marks mixed in like tactical squads.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Exactly. As it is, it's unnecessary bloat of units entries just because.

**Talizvar**

I like the direction this discussion is going.

Primaris seems to focus combined arms on a unit by unit level, while letting the terminators have any mix they want in the unit can scratch that customization itch.

I wonder if they will let terminators be how they are, they seem to the same scale as Primaris or they will go to an extra-bulky version?
It seems strange to see Aggressor suits that big and not have a 2+ save.
What am I thinking?, of course a Terminator cannot be outdone by an Aggressor for size.

**pm713**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Exactly. As it is, it's unnecessary bloat of units entries just because.

Can't sell and make £££ without that bloat.

**Kanluwen**

pm713 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Exactly. As it is, it's unnecessary bloat of units entries just because.

Can't sell and make £££ without that bloat.

Can't sell and make $$$ with Terminators, period.

A different entry for each of the armour variants isn't a big deal. Strictly speaking, my issue is the fact that Assault and 'Vanilla' Terminator Squads can't overlap. Combat Squadding is a thing--and there's no reason to ever do it when you can just do MSU of the kind you want instead.

**BrianDavion**

Kanluwen wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
New players only have the Primaris to look at, so they inevitably have accepted them.

Demonstrably wrong. The codices are still full of Old Marines and they're still on the shelves.

although with new players the first Marines they see are useally Primaris (given that the first they see are useally the ones on the demo table from Dark Imperium) and they don't have attachment to old marines so proably prefer primaris.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Kanluwen wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Exactly. As it is, it's unnecessary bloat of units entries just because.

Can't sell and make £££ without that bloat.

Can't sell and make $$$ with Terminators, period.

A different entry for each of the armour variants isn't a big deal. Strictly speaking, my issue is the fact that Assault and 'Vanilla' Terminator Squads can't overlap. Combat Squadding is a thing--and there's no reason to ever do it when you can just do MSU of the kind you want instead.

It's a big deal because of it being unnecessary. A single Terminator entry that wasn't terrible is something most people would get behind.