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.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah I mean the fact that primaris marines have TWELVE discreet bolt gun variants among them and one single chainsword bit available on an upgrade sprue kind of highlights the flaw in GW's attempt to keep them being what a space marine is.

Isn't the Bolt gun the most iconic of the space marines' weapons? I don't how having more variations of their most iconic weapon makes Primaris lesser space marines. I will admit the chainsword thing was missed opportunity on Rievers, but hardly difficult to convert and is mechanically the same thing anyways. That is what I did with mine. As for Intercessors, it isn't like they can have any less chainswords than Tactical marines. Reivers are about the closest thing to an assault squad for Primaris. I think what you are saying is Primaris don't feel like marines because they don't directly compete with Firstborn units.

Games Workshop seems to have went to a lot of trouble to prevent Primaris being Firstborn replacements. Which can be annoying especially since space marines have a fairly complete roster of stuff. So Primaris had to be wedged in the margins of being similar to a Firstborn unit role as to allow a Primaris only player to have access to it while at the same time offering something different enough to not be a replacement/basically the same thing.

My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff, and that sucks ass. And on the tabletop, they have one single dedicated assault unit that is fething awful and has been since its release 2 years ago, and GW seemed more interested in straight up obsoleting Reivers than acutally trying to fix them. The feth does a reiver do that an incursor doesn't do better?

jeff whiteTL;DR - Why do you keep complaining like you're a character in the 41st millenium? It's okay just to talk about your dislike of Primaris like Insectum does, without using words like "heresy" and "corruption".

Insectum:

Changemod:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah I mean the fact that primaris marines have TWELVE discreet bolt gun variants among them and one single chainsword bit available on an upgrade sprue kind of highlights the flaw in GW's attempt to keep them being what a space marine is.

Isn't the Bolt gun the most iconic of the space marines' weapons? I don't how having more variations of their most iconic weapon makes Primaris lesser space marines. I will admit the chainsword thing was missed opportunity on Rievers, but hardly difficult to convert and is mechanically the same thing anyways. That is what I did with mine. As for Intercessors, it isn't like they can have any less chainswords than Tactical marines. Reivers are about the closest thing to an assault squad for Primaris. I think what you are saying is Primaris don't feel like marines because they don't directly compete with Firstborn units.

Games Workshop seems to have went to a lot of trouble to prevent Primaris being Firstborn replacements. Which can be annoying especially since space marines have a fairly complete roster of stuff. So Primaris had to be wedged in the margins of being similar to a Firstborn unit role as to allow a Primaris only player to have access to it while at the same time offering something different enough to not be a replacement/basically the same thing.

My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff, and that sucks ass. And on the tabletop, they have one single dedicated assault unit that is fething awful and has been since its release 2 years ago, and GW seemed more interested in straight up obsoleting Reivers than acutally trying to fix them. The feth does a reiver do that an incursor doesn't do better?

If you compare the various Marines over the years you can see that they have and maintain a basic asthetic, in fact the extra bits and pieces hark back to the original models.

IMO they are much worthy inheritors that cringeworthy gak like the Wolfy Wolf Wolves models, baby carriers, centurions and the crappy chunky little flyers made over the last few years.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

changemod wrote:For what it’s worth on the heresy discussion, the emperor has historically had no say on the religion he never wanted to be a thing, gulliman explicitly isn’t a member of the religion (and thus by it’s principles is already heretical just for that), and Cawl couldn’t any more plainly be a heretek within the barely tolerated alternative human religion.

Primaris are extremely heretical within the standards of the imperial cult, it’s just orders have come down from on high within the totalitarian theocratic state that this week’s official doublethink is to ignore that. Cognitive dissonance isn’t exactly new to the imperium either.

As I see it, the Ecclesiarchy are the "real" heretics, by the Emperor's terms (obviously by being religious). But if Guilliman and Cawl have been explicitly told by the Emperor that what they're doing is what he wants, then from an OOC perspective, we know they're not heretical. Sure, some people within the setting may believe they are, but as you say, there's been enough people in high places who have vouched for them both, and thereby exonerate them of heresy charges.

Again, I don't really judge true in-universe heresy by the standard of the Imperial Cult, given how trigger happy they can be - hardly a good metre for judgement. If I'm talking about heresy from an OOC perspective looking in, then it would be something like ignoring/breaking the Emperor's will and edicts and directly supporting an entity other than the Imperium or Mars. Under those terms, Guilliman and Cawl and the Primaris are completely not heretics.

Bizzare post formatting that was a nightmare to undo on mobile aside,

Heresy can only be judged from the perspective of a religion because it’s an inherently religious concept. The emperor and gulliman are both atheists who want as little to do with the imperial cult as possible.

From an out of setting perspective I can’t fairly say that the primaris aren’t a heretical concept, because the more level headed voices in the room don’t have any use for or investment in the concept of heresy. Instead, I can only judge by taking the imperial cult in general terms, looking at what things they tend to hate, and recognising that Primaris fit the bill of heretics very thoroughly.

 Mr Morden wrote:
If you compare the various Marines over the years you can see that they have and maintain a basic asthetic, in fact the extra bits and pieces hark back to the original models.

Absolutely. If you watch Goodwin breaking down his designs and talking about the design philosophy of the Primaris Marines, you see that the Primaris designs aren't really that different from Space Marines of old.

I was actually looking at a project someone had done where they had painted a single Space Marine of each armour Mark and put them next to eachother, and I had the strangest realisation - the Mark 7 helmet is actually the most odd-one-out, aside from Mark 1 Thunder pattern. Why? It's the only one with an exposed face grille. Mark V, which technically has one, isn't really a proper standardised Mark, and so I didn't include it, but every other proper power armour variant has an enclosed grille except, Aquila pattern.

Similarly, for all the hate Phobos gets (and I understand that), it looks far more Space Marine-y than Scout armour does. In terms of design philosophy, I think having *all* Marines in power armour works well to unified aesthetics.

As a pet project of mine, I'm going to take an Aggressor and give it a more Terminator-styled power fist and storm bolter loadout, and see just how different Terminator and Gravis armour really are - because I don't think it'll be much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:
Heresy can only be judged from the perspective of a religion because it’s an inherently religious concept. The emperor and gulliman are both atheists who want as little to do with the imperial cult as possible.

Eh, when heresy is used in both religious and non-religious manners in 40k, I don't think the inherently religious perspective works. After all, the Word Bearers are called the First Heretics long before the Imperial Cult is established. Heresy seems to just be simply "you don't do what the Emperor commands/expects, and work against him". Unless you're also calling the Emperor, his Custodes, and every non-Imperial Cult Space Marine a heretic? In which case, as long as you're being consistent, that's cool.

From an out of setting perspective I can’t fairly say that the primaris aren’t a heretical concept, because the more level headed voices in the room don’t have any use for or investment in the concept of heresy. Instead, I can only judge by taking the imperial cult in general terms, looking at what things they tend to hate, and recognising that Primaris fit the bill of heretics very thoroughly.

Again, if you want to use the Imperial Cult's definition of heresy, that's fine, as long as you also accept that you'd also be calling every single Primarch, non-Cult Space Marine, all the Custodes, and the Emperor himself a heretic.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

changemod wrote:
Heresy can only be judged from the perspective of a religion because it’s an inherently religious concept. The emperor and gulliman are both atheists who want as little to do with the imperial cult as possible.

Eh, when heresy is used in both religious and non-religious manners in 40k, I don't think the inherently religious perspective works. After all, the Word Bearers are called the First Heretics long before the Imperial Cult is established. Heresy seems to just be simply "you don't do what the Emperor commands/expects, and work against him". Unless you're also calling the Emperor, his Custodes, and every non-Imperial Cult Space Marine a heretic? In which case, as long as you're being consistent, that's cool.

From an out of setting perspective I can’t fairly say that the primaris aren’t a heretical concept, because the more level headed voices in the room don’t have any use for or investment in the concept of heresy. Instead, I can only judge by taking the imperial cult in general terms, looking at what things they tend to hate, and recognising that Primaris fit the bill of heretics very thoroughly.

Again, if you want to use the Imperial Cult's definition of heresy, that's fine, as long as you also accept that you'd also be calling every single Primarch, non-Cult Space Marine, all the Custodes, and the Emperor himself a heretic.

In as long as they safely aren’t there, especially those who are dead or isolated on life support, then they can avoid heretic status by being grandfathered in as pre-cult figures the cult has formed opinions on... Poor history and cognitive dissonance can patch up any pesky little inconsistencies and let you shove words in their mouths they’d never agree with.

Being around and active, taking actions and stating opinions contrary to cult doctrine? That’s going to give the ecclesiarchy a lot more headaches.

Proxy them as chubby SoB?

changemod wrote:
In as long as they safely aren’t there, especially those who are dead or isolated on life support, then they can avoid heretic status by being grandfathered in as pre-cult figures the cult has formed opinions on... Poor history and cognitive dissonance can patch up any pesky little inconsistencies and let you shove words in their mouths they’d never agree with.

Being around and active, taking actions and stating opinions contrary to cult doctrine? That’s going to give the ecclesiarchy a lot more headaches.

However, if the cult is based upon those people, wouldn't Imperial citizens be more likely to trust in those beings they've been told are divine ever since birth, rather than the preacher who has now suddenly changed tune and called them heretics? That rather more sounds like the preacher is the one telling falsehoods.

Basically, by basing their cult around people who they felt confident couldn't (or wouldn't) disagree with their beliefs, they've undermined their own influence and authority against those people. They've helped legitimise and ensure that the Primarchs are all universally venerated and considered demi-gods - that's propaganda they can't easily take back.

Anyone that says that Primaris don't follow the aesthetic of Manlet Marines outside a couple of Phobos units is 100% incorrect. They take the concept and are simply better models, period. Any "customization" is in your head as, just because you can move the arms a little more, doesn't mean your poses don't all end up the same over time in an army. Get over it, you're not cool for hating on Primaris for reasons not grounded in reality.

My way to tell if models share an aesthetic - show them to someone who has no understanding of the setting, and ask them to put models in categories. I can guarentee that Primaris Marines and regular Marines would be put together more frequently than regular Marines and Scouts would.

 Mr Morden wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah I mean the fact that primaris marines have TWELVE discreet bolt gun variants among them and one single chainsword bit available on an upgrade sprue kind of highlights the flaw in GW's attempt to keep them being what a space marine is.

Isn't the Bolt gun the most iconic of the space marines' weapons? I don't how having more variations of their most iconic weapon makes Primaris lesser space marines. I will admit the chainsword thing was missed opportunity on Rievers, but hardly difficult to convert and is mechanically the same thing anyways. That is what I did with mine. As for Intercessors, it isn't like they can have any less chainswords than Tactical marines. Reivers are about the closest thing to an assault squad for Primaris. I think what you are saying is Primaris don't feel like marines because they don't directly compete with Firstborn units.

Games Workshop seems to have went to a lot of trouble to prevent Primaris being Firstborn replacements. Which can be annoying especially since space marines have a fairly complete roster of stuff. So Primaris had to be wedged in the margins of being similar to a Firstborn unit role as to allow a Primaris only player to have access to it while at the same time offering something different enough to not be a replacement/basically the same thing.

My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff, and that sucks ass. And on the tabletop, they have one single dedicated assault unit that is fething awful and has been since its release 2 years ago, and GW seemed more interested in straight up obsoleting Reivers than acutally trying to fix them. The feth does a reiver do that an incursor doesn't do better?

If you compare the various Marines over the years you can see that they have and maintain a basic asthetic, in fact the extra bits and pieces hark back to the original models.

IMO they are much worthy inheritors that cringeworthy gak like the Wolfy Wolf Wolves models, baby carriers, centurions and the crappy chunky little flyers made over the last few years.

I mean..why can't mulitple things be bad? Do I have to like one thing if it's not as bad as something else I don't like?

For my part, the GK babycarrier to me looks more like a 40k model than the new invictus babycarrier, and other than the wulfen I don't mind the space wolf over the top stuff. And I'm not a fan of the chunky flyers, but literally EVERY PRIMARIS VEHICLE follows the exact same aesthetic design: Chunky, no wheels making it just look like a brick, and way too many different crazy guns sticking out at weird angles. To me, the only aesthetic difference between a stormhawk interceptor and a primaris repulsor is what base stand their mounted on.

the_scotsman wrote:
My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff, and that sucks ass. And on the tabletop, they have one single dedicated assault unit that is [deleted] awful and has been since its release 2 years ago, and GW seemed more interested in straight up obsoleting Reivers than acutally trying to fix them. The [deleted] does a reiver do that an incursor doesn't do better?

I suppose Medieval knight techno-barbarian and cringe-inducing CoD Modern Warfare is in they eye of the beholder. It isn't like the Raptors chapter didn't set an example of tacticool well before Primaris. I don't really see much inherently techo-barbarian about anything Ultramarine or any number of chapters, and medieval knight equal parts lore and units armed with some sort of power weapon and boarding shield/storm shield or anything Dark Angel. Granted Primaris could really use some sort of dedicated CQC unit and I would be all for something like power swords and storm shield Primaris helping them look more knightly. I think in the future Primaris releases will have dedicated melee squads maybe not as exampled above though. At the same time, Primaris have enough units to function well enough as an army on only Primaris. Something they couldn't do very well before Shadowspear. Now that Primaris can do that, I am glad GW has largely taken a break from Primairs sans special characters. There is a great number of factions that could use support over Primaris.

Point is, if someone wants Primaris to be techno-barbarians, medieval knights or CoD modern warriors as modelers we have the bits to make it happen as Primaris are largely a blank canvas and there is a wealth of space marine bits out there that still work for them with varying degrees of effort. Me, I went low effort and steered into the tacticool look and happen to think it makes my Primaris army look really sharp. You are free to disagree and think my army is that cringe-worthy CoD pandering. Do understand when you denigrate and snub 'tacticool' Primaris, you are criticizing my personal army. You don't have to like what I did, but understand that their are a good number of players enjoy that aesetic. And as mentioned, Space Marines can have just about any aesthetic a person wants if they want to put in the effort. Some looks are going to be tougher to put off than others. But the greater the effort, the greater the rewards or some such thing.

You don't have to tell me how bad Reivers are. They are my favorite 40k unit, and I built my Primaris army around them. What Rievers do better than Incursors is Deep Strike and move easier (with grapplers) at 3ppm less than Incursors though are an Elites slot. They are also slightly better at getting into combat with Shock grenades and do a little better with combat knives and their heavy bolt pistol does have a native AP -1. It doesn't come up often, but Terror Troops does sometimes cause a model or two to flee which isn't nothing (almost but isn't nothing).

Despite having fairly similar weapons, Incursors and Rievers do provide different functions. Incursors want to get to objectives early (easy enough with Concealed Positions), lay down a mine or two make the enemy have to take some pain to take the objective away. Reivers want to clear/hold objectives mid-late game sometimes taking over for Incursors. What Reivers really are missing is power weapon options for the Sergeant to help fight more than Guardsmen and maybe some way to cancel Objective Secured. Because even with the boosts to C:SM, Reivers sometimes can't clear an objective entirely of Troop options in a single go.

 Mr Morden wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah I mean the fact that primaris marines have TWELVE discreet bolt gun variants among them and one single chainsword bit available on an upgrade sprue kind of highlights the flaw in GW's attempt to keep them being what a space marine is.

Isn't the Bolt gun the most iconic of the space marines' weapons? I don't how having more variations of their most iconic weapon makes Primaris lesser space marines. I will admit the chainsword thing was missed opportunity on Rievers, but hardly difficult to convert and is mechanically the same thing anyways. That is what I did with mine. As for Intercessors, it isn't like they can have any less chainswords than Tactical marines. Reivers are about the closest thing to an assault squad for Primaris. I think what you are saying is Primaris don't feel like marines because they don't directly compete with Firstborn units.

Games Workshop seems to have went to a lot of trouble to prevent Primaris being Firstborn replacements. Which can be annoying especially since space marines have a fairly complete roster of stuff. So Primaris had to be wedged in the margins of being similar to a Firstborn unit role as to allow a Primaris only player to have access to it while at the same time offering something different enough to not be a replacement/basically the same thing.

My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff, and that sucks ass. And on the tabletop, they have one single dedicated assault unit that is fething awful and has been since its release 2 years ago, and GW seemed more interested in straight up obsoleting Reivers than acutally trying to fix them. The feth does a reiver do that an incursor doesn't do better?

If you compare the various Marines over the years you can see that they have and maintain a basic asthetic, in fact the extra bits and pieces hark back to the original models.

IMO they are much worthy inheritors that cringeworthy gak like the Wolfy Wolf Wolves models, baby carriers, centurions and the crappy chunky little flyers made over the last few years.

To add my worthless $0.02 here, I'm not much of a fan of most SM stuff in the last decade or so. I like the scale of the Primaris marines, but I definitely get the "COD modern warfare edgy" complaints, there's a lot in there that doesn't fit either the industrial/cyberpunk or technobarbarian aesthetics, while a lot of the preceding stuff became a painful parody of recursive design (Centurions, Chibi Ravens, etc). Of the SM stuff released since about the 5E SM codex, the only models I felt hit the spot were the Thunderfire Cannon (even though it was just a reintroduced Thudd Gun) and some of the Terminator armor marks.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff, and that sucks ass. And on the tabletop, they have one single dedicated assault unit that is [deleted] awful and has been since its release 2 years ago, and GW seemed more interested in straight up obsoleting Reivers than acutally trying to fix them. The [deleted] does a reiver do that an incursor doesn't do better?

I suppose Medieval knight techno-barbarian and cringe-inducing CoD Modern Warfare is in they eye of the beholder. It isn't like the Raptors chapter didn't set an example of tacticool well before Primaris. I don't really see much inherently techo-barbarian about anything Ultramarine or any number of chapters, and medieval knight equal parts lore and units armed with some sort of power weapon and boarding shield/storm shield or anything Dark Angel. Granted Primaris could really use some sort of dedicated CQC unit and I would be all for something like power swords and storm shield Primaris helping them look more knightly. I think in the future Primaris releases will have dedicated melee squads maybe not as exampled above though. At the same time, Primaris have enough units to function well enough as an army on only Primaris. Something they couldn't do very well before Shadowspear. Now that Primaris can do that, I am glad GW has largely taken a break from Primairs sans special characters. There is a great number of factions that could use support over Primaris.

Point is, if someone wants Primaris to be techno-barbarians, medieval knights or CoD modern warriors as modelers we have the bits to make it happen as Primaris are largely a blank canvas and there is a wealth of space marine bits out there that still work for them with varying degrees of effort. Me, I went low effort and steered into the tacticool look and happen to think it makes my Primaris army look really sharp. You are free to disagree and think my army is that cringe-worthy CoD pandering. Do understand when you denigrate and snub 'tacticool' Primaris, you are criticizing my personal army. You don't have to like what I did, but understand that their are a good number of players enjoy that aesetic. And as mentioned, Space Marines can have just about any aesthetic a person wants if they want to put in the effort. Some looks are going to be tougher to put off than others. But the greater the effort, the greater the rewards or some such thing..

Well, sorry if I caused offense. I'll play an army with a modern-looking aesthetic, but I'm not about to embrace it in 40k or think it particularly fits the setting. There are whole game systems built around that kind of aesthetic like Infinity, and it tends to be kind of the generic default for what you get when you say "Sci-fi setting" wheras the somewhat anachronistic and "fantasy in space" aspects of 40k have always been its defining feature.

End of the day, if GW does go ahead and lean in hard on obsoleting the classic marines, it won't really affect me that much. I put about 150 bucks into my marine army in terms of actual kits I bought to get the marines inside (most of the points are taken up by the models I got from Deathwatch Overkill and Space Hulk) so they're by very far the army I'm least invested in financially, and they're fully painted and complete at this point. I'll feel bad for the dedicated marine players that move will (and already has) alienated and driven away from the hobby, but the addition of kiddy's first starter pack marines has probably already brought in more people than got driven away. Net neutral, except in terms of the quality of painting and hobbying that you see in general. There's still a lot of gray/just primed primaris armies out there.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff, and that sucks ass. And on the tabletop, they have one single dedicated assault unit that is [deleted] awful and has been since its release 2 years ago, and GW seemed more interested in straight up obsoleting Reivers than acutally trying to fix them. The [deleted] does a reiver do that an incursor doesn't do better?

I suppose Medieval knight techno-barbarian and cringe-inducing CoD Modern Warfare is in they eye of the beholder. It isn't like the Raptors chapter didn't set an example of tacticool well before Primaris. I don't really see much inherently techo-barbarian about anything Ultramarine or any number of chapters, and medieval knight equal parts lore and units armed with some sort of power weapon and boarding shield/storm shield or anything Dark Angel. Granted Primaris could really use some sort of dedicated CQC unit and I would be all for something like power swords and storm shield Primaris helping them look more knightly. I think in the future Primaris releases will have dedicated melee squads maybe not as exampled above though. At the same time, Primaris have enough units to function well enough as an army on only Primaris. Something they couldn't do very well before Shadowspear. Now that Primaris can do that, I am glad GW has largely taken a break from Primairs sans special characters. There is a great number of factions that could use support over Primaris.

Point is, if someone wants Primaris to be techno-barbarians, medieval knights or CoD modern warriors as modelers we have the bits to make it happen as Primaris are largely a blank canvas and there is a wealth of space marine bits out there that still work for them with varying degrees of effort. Me, I went low effort and steered into the tacticool look and happen to think it makes my Primaris army look really sharp. You are free to disagree and think my army is that cringe-worthy CoD pandering. Do understand when you denigrate and snub 'tacticool' Primaris, you are criticizing my personal army. You don't have to like what I did, but understand that their are a good number of players enjoy that aesetic. And as mentioned, Space Marines can have just about any aesthetic a person wants if they want to put in the effort. Some looks are going to be tougher to put off than others. But the greater the effort, the greater the rewards or some such thing..

Well, sorry if I caused offense. I'll play an army with a modern-looking aesthetic, but I'm not about to embrace it in 40k or think it particularly fits the setting. There are whole game systems built around that kind of aesthetic like Infinity, and it tends to be kind of the generic default for what you get when you say "Sci-fi setting" wheras the somewhat anachronistic and "fantasy in space" aspects of 40k have always been its defining feature.

End of the day, if GW does go ahead and lean in hard on obsoleting the classic marines, it won't really affect me that much. I put about 150 bucks into my marine army in terms of actual kits I bought to get the marines inside (most of the points are taken up by the models I got from Deathwatch Overkill and Space Hulk) so they're by very far the army I'm least invested in financially, and they're fully painted and complete at this point. I'll feel bad for the dedicated marine players that move will (and already has) alienated and driven away from the hobby, but the addition of kiddy's first starter pack marines has probably already brought in more people than got driven away. Net neutral, except in terms of the quality of painting and hobbying that you see in general. There's still a lot of gray/just primed primaris armies out there.

And I love the tacticool aesthetic they have on the new marines. I didn't think highly of Marine models before, and there's nothing to love in their lore, so for the most part mine were last on my list of armies I play, and I basically never bought models for them.

Now? I f***ing love the new tacticool stuff they have, and am legitimately excited to play my Space Wolves. I have a long list of models I want to buy to realize lists I want to play, and like they feel fun and funny now.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah I mean the fact that primaris marines have TWELVE discreet bolt gun variants among them and one single chainsword bit available on an upgrade sprue kind of highlights the flaw in GW's attempt to keep them being what a space marine is.

Isn't the Bolt gun the most iconic of the space marines' weapons? I don't how having more variations of their most iconic weapon makes Primaris lesser space marines. I will admit the chainsword thing was missed opportunity on Rievers, but hardly difficult to convert and is mechanically the same thing anyways. That is what I did with mine. As for Intercessors, it isn't like they can have any less chainswords than Tactical marines. Reivers are about the closest thing to an assault squad for Primaris. I think what you are saying is Primaris don't feel like marines because they don't directly compete with Firstborn units.

Games Workshop seems to have went to a lot of trouble to prevent Primaris being Firstborn replacements. Which can be annoying especially since space marines have a fairly complete roster of stuff. So Primaris had to be wedged in the margins of being similar to a Firstborn unit role as to allow a Primaris only player to have access to it while at the same time offering something different enough to not be a replacement/basically the same thing.

My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff, and that sucks ass. And on the tabletop, they have one single dedicated assault unit that is fething awful and has been since its release 2 years ago, and GW seemed more interested in straight up obsoleting Reivers than acutally trying to fix them. The feth does a reiver do that an incursor doesn't do better?

Deepstrike. And charge uphill.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:They are committee designed, marketing informed, blandified fan-marines.

Is that such a bad thing if they are?

Yes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And come on, we aren't saying that EVERY model, Space Marine or not, isn't committee designed and marketing informed, surely? You're only saying that with Primaris Marines because they're not identical to the Marines you've come to know and recognise.

What comes out of a comittee shows you where the deciding priorities lie.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

And sure, in your opinion, they're not proper Space Marines. But for many other people, and by GW's own admission, they empirically *are*.[/spoiler]

Companies can squander their own IP, it's totally within their perogative. But that doesn't make it a smart move.

The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.

They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy. If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.

40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.

I've been working on this for the past 6 months.

Had 40 of the old CSM sculpts painted as Black Legion, repainted them as Red Corsairs. In the process of rebasing them, adding details that elevate them to the height of new marines.

Had 80 unbuilt CSM models on the sprue, experimented with making them the size of new CSMs. Adding 1mm of polystyrene to the thigh does a convincing job of increasing the height, adding a small amount of green stuff to the arm joints almost accounts for the width of the chest. I can get them as tall but they're skinnier than the new sculpts.

So I'm just repurposing the old sculpts to make them work with the new ones. Still trying to figure out what to do with the old Abaddon, he really looks small these days.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.

They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy. If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.

40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.

So just put a load of Purity seals and such over the model. Maybe some skulls if you want to represent SOME chapters.

Sorry - I really can;t see the issue here, both are basically Marines, one has some tactical gear , one has some skulls and seals.

You can make the new ones either.

I hate painting seals and skulls. So yay.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.

They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy. If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.

40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.

What amuses me most about that newer model, is that they put a faux-1913 attachment rail on top, but only out on the far end of the muzzle and not where they actually mount the optic (which apparently has its own big heavy stonkin' looking mount, so why bother with rails at all?), with the optic being so big it covers the rail sufficiently to make mounting anything else impossible

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.

They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy. If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.

40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.

That isn't really a fair comparison though. The 10th company has always had a different aesthetic and used different equipment from the rest of the chapter. Vanguard marines are a reimagining of scouts.

Primaris have a chaplain model



He isn't in terminator armor but is pretty close to the one you posted.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:It isn't like the Raptors chapter didn't set an example of tacticool well before Primaris. I don't really see much inherently techo-barbarian about anything Ultramarine or any number of chapters, and medieval knight equal parts lore and units armed with some sort of power weapon and boarding shield/storm shield or anything Dark Angel.
...
Point is, if someone wants Primaris to be techno-barbarians, medieval knights or CoD modern warriors as modelers we have the bits to make it happen as Primaris are largely a blank canvas and there is a wealth of space marine bits out there that still work for them with varying degrees of effort.

QFT. There are so many different design aspects to Space Marines that they're all viable and all supported in GW's style. Ultramarines aren't tacticool, but the Raptors are. The Raptors aren't techno-barbarians, but the Space Wolves are. The Space Wolves go into battle without helmets and with ornate runic armour and totems, but the Minotaurs don't.

The reason that Space Marines are so popular is because they're such a blank slate. You have have super minimalist Marines, like the Raptors, who fight using more modern tactics and styles. You have the super-religious barbarians like the Black Templars, charging in directly with chainswords and flamers decked out in full tabards and chains and votive papers. You have Chapters that are little more than a historical aesthetic clad in power armour (White Scars, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Ultramarines).

Anyone claiming that "REAL Space Marines are knightly/techno-barbarians/tacticool" is missing the point of Space Marines being what they are. The CORE of what a Space Marine is is:
- Power Armour with big bulky shoulder pads and a large vented backpack
- Bolt weaponry
- Genetically engineered
- Flat angled vehicles with layered armour

Me, I went low effort and steered into the tacticool look and happen to think it makes my Primaris army look really sharp. You are free to disagree and think my army is that cringe-worthy CoD pandering. Do understand when you denigrate and snub 'tacticool' Primaris, you are criticizing my personal army. You don't have to like what I did, but understand that their are a good number of players enjoy that aesetic.

Exactly - there are people who have collected armies very similar to what the Primaris are for years, if not decades. Saying that "tacticool Marines aren't allowed" is both a blatant mistunderstanding of Space Marine historical lore/history as a faction, and also a massive slap in the face for players who have enjoyed their tacticool Marines long before Primaris showed up.

And as mentioned, Space Marines can have just about any aesthetic a person wants if they want to put in the effort.

I think that's why I like the fact that Primaris Marines are so minimal in their basic design - they truly are more of a blank slate to work with. You can keep them bare, even trimming off the chest Aquila if you so want, or you can lace them with purity seals, pouches, pendants, reliquaries and shields that the sprues are festooned with. I mean, look at Aggressors versus basic Terminators! Basic Aggressors all have some kind of rope holding a relic or holy icon over their waist - what do Terminators have? A small shield? Maybe the occasional device on their knee pad. By that logic, Terminators aren't "true" Marine units.

Primaris are a perfect blank slate to do whatever you want with. You like gothic OTT trinkets and pendants and badges? There's enough room for them.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:They are committee designed, marketing informed, blandified fan-marines.

Is that such a bad thing if they are?

Yes.

Why? If you were to find out that other factions (including, more than likely, older, more "classic" versions of Space Marines and other such "grimdark" factions) were designed by a committee, would you similarly pan them?

Otherwise, it just sounds like you have a problem with Primaris in particular, not committee design.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And come on, we aren't saying that EVERY model, Space Marine or not, isn't committee designed and marketing informed, surely? You're only saying that with Primaris Marines because they're not identical to the Marines you've come to know and recognise.

What comes out of a comittee shows you where the deciding priorities lie.

But if the committee produced something you liked, you wouldn't be complaining, I'd bet.
I'm not denying that Primaris Marines probably had a good deal of analysis and teams working on producing a good image. But you're deluded if you don't think that all of GW's new sculpts have been done in the same manner. So does that mean that you hate all of GW's new sculpts? Sisters, Ossiarch, Genestealer Cult, Admech, etc?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

And sure, in your opinion, they're not proper Space Marines. But for many other people, and by GW's own admission, they empirically *are*.[/spoiler]

Companies can squander their own IP, it's totally within their perogative. But that doesn't make it a smart move.

All you have to do is look at GW's profits. Haven't they gone up quite well with Primaris being released? Hasn't their player base significantly increased, with a great many playing Primaris?

By all means, if you don't like what they've done, you're welcome to that, but I don't think it's been a bad business choice, whichever way you slice it.

Brutus_Apex wrote:The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.

The Raptors Chapter say hi. Try again?

They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy.

Shame.

If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.

40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.

It still is. If your idea of "fantasy in space" is so fragile that something as tame as Phobos armour could break it, I honestly feel bad for you missing out. Please, what other universe would a Phobos Marine fit into? Halo? Not really - the armour's too plate-like, bolters too chunky, backpack too large. Mass Effect? Certainly not - far too bulky. Star Wars? Yeah, nah.

In fact, Phobos Marines are far more "Marine-y" than Scouts ever were! Did sniper scout marines also put you off? What about things like the Raptors Chapter?

40k is still unique, still very much fantasy in space. But if you're still not convinced, I hope you find something else you're after.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Brutus, seeing as you posted some pictures of "proper Space Marines", what's your opinion on this one?

As you can see, no purity seals, no skulls, no scrolls, banners, pendants, nothing! Well, except for the chest aquila (which most Primaris have) and a teeny scroll on his bolter (which, again, most Primaris have).
So, I guess this isn't a "real Space Marine"?

I love the new csm models. They look great with mark III and mark IV heads, but best with Terror Squad heads.

I don't dig primaris, so I don't play them. Others love them, so they do play them. I don't see a problem.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.

They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy. If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.

40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.

That isn't really a fair comparison though. The 10th company has always had a different aesthetic and used different equipment from the rest of the chapter. Vanguard marines are a reimagining of scouts.

Primaris have a chaplain model



He isn't in terminator armor but is pretty close to the one you posted.

ThAt ChApLaIn Is ToO tAcTiCaL

Like I said, none of the Primaris line outside a couple of Phobos is Tacticool.

That chaplain would be great for a sorcerer with jump pack conversion.

There are really people here thinking primaris don't have a more streamlined and generic sci-fi design than the marines ?
Just because before we had one example of "modern" warfare marines (raptors / rg successors) isn't an excuse, it was an option left amongst hundreds of "medieval" chapters (like UM, BT, BA and most of the successor chapters who are definitely not generic sci-fi).
And yes, technically, every hobbyist can convert his models and blablabla. But the reality is they don't have even paint their models so no, the fact one in ten guys will convert their models isn't an excuse for GW laziness / lost of ip / whatever.
And in addition it's badly executed: the scope is BEHIND the picatinny rail and marines have never needed them because they have scope and sensors in their helmet to hit target at normal range (have you seen Ultramarines movie ? The Dawn Of War Dark Crusade intro (against the necrons) ? ).
So what, primaris helmets are just inferior ?
Tsss....

No, you're just referring to unnecessary bling, which is a good thing to lose.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.

They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy. If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.

40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.

That isn't really a fair comparison though. The 10th company has always had a different aesthetic and used different equipment from the rest of the chapter. Vanguard marines are a reimagining of scouts.

Primaris have a chaplain model



He isn't in terminator armor but is pretty close to the one you posted.

ThAt ChApLaIn Is ToO tAcTiCaL

Like I said, none of the Primaris line outside a couple of Phobos is Tacticool.

Most of the phobos stuff is too much Call of Duty like with stuff like the Eliminators... sniper scout 2.0 having bloody G36s for the front half of their snipers. Same issue with reavers... (The spooky Skelly Boyz) as they look like some "special" forces BS you see in a sci fi themed COD game.

The jump pack guys and the centurions 2.0 are not tacticool or whatever but are just weak design in general. The stealth dread or whatever the gak it's suppose to be looks like the Walker mechs from Avatar while the redeptor dread has a very Tau looking plasma cannon (similar weapon silhouette to a crisis suit/ghostkeel Ion Weapon).

Only the tactical marines 2.0 (seriously I zogging hate all these garbage names) and their all plasma gun squad setup look remotely in line with the setting as they are effectively true scale marines. I personally dislike the Mark X chest armor due to it's weird stomach armor and knees but the rest is ok. That said I dislike the very busy poses they have which makes repeat model syndrome appear more prevalent unlike the more neutral poses for older sculpts.

In general though the Primaris line shifts away from the sci fi fantasy knights (often with ornate stuff similar to stuff seen in ceremonial gothic armor) to a more sci fi COD or Master Chief look. It clashes a bit when they are in the same faction that has WW1/WW2 looking gear and vehicles for regular troops. Not to mention all the "definitely not the Catholic Church" forces that exist in the fluff.