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.

Primaris use drop pods in the books because they aren't constrained by awful Sales Team rules. It makes absolutely no sense that a military organization wouldn't use "what works" if its available.

Jump packs are better than bikes (in this edition), so it was a unit I wasnt expecting to necessarily update.

I actually like Bike units, but fly keyword is much more valuable than an extra wound and t5.

Remember before custodes, when Sammael had the only working Jet bike in the Imperium? And hover tech was reserved for super rare Landspeeders?

I'm glad they're bringing bikes back into the fold, but at this point I have to ask why?

One thing about Primarisizing the vehicles is that the table gets fairly cramped pretty quickly.

Still, small price to pay, I guess.

 Alpharius wrote:
One thing about Primarisizing the vehicles is that the table gets fairly cramped pretty quickly.

Still, small price to pay, I guess.

Next step: Larger Realm of Battle tiles?

I thought GW moved away from 4’ x 8’ to 4’ x 6’ a long time ago?

Or even smaller in certain stores?

Maybe a move back to 4’ x 8’ would help, but probably cause some stores/conventions/tournaments/etc problems too...

well remember primaris vehicles on average are also more expensive points wise, a repulsor for example, is around twice the points cost of a predator. not to get bogged down in debate between the inherant value of those tanks vs each other, but a Primaris list proably is going to include a smaller number of tanks.

assuming of course GW keeps to the "bigger, tougher and with a stupid amount of guns all for way more points" approuch with new vehicles and designs like the Impulsor aren't going to be the new norm

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Jump packs are better than bikes (in this edition), so it was a unit I wasnt expecting to necessarily update.

I actually like Bike units, but fly keyword is much more valuable than an extra wound and t5.

Remember before custodes, when Sammael had the only working Jet bike in the Imperium? And hover tech was reserved for super rare Landspeeders?

I'm glad they're bringing bikes back into the fold, but at this point I have to ask why?

I’d reckon it’s because, outside the Custodes, Sammael’s jetbike is still the only jetbike in the Imperium with smooth, reliable grav-tech. Repulsors and Impulsors use brute anti-grav that pulverizes the ground beneath the vehicles. I’d say they don’t put it on bikes is because they can’t fit such clumsy tech on that small of a chassis.

I just don’t like getting updated units to be released in WD and then we have our 4th SM Codex in 3 years.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
I just don’t like getting updated units to be released in WD and then we have our 4th SM Codex in 3 years.

GW typically gives us the datasheets online and in the box now in this case, it's never released in white dwarf exclusivly

OrkPlayer137 wrote:
Just a comment on the bike base size: although the bike models are still shown on old bases on the webstore, they have actually rebased the studio models - they are shown on new oval bases in the latest Codex, and also in Conquest magazine (where oval bases were supplied with the bikes).

yes, 75mm ovals, not 90mm ovals.

As for the UM and BA mix, this is obviously something post PA, not during. It will be part of 9th edition and later in the year.

 Alpharius wrote:
I thought GW moved away from 4’ x 8’ to 4’ x 6’ a long time ago?

Or even smaller in certain stores?

Maybe a move back to 4’ x 8’ would help, but probably cause some stores/conventions/tournaments/etc problems too...

Or they could just make weapons more deadly. Casualties free up board space real nicely.

There is that.

Rolling a lot of dice seems to be a thing too these days...

The game's deadly enough as it is. Everything can wound everything, and multi-wound-causing weapons just rip apart the things that have been given extra wounds to make them 'tougher', thereby negating their apparent durability. It sure looks good on paper when something has 22 wounds, but those can vanish so quickly these days that we end up paying far more for this facade of toughness than we should.

Anyway, I digress. Primaris drop pods.

Drop Pods hold an interesting place in the product line as they are both highly thematic and appropriate for the Marines, but they're also incredibly dull and don't do an awful lot in games. This means that, as a product, they're not especially attractive en masse.

So the conundrum with Primaris Drop Pods is whether to bother with them in the first place, as I can't imagine that a new line of plastic minis that are completely static, do one thing, and then just sit there doing virtually nothing for the rest of the game is considered a big draw card.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

So the conundrum with Primaris Drop Pods is whether to bother with them in the first place, as I can't imagine that a new line of plastic minis that are completely static, do one thing, and then just sit there doing virtually nothing for the rest of the game is considered a big draw card.

Well, if they do a new drop pod model then that gives them an opportunity to change some things. A bit more weapons (but only a bit, let's not go Repulsor-level crazy here!) or some sort of beacons, radar dishes etc that could offer some buffs or other benefits.

hoenstly I thought they missed an oppertunity with the repulsors rather then ahve conventional drop pods, GW could instead of have primaris tanks air droppable so that they dropped in with armor.


they actually could do that anyway go with a light tank, troop capacity 10, a decent gun, give it deep strike, cost it at say.. ~150ish points and it'd be a extremely popular unit.

BrianDavion wrote:
hoenstly I thought they missed an oppertunity with the repulsors rather then ahve conventional drop pods, GW could instead of have primaris tanks air droppable so that they dropped in with armor.


they actually could do that anyway go with a light tank, troop capacity 10, a decent gun, give it deep strike, cost it at say.. ~150ish points and it'd be a extremely popular unit.

I remember the fuss when Blood Angels Land Raiders got Deep Strike...

BrianDavion wrote:
hoenstly I thought they missed an oppertunity with the repulsors rather then ahve conventional drop pods, GW could instead of have primaris tanks air droppable so that they dropped in with armor.


they actually could do that anyway go with a light tank, troop capacity 10, a decent gun, give it deep strike, cost it at say.. ~150ish points and it'd be a extremely popular unit.

Ugh only if they bring back legacies of ruin so I can give my fellblade outflank again.

Seriously though of all the primaris vehicles not to give fly to they chose the bikes? Guess the Custodes won't share.

And there are interesting drop pods. They're called dreadclaws and loyalists can't have them.

If those are two Primaris riders to a bike, I wonder if it’ll have 5 wounds. It’d be a way to contrast them with 3W Inceptors.

I don't understand where the idea that there are two marines on the bike comes from. Several people have said that, but it pretty obviously is not the case.

 Crimson wrote:
Well, if they do a new drop pod model then that gives them an opportunity to change some things. A bit more weapons (but only a bit, let's not go Repulsor-level crazy here!) or some sort of beacons, radar dishes etc that could offer some buffs or other benefits.

I think that's the route they'll have to go.

Putting the Chapterhouse debacle aside, I'm sure that part of the reason GW changed from Mycetic Spores to the Tyrannocyte was so that it was something more than just a big gas bubble that lands and does nothing. Now it can move and shoot, and it's alternate build is some weird living bunker thing. Because it can do more things and has more configurations it's more attractive as an item they can sell.

I can see GW releasing a Primaris Drop Pod (the "Flamestrike Breachpod" or some other such nonsense name) that can act as a mini-bunker/turret as well so that it has some actual game impact beyond just arriving and then sitting there looking pretty.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Warpspy wrote:
Really?

Just what we were in dire need of! More primaris!

Can we just pretend that we have three pages of this comment and move on to talking about other aspects of this? I mean I get it, I play necrons, we've gotten one new model in the past 8 or so years, so I completely get the frustration. However cathartic it might be to vent one's spleen on this topic, page after page of it isn't interesting or useful.

I disagree ...
The quoted original expresses the following point,
That GeeDubya has boxed themselves into a Disneyesque corner having cheapened their legacy for short term third party profits rather than commit themselves to the health of the community on which they depend.
So we get releases that look nice but are designed to make everything they had done before and that kept a lot of people invested obsolete... yet as they also try to keep us invested the new releases as ridiculously over powered and just cartoonish.
Say what you will about how the game is bigger than ever befire as if this implies a healthy community.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell, not a healthy organism...
GW is malignant.

I don’t know that I want Primaris Drop Pods. As is the different units have their different deployment rules, and giving everyone access to Deep Strike kind of horns in on the one real advantage Reavers really offer.

A Stratagem to air drop their anti-grav tanks could be interesting/amusing though...

 jeff white wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

 Warpspy wrote:
Really?

Just what we were in dire need of! More primaris!

Can we just pretend that we have three pages of this comment and move on to talking about other aspects of this? I mean I get it, I play necrons, we've gotten one new model in the past 8 or so years, so I completely get the frustration. However cathartic it might be to vent one's spleen on this topic, page after page of it isn't interesting or useful.

I disagree ...
The quoted original expresses the following point,
That GeeDubya has boxed themselves into a Disneyesque corner having cheapened their legacy for short term third party profits rather than commit themselves to the health of the community on which they depend.
So we get releases that look nice but are designed to make everything they had done before and that kept a lot of people invested obsolete... yet as they also try to keep us invested the new releases as ridiculously over powered and just cartoonish.
Say what you will about how the game is bigger than ever befire as if this implies a healthy community.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell, not a healthy organism...
GW is malignant.

First of all who are the 3rd party profits you mention, because GW would be first party in this scenario. It's been proven time and again, large volumes of new releases suck. Cartoonish is subjective opinion.

To top it off, growth for the sakes of growth is the intent of any profit driven organisation, they want to grow so more people play and buy. Weirdly since you need an opponent to play with, that is actually good for you.

GW's share price / sales / profits suggest a healthy community. Unless someone wants to argue an angry " community" - a word which used in a hobby context usually means " my small world view" - Is somehow still throwing money at GW. Repeatedly.

Dudeface wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

 Warpspy wrote:
Really?

Just what we were in dire need of! More primaris!

Can we just pretend that we have three pages of this comment and move on to talking about other aspects of this? I mean I get it, I play necrons, we've gotten one new model in the past 8 or so years, so I completely get the frustration. However cathartic it might be to vent one's spleen on this topic, page after page of it isn't interesting or useful.

I disagree ...
The quoted original expresses the following point,
That GeeDubya has boxed themselves into a Disneyesque corner having cheapened their legacy for short term third party profits rather than commit themselves to the health of the community on which they depend.
So we get releases that look nice but are designed to make everything they had done before and that kept a lot of people invested obsolete... yet as they also try to keep us invested the new releases as ridiculously over powered and just cartoonish.
Say what you will about how the game is bigger than ever befire as if this implies a healthy community.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell, not a healthy organism...
GW is malignant.

First of all who are the 3rd party profits you mention, because GW would be first party in this scenario. It's been proven time and again, large volumes of new releases suck. Cartoonish is subjective opinion.

To top it off, growth for the sakes of growth is the intent of any profit driven organisation, they want to grow so more people play and buy. Weirdly since you need an opponent to play with, that is actually good for you.

I think his disney comparison is proof that he's not firing on all cylinders myself. Disney's had a pheonminal last few years. and that doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Dudeface wrote:

First of all who are the 3rd party profits you mention, because GW would be first party in this scenario. It's been proven time and again, large volumes of new releases suck. Cartoonish is subjective opinion.

To top it off, growth for the sakes of growth is the intent of any profit driven organisation, they want to grow so more people play and buy. Weirdly since you need an opponent to play with, that is actually good for you.

The third parties are stakeholders without investment in the outcome of those who inhabit the community and through their daily microtransations make corporate profits possible, i.e. the tradtitional Friedmanian "shareholder".
Shareholders are not the primary stakeholders in a contemporary business ethic.

Cartoonish is more objective than you will allow, it seems. We used to have tanks that sacrificed troop carrying capacity for extra power packs for extra energy weapons. Now we have transports that only carry noobs that fly and pack more whallop at the same time and if such power resources are a concern, they are not on the same scale. Cartoonish.

There is a difference between healthy organ in a healthy ecosystem and imperial bubble blowers for capital gain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:


I think his disney comparison is proof that he's not firing on all cylinders myself. Disney's had a pheonminal last few years. and that doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Have they? Really?

I have always felt that the Space Marines range (and now Primaris) is a way for GW to try new sculpting, tooling and other production techniques.
I remember the Land Raider being their biggest kit and first attempt at functioning doors and things like that.
This means other ranges benefit from experiments made during marine development. Yes this means there was a wait for new Orks, chaos Marines, etc. However we did get some and the kits have been of an amazing quality.

 jeff white wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

First of all who are the 3rd party profits you mention, because GW would be first party in this scenario. It's been proven time and again, large volumes of new releases suck. Cartoonish is subjective opinion.

To top it off, growth for the sakes of growth is the intent of any profit driven organisation, they want to grow so more people play and buy. Weirdly since you need an opponent to play with, that is actually good for you.

The third parties are stakeholders without investment in the outcome of those who inhabit the community and through their daily microtransations make corporate profits possible, i.e. the tradtitional Friedmanian "shareholder".
Shareholders are not the primary stakeholders in a contemporary business ethic.

Cartoonish is more objective than you will allow, it seems. We used to have tanks that sacrificed troop carrying capacity for extra power packs for extra energy weapons. Now we have transports that only carry noobs that fly and pack more whallop at the same time and if such power resources are a concern, they are not on the same scale. Cartoonish.

There is a difference between healthy organ in a healthy ecosystem and imperial bubble blowers for capital gain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:


I think his disney comparison is proof that he's not firing on all cylinders myself. Disney's had a pheonminal last few years. and that doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Have they? Really?

in 2019 they've cracked the billion dollar mark 6 times. (frozen II, Toy Story 4, Aladin, Captain Marvel, The Lioon King, and Avegers endgame, which set a world record) Rise of Skywalker will almost certainly likewise pass the billion dollar mark.




and no, shareholders have a vested intreast in the sucess of the product, the idea that the people who invest money into the game somehow have less of an intreast then a rabid fan, is... rediculas.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
hoenstly I thought they missed an oppertunity with the repulsors rather then ahve conventional drop pods, GW could instead of have primaris tanks air droppable so that they dropped in with armor.


they actually could do that anyway go with a light tank, troop capacity 10, a decent gun, give it deep strike, cost it at say.. ~150ish points and it'd be a extremely popular unit.

I remember the fuss when Blood Angels Land Raiders got Deep Strike...

I think there's a slight difference between having people believe in the viability of dropping Land Raiders from any kind of altitude and doing the same with tanks that already fly on their own. It's an easier sell and already established with Land Speeders.

 Alpharius wrote:
I wasn't being serious!

Ah, I see.

 Alpharius wrote:
I agree that the statement makes about as much sense as posting about how much you don't like Primaris marines in a "New Primaris stuff on the horizon" thread.

Ah, you are not being serious again! I'm getting better at finding out now: every time you say something that sounds incredibly silly, it's because you are not being serious! You never say silly things seriously!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
[…]Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell, not a healthy organism...
[…]

[…]To top it off, growth for the sakes of growth is the intent of any profit driven organisation[…]

Well you are both right here .