Primaris marines timeline and The Hobby

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.

**Platuan4th**

godardc wrote:
Well, I wasn't speaking for me personally.
It's not a me problem, I own 3 intercessors, and several thousands points of classic marines. And no, I'm not whinning or trolling, I'm genuinely curious about NEW PLAYERS mainly (yeah I should have written it first) because indeed most of the veterans do have LOTS of classical.
For example, if I had only tau and idk, sisters, I wouldn't be able to play Age of apostasy or the beast era (let's say I read the novels and now wanted to play against my friends: orks, sisters don't exist).

The idea of count as isn't bad at all, indeed. But it's true that there is definitely a change when your army has been around for 2 centuries in a timeline of 10,000 years.
Tbf most of my games / campaigns are "present days" but it doesn't mean all of them !

It's not a thread against primaris just to whine but a sudden realization that collecting only them close the gates of the 10,000 years war.

If those new players cared what specific time their army was designed to play in, they'd model it for that or play a game where that even matters like 30K or historical games. This is literally a non-issue, a solution in search of a problem.

**Slipspace**

pm713 wrote:
The idea of when things happen is utterly irrelevant to me. There are several reasons I don't like Primaris but this isn't one of them.

Pretty much this. Outside of the Horus Heresy game I don't think I've ever encountered a single 40k player who's cared about the historical accuracy of their collection and the enemies it fights against. Some have painstakingly adhered to the official markings for their faction and I've seen some people paint historically accurate Legion colour schemes for armies like World Eaters and Word Bearers but even in those cases I've never seen anyone who cared about historical accuracy in their games. GW themselves can't keep their timeline straight anyway - the HH novels have had all manner of units and weapons popping up that canonically didn't exist in that time period - so it's hardly surprising the player base doesn't care either.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

godardc wrote:
Hi guys,
Another issue I have with the primaris marines, is the following:
How are you going to play historical battles and campaigns such as pre M42 battles (tyrannic wars, Black Crusades, Forge World campaigns and the thousand of others battles fought millennium after millennium) seeing as there were no primaris ?
That's a clear rupture / break in The Hobby, after decades of being able to play in different phases of the history of the universe with a single collection (with only a few new units each 2-3 millennium).
Now your collection is stuck in a very narrow historical time.
What are your feeling about that ?

We do that?

If you're set on fielding a historical battle, just take tactical marines. That said, I've never seen a "historical game" played in 40k, period, because like who cares? it's not like it's real history, and it's an anathema to the foundational concept of "your guys".

**Sgt_Smudge**

I have seen people do "historical campaigns", Badab War being one of the most common, but what usually happens is friends will agree together to start a campaign, and build their armies specifically for that event. Or, what happens is people will compare their collections, and say "well, you have this, I have this - XYZ campaign would be suitable to replay!"

So, in either situation, you would know well in advance if Primaris would fit or not, and can plan around that accordingly.

**insaniak**

godardc wrote:
Well, I wasn't speaking for me personally.
It's not a me problem, I own 3 intercessors, and several thousands points of classic marines. And no, I'm not whinning or trolling, I'm genuinely curious about NEW PLAYERS mainly (yeah I should have written it first) because indeed most of the veterans do have LOTS of classical.
For example, if I had only tau and idk, sisters, I wouldn't be able to play Age of apostasy or the beast era (let's say I read the novels and now wanted to play against my friends: orks, sisters don't exist).

The idea of count as isn't bad at all, indeed. But it's true that there is definitely a change when your army has been around for 2 centuries in a timeline of 10,000 years.
Tbf most of my games / campaigns are "present days" but it doesn't mean all of them !

It's not a thread against primaris just to whine but a sudden realization that collecting only them close the gates of the 10,000 years war.

Yeah, I think you are really overestimating how many players go 'Wait, what year is it happening in???' when they plan their games.

**Polonius**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I have seen people do "historical campaigns", Badab War being one of the most common, but what usually happens is friends will agree together to start a campaign, and build their armies specifically for that event. Or, what happens is people will compare their collections, and say "well, you have this, I have this - XYZ campaign would be suitable to replay!"

So, in either situation, you would know well in advance if Primaris would fit or not, and can plan around that accordingly.

Yeah, Badab is pretty much the only "historical" type of gaming I've seen done in the wild.

The actual answer to the OP is that people with primaris armies will do the same thing most people do during Badab war campaigns: either fake it, or build the appropriate force.

**Talizvar**

Not sure what to say about accuracy or historical play.

I have a rather stupid amount of Black Templar old marines and I have a bit of everything for Primaris as Ultramarines, so then both worlds/timelines are addressed intentionally or not.

My friend made an entire mechanized company (custom chapter) of all used marine models from scratch.
Everything got taken apart and into the paint stripper.

There are many options on how to proceed, I am sure Primaris will eventually be retconned as the actual marines that have been around all along.

**CREEEEEEEEED**

I'm fairly sure you've just created an issue out of thin air. I have many marines and a decent number of primaris marines. If I want to do a badab campaign (which i do), the only thing holding me back is finding another player who's painted their marines as one of the traitor chapters. Or a red corsairs player and say it's the very end of the badab war. The existence of primaris doesn't stop me from running an all normal marine list and holding a 'historical' battle. Or even running an all normal marine list post the introduction of primaris.

To echo pm713, "There are several reasons I don't like Primaris but this isn't one of them."

**Slayer-Fan123**

Hell, does it matter if Primaris are involved in the Badab War? Does anything change? Did Tyberos and Asterion stop being the coolest characters ever if they lead Intercessors into battle?

**pm713**

If you were that bothered you could just headcanon it as rather than being actual Primaris they're variant tactics/weapon marks being used in an engagement. So instead of Tyberos leading Intercessors he's leading Tac Marines using Shark pattern Boltguns.

**Slayer-Fan123**

pm713 wrote:
If you were that bothered you could just headcanon it as rather than being actual Primaris they're variant tactics/weapon marks being used in an engagement. So instead of Tyberos leading Intercessors he's leading Tac Marines using Shark pattern Boltguns.

Honestly for my Intercessor stand-ins I'm using Mk3 dudes with Boarding Shields.

**Insectum7**

Overread wrote:

You can't play Generation 1 Eldar; nor beaky space marines.

I don't know about the Eldar but you can still field a beaky marine army easily. Much of the Eldar line has been playable for at least 25 years.

**insaniak**

Insectum7 wrote:
Overread wrote:

You can't play Generation 1 Eldar; nor beaky space marines.

I don't know about the Eldar but you can still field a beaky marine army easily. Much of the Eldar line has been playable for at least 25 years.

The Avatar has grown significantly from his V1 incarnation, and there are a few wargear oddities on Guardians, like lasguns (which GW originally said to just treat as 'alternate style' shuricats), webbers, melee weapons and pistols and some handheld heavy weapons. Oh, and the one-armed Dreadnought (Wraithlord) variant, but for the most part the range is still usable.

**Insectum7**

insaniak wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Overread wrote:

You can't play Generation 1 Eldar; nor beaky space marines.

I don't know about the Eldar but you can still field a beaky marine army easily. Much of the Eldar line has been playable for at least 25 years.

The Avatar has grown significantly from his V1 incarnation, and there are a few wargear oddities on Guardians, like lasguns (which GW originally said to just treat as 'alternate style' shuricats), webbers, melee weapons and pistols and some handheld heavy weapons. Oh, and the one-armed Dreadnought (Wraithlord) variant, but for the most part the range is still usable.

Aww yeah, miniKhaine! That's just a funny looking Farseer.

I love those classic Wraithlords. Not necessarily the one-armed variant but just the big head design before the plastic kit.

**BrookM**

Locking per request OP