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.

The problem with Primaris is that they are toyetic. Rounded edges, smooth lines. A Mark VII helmet screams brutality, viciousness, and terror. A Mark X helmet (while being a cynical "throwback" to Mark IV I am certain was just coincidence) just isn't the same.

Honestly, it sounds more just like you don't really like any outside of Space Marines being ornate, Primaris or not. So when you comment "I hate Primaris, they're not ornate", that's not *really* a Primaris problem, that's just a Space Marine design problem across the majority of the range.
I'm not saying you're not entitled to your own preferences, you absolutely are, and where's the fun in 40k if you can't make and paint and play your models the way you like - but it would be like me saying "I hate the Tau, they don't have any melee, and they're not a human faction".

Basically, Primaris Marines aren't the problem. Your problem is that Space Marines across the board aren't more ornate, but unfortunately, Space Marines do, and have, come in a wide range of styles, from fully embellished to 'tacticool', and GW strike a middle ground in their core Space Marine designs, leaving Marines as empty as possible so players can convert to their hearts content.
The new Primaris stuff is proportionally better, I'll give it that. But there's nothing exciting about them at all. They're so bland.
Again, they're just taking design cues and styles from existing Space Marines. It's not like they're suddenly more bland than everything else. And, as you've said, you feel the same way about bland Firstborn Marines.
It's not a Primaris problem, it's a Bland Marine problem, in your eyes.

I feel like they knocked Sisters of Battle and Custodes out of the park, they just nailed the 40K aesthetic for me there. To see Marines get the opposite treatment has been a huge disappointment for me.
Custodes and Sisters have always been depicted and shown in model form to be ornate. Space Marines, on the other hand, have always had a wide range of looks, from heavily embellished Black Templars, to tacticool Raptors, and GW has consistently depicted their basic units with less ornamentation. At the risk of repeating myself, Primaris don't do anything new here that hasn't already been done. Your problem isn't with Primaris explicitly, it's with Space Marines in general that aren't how you believe they should look.

I get that Marines throughout the ages have been different, from spartan to ornate. Throughout 4th and 5th GW really amped up the ornateness in a lot of those models and I started to really like what they were doing. Then they pulled the rug out from under me and gave me Primaris which I think are bland to the point of not looking like they belong in 40K. I thought they might go in the direction they had been heading for about a decade.

I really want GW to release more of the aesthetic I like, so here's me complaining online in hopes that they will see that some of the community has a taste for that kind of thing.

And in my defence, I dislike Primaris for more than just looks. I think they were shoehorned into the fluff badly, and their very existence trivializes the old marines and the HH as a whole.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The problem with Primaris is that they are toyetic. Rounded edges, smooth lines. A Mark VII helmet screams brutality, viciousness, and terror. A Mark X helmet (while being a cynical "throwback" to Mark IV I am certain was just coincidence) just isn't the same.

But still in terms of "toyetic they don't compare to Baby Carriers, Centurions, Santa Logan and other pre-Primaris models

BaconCatBug wrote:The problem with Primaris is that they are toyetic. Rounded edges, smooth lines. A Mark VII helmet screams brutality, viciousness, and terror. A Mark X helmet (while being a cynical "throwback" to Mark IV I am certain was just coincidence) just isn't the same.

Primaris Marines have all the same smooth lines and rounded edges as regular Mark VIIs. Like, the shoulder pads are the same, arms can be reused with no issue, the general lines and everything simply just in different proportions. I mean, look back at the ETB Tactical Marine I posted earlier - you're telling me that doesn't also have the same edges and lines?
And again, look at this Mark IV Marine - certainly not a million miles away from being a Primaris Marine, yet I don't remember the uproar of "these aren't PROPER Space Marines!!"

Brutus_Apex wrote:

Spoiler:

Honestly, it sounds more just like you don't really like any outside of Space Marines being ornate, Primaris or not. So when you comment "I hate Primaris, they're not ornate", that's not *really* a Primaris problem, that's just a Space Marine design problem across the majority of the range.
I'm not saying you're not entitled to your own preferences, you absolutely are, and where's the fun in 40k if you can't make and paint and play your models the way you like - but it would be like me saying "I hate the Tau, they don't have any melee, and they're not a human faction".

Basically, Primaris Marines aren't the problem. Your problem is that Space Marines across the board aren't more ornate, but unfortunately, Space Marines do, and have, come in a wide range of styles, from fully embellished to 'tacticool', and GW strike a middle ground in their core Space Marine designs, leaving Marines as empty as possible so players can convert to their hearts content.
The new Primaris stuff is proportionally better, I'll give it that. But there's nothing exciting about them at all. They're so bland.
Again, they're just taking design cues and styles from existing Space Marines. It's not like they're suddenly more bland than everything else. And, as you've said, you feel the same way about bland Firstborn Marines.
It's not a Primaris problem, it's a Bland Marine problem, in your eyes.

I feel like they knocked Sisters of Battle and Custodes out of the park, they just nailed the 40K aesthetic for me there. To see Marines get the opposite treatment has been a huge disappointment for me.
Custodes and Sisters have always been depicted and shown in model form to be ornate. Space Marines, on the other hand, have always had a wide range of looks, from heavily embellished Black Templars, to tacticool Raptors, and GW has consistently depicted their basic units with less ornamentation. At the risk of repeating myself, Primaris don't do anything new here that hasn't already been done. Your problem isn't with Primaris explicitly, it's with Space Marines in general that aren't how you believe they should look.

I get that Marines throughout the ages have been different, from spartan to ornate. Throughout 4th and 5th GW really amped up the ornateness in a lot of those models and I started to really like what they were doing. Then they pulled the rug out from under me and gave me Primaris which I think are bland to the point of not looking like they belong in 40K. I thought they might go in the direction they had been heading for about a decade.

Well, I think it just goes to show that there's a lot of different interpretations of what 40k should be, and no real way to appeal to authority on it. Again,look at it the other way - you say that GW pulled the rug out from under you, yet plenty of other people would feel the rug pulled out from them if GW had gone full walking churches aesthetic. End of the day, I maintain that 40k is an excellent IP because of the range it allows. You like tactical, elite, no-nonsense Astartes (like the titular animated work)? That's supported. You like ornate, detailed walking churches and chainswords, like in Death of Hope? That's also supported! With GW taking the more minimal approach with their models, they've given the modelling fans out there a chance to lean whichever way they prefer. Again, it's much much simpler to add to a model than to remove it.

I really want GW to release more of the aesthetic I like, so here's me complaining online in hopes that they will see that some of the community has a taste for that kind of thing.

I mean, fair enough, but in the same vein, there's also a lot of people, myself included, who prefer the cleaner aesthetic, especially on the core infantry.There isn't really a "right" look for Space Marines, beyond them having big round pauldrons and thick vented backpacks and so on, and understandably, I'm going to have a bit of an issue with anyone claiming that there's some kind of "real Space Marine", given how broad that is.

And in my defence, I dislike Primaris for more than just looks. I think they were shoehorned into the fluff badly, and their very existence trivializes the old marines and the HH as a whole.

Their initial explanation? Handled badly, but modern fluff is far more detailed and forgiving.

 jeff white wrote:

Smudge GW must pay you to produce straw men and bad faith arguments... cuz they are as bad as current background.

Gothic names an era 400years long. Armor existed in different styles. One constant was the role of faith in art culture architecture and limited tech burdened by ritual ... where are the sacred bolter rounds in a restartes bolter? Litanies? Yada? Zilch. Heretics.

Here is an example of gothic era armor in historical context:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4e/08/1a/4e081a85f23f9fe3295b0267712a9909.jpg
Note the 1300s... and that if you had to place restartes anywhere herein they look most like a modern cop.

Another dead strawman...

Jeff, I understand what you're saying about gothic armor.

Had a good time at Napoleon's Tomb a couple years ago going through the armor collections, most of it was gothic style plate.

I don't think GW emphasizes this much with NuMarines, it's not just engravings. We don't see many purity seals in the sculpts, we don't see much parchment or zealous declarations anymore. Seem like we've sacrificed the faith-based part of the lore to pure aspirational science fiction, which is part of why NuMarines don't do it for me.

 techsoldaten wrote:
I don't think GW emphasizes this much with NuMarines, it's not just engravings. We don't see many purity seals in the sculpts, we don't see much parchment or zealous declarations anymore. Seem like we've sacrificed the faith-based part of the lore to pure aspirational science fiction, which is part of why NuMarines don't do it for me.

What about these? I'm sure if I looked, I'd also find plenty of Firstborn Marines with very little devotional scripts and parchment.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Actually safe mode was added because Plasma always had that issue on top of being top expensive for its purpose, which is why everyone went with Melta and Grav. We can argue now perhaps Plasma is just a little too cheap, but Melta and Flamers are too expensive.

I do miss melta weapons both playing Primaris and CSM. I have old Chaos Termicide squads that I want to break out (even in the 8th edition version) every now and again and be at least kinda close to scary as it used to be and not feel like an utter waste of points. It does surprise me that GW never did bring down the points for melta weapons after years of plasma just being better.

Melta has low rate of fire in a game with a ton of invulns. It's a complete waste of points.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

Smudge GW must pay you to produce straw men and bad faith arguments... cuz they are as bad as current background.

Gothic names an era 400years long. Armor existed in different styles. One constant was the role of faith in art culture architecture and limited tech burdened by ritual ... where are the sacred bolter rounds in a restartes bolter? Litanies? Yada? Zilch. Heretics.

Here is an example of gothic era armor in historical context:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4e/08/1a/4e081a85f23f9fe3295b0267712a9909.jpg
Note the 1300s... and that if you had to place restartes anywhere herein they look most like a modern cop.

Another dead strawman...

Jeff, I understand what you're saying about gothic armor.

Had a good time at Napoleon's Tomb a couple years ago going through the armor collections, most of it was gothic style plate.

I don't think GW emphasizes this much with NuMarines, it's not just engravings. We don't see many purity seals in the sculpts, we don't see much parchment or zealous declarations anymore. Seem like we've sacrificed the faith-based part of the lore to pure aspirational science fiction, which is part of why NuMarines don't do it for me.

LOL Marines do not have that gothic armor look. You're making that up in your head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The problem with Primaris is that they are toyetic. Rounded edges, smooth lines. A Mark VII helmet screams brutality, viciousness, and terror. A Mark X helmet (while being a cynical "throwback" to Mark IV I am certain was just coincidence) just isn't the same.

Mk3 is actually more vicious looking, therefore only Mk3 Marines are real Marines

 techsoldaten wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

Smudge GW must pay you to produce straw men and bad faith arguments... cuz they are as bad as current background.

Gothic names an era 400years long. Armor existed in different styles. One constant was the role of faith in art culture architecture and limited tech burdened by ritual ... where are the sacred bolter rounds in a restartes bolter? Litanies? Yada? Zilch. Heretics.

Here is an example of gothic era armor in historical context:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4e/08/1a/4e081a85f23f9fe3295b0267712a9909.jpg
Note the 1300s... and that if you had to place restartes anywhere herein they look most like a modern cop.

Another dead strawman...

Jeff, I understand what you're saying about gothic armor.

Had a good time at Napoleon's Tomb a couple years ago going through the armor collections, most of it was gothic style plate.

I don't think GW emphasizes this much with NuMarines, it's not just engravings. We don't see many purity seals in the sculpts, we don't see much parchment or zealous declarations anymore. Seem like we've sacrificed the faith-based part of the lore to pure aspirational science fiction, which is part of why NuMarines don't do it for me.

Thanks. I didnt express the point well or maybe it is difficult but a lot of people seem to see the general issue. It is more than shapes and shoulder pads. It was glorious.

 jeff white wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

Smudge GW must pay you to produce straw men and bad faith arguments... cuz they are as bad as current background.

Gothic names an era 400years long. Armor existed in different styles. One constant was the role of faith in art culture architecture and limited tech burdened by ritual ... where are the sacred bolter rounds in a restartes bolter? Litanies? Yada? Zilch. Heretics.

Here is an example of gothic era armor in historical context:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4e/08/1a/4e081a85f23f9fe3295b0267712a9909.jpg
Note the 1300s... and that if you had to place restartes anywhere herein they look most like a modern cop.

Another dead strawman...

Jeff, I understand what you're saying about gothic armor.

Had a good time at Napoleon's Tomb a couple years ago going through the armor collections, most of it was gothic style plate.

I don't think GW emphasizes this much with NuMarines, it's not just engravings. We don't see many purity seals in the sculpts, we don't see much parchment or zealous declarations anymore. Seem like we've sacrificed the faith-based part of the lore to pure aspirational science fiction, which is part of why NuMarines don't do it for me.

Thanks. I didnt express the point well or maybe it is difficult but a lot of people seem to see the general issue. It is more than shapes and shoulder pads. It was glorious.

I think I'd have to look back at Realm of Chaos or the early Rogue Trader books to find examples, but there was one artist - pen and ink - who really captured the spirit. Lots of beaky helmets, lots of twisted points around the edges. It really bridged the old divide between Space Marines and the old world.

To those saying gothic armor was not part of the brand - sure, there's examples that don't incorporate it. There's also examples that do. It captured my imagination at an early age and it's still part of how I think about Space Marines.

Just because it's not part of every model doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The style seems to be absent from NuMarines and I feel like that's a loss.

This is 40k.


This is an Marvel Comic Supersoldier with Mary Sue powers.

It might be hard to put into words, but the difference is there.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
This is 40k.

Spoiler:

This is an Marvel Comic Supersoldier with Mary Sue powers.

Spoiler:

It might be hard to put into words, but the difference is there.

Truest thing you have ever said BCB.

NuMarines are pathetic substitutes for the original.

techsoldaten wrote:To those saying gothic armor was not part of the brand - sure, there's examples that don't incorporate it. There's also examples that do. It captured my imagination at an early age and it's still part of how I think about Space Marines.

Just because it's not part of every model doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The style seems to be absent from NuMarines and I feel like that's a loss.

By that same logic, all the plain armoured Marines, just because it's not part of every model, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't say "well not all Space Marines have gothic armour BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT STILL EXISTS", when the same argument can be used to support blank armour.

Sorry, but it's an argument in bad faith if you're just going to cherry pick from the VAST range of what Space Marines have been depicted as. Space Marines are elite, tactical supersoldiers, with high tech equipment and equipment pouches. Space Marines are also robed, hooded knights with shields and power swords. Space Marines are also runic barbarians, helmetless and bearded with feral glory. Space Marines are also fiercely religious and impractical. Space Marines are also tactically gifted and have the capability to attack in multiple styles depending on the most tactically efficient route.
Are these contradictory? YES! But that's what being a Space Marine *is*, and for anyone to claim with any degree of authority beyond their own biases what a "Real Space Marine" is beyond the very basic core ideas (that being power armour, genetically enhanced, and incredibly skilled and brave warriors) is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You can't claim that one single feature or even aesthetic is core to the Space Marines when you also admit that not every Space Marine HAS that feature or aesthetic. I appreciate that you have a favourite, that the gothic armour captured your imagination - but that doesn't mean that your narrow view of Space Marines defines it for everyone else.

BaconCatBug wrote:This is 40k.

Spoiler:

This is an Marvel Comic Supersoldier with Mary Sue powers.

Spoiler:

It might be hard to put into words, but the difference is there.

What about these two Marines? They have far more in common with Mr "Mary Sue" over here than Blanche's work. What say you on them?
Conversely, what about these pictures?
Full of religious iconography, menacing, with foreboding landscapes and skulls and ruins afoot. Compared to the artwork and models I've posted earlier, in what good conscience can you say that these are any less 40k?

Also, are you actually familiar with Marvel Comics? Because that Primaris Marine looks nothing like a Marvel-styled anything. In fact, it doesn't look like anything other than a 40k design. Like I've asked plenty of people before you, do a DETAILED breakdown of the Primaris aesthetic that makes it more like other IPs than 40k (as in, not more modern relative to other 40k designs, but actually closer to non-40k designs than it is itself to 40k). I'll wait.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
This is 40k.

Spoiler:

This is an Marvel Comic Supersoldier with Mary Sue powers.

Spoiler:

It might be hard to put into words, but the difference is there.

Have any of the figures to the right of the SoB made into being a model in 40k? The red robed guys? How can you possibly say that is 40k when barely anything in that image is actually in 40k.

Amazingly there was this thing called "Worldbuilding" and "Imagination", before GW decided that not only was it No Model, No Rules, it was No Model, No Artwork.

If you were trying to disprove Primaris Marines as literally Toyetic, you did a bad job there.

I’m saying that your example of what 40k the wargame is- is actually a rubbish example. None of the figures in the image are playable miniatures. The image doesn’t even include space marines! When I think of 40k I don’t think of SOBs. Hardly anyone ever played that army. The ratio of SOB to Space Marines books is probably 100-1.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Amazingly there was this thing called "Worldbuilding" and "Imagination", before GW decided that not only was it No Model, No Rules, it was No Model, No Artwork.

Strange, how do the Silver Templars covered in all their robes and decorations and suchlike have models?

If you were trying to disprove Primaris Marines as literally Toyetic, you did a bad job there.

Come on, you've not explained how Mr Squat Marine with his clean, featureless armour isn't exactly as toyetic as the Primaris.

I'm not making any comment on if the Primaris are toyetic or not. I'm making comment that any design feature or complaint you can level at the Primaris, I can apply to the old marines too (save for one, proportion - and even then, the SM Heroes range takes steps to alleviate that too).

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
I’m saying that your example of what 40k the wargame is- is actually a rubbish example. None of the figures in the image are playable miniatures. The image doesn’t even include space marines! When I think of 40k I don’t think of SOBs. Hardly anyone ever played that army. The ratio of SOB to Space Marines books is probably 100-1.

Is that so?
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-WW/Sisters-of-Battle-Canoness-Veridyan

To me I think one is greater than none. Also, did you miss the part where I said 40k used to embrace world-building and imagination rather than click together duplo toys? 40k is not meant to be easy-to-build Mary Sue Marines, but sadly that is what GW have turned it into in the drive for profit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Amazingly there was this thing called "Worldbuilding" and "Imagination", before GW decided that not only was it No Model, No Rules, it was No Model, No Artwork.

Strange, how do the Silver Templars covered in all their robes and decorations and suchlike have models?

If you were trying to disprove Primaris Marines as literally Toyetic, you did a bad job there.

Come on, you've not explained how Mr Squat Marine with his clean, featureless armour isn't exactly as toyetic as the Primaris.

I'm not making any comment on if the Primaris are toyetic or not. I'm making comment that any design feature or complaint you can level at the Primaris, I can apply to the old marines too (save for one, proportion - and even then, the SM Heroes range takes steps to alleviate that too).

It's the Stewart Test.

Good catch!! Way to hyper focus on one irrelevant thing in the entire context of what I was saying. Your example was rubbish. Last I saw there was a Funko made of a SoB. Is that toyetic?

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Good catch!! Way to hyper focus on one irrelevant thing in the entire context of what I was saying. Your example was rubbish. Last I saw there was a Funko made of a SoB. Is that toyetic?

Yes...

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. To me it seems like you're agreeing with me. Unless you're genuinely arguing that Funko pops improve anything ever?

Also if you're not willing to do even the barest modicum of research before asserting something, why should we listen to you? You've demonstrated you're not worth listening to.

I’m disagreeing with the narrative you’re pushing on 40k/space marines of old. I have old medal models that are two pieces. So yeah easy to assemble isn’t a new thing. GW is just marketing that to draw in new people. The aesthetic of the true scale marines is hardly different from the old squat marines. You can drop Blanche art up and say that’s the definition of old marines or world building, but it hasn’t been that way for a long time.

Not a fan of funko. Just pointing out that the aesthetic you’re trying to point out as “40k OG” is toyetic. The company makes plastic soldiers....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Good catch!! Way to hyper focus on one irrelevant thing in the entire context of what I was saying. Your example was rubbish. Last I saw there was a Funko made of a SoB. Is that toyetic?

Yes...

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. To me it seems like you're agreeing with me. Unless you're genuinely arguing that Funko pops improve anything ever?

Also if you're not willing to do even the barest modicum of research before asserting something, why should we listen to you? You've demonstrated you're not worth listening to.

Pump the breaks killer. I own that model so I don’t have to do any research on if it exists as as a miniature. If you were to read my earlier comment I said the figures to the right of the SOB.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Pump the breaks killer. I own that model so I don’t have to do any research on if it exists as as a miniature. If you were to read my earlier comment I said the figures to the right of the SOB.

No, that isn't what you said.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
I’m saying that your example of what 40k the wargame is- is actually a rubbish example. None of the figures in the image are playable miniatures. The image doesn’t even include space marines! When I think of 40k I don’t think of SOBs. Hardly anyone ever played that army. The ratio of SOB to Space Marines books is probably 100-1.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
This is 40k.

Spoiler:

This is an Marvel Comic Supersoldier with Mary Sue powers.

Spoiler:

It might be hard to put into words, but the difference is there.

Have any of the figures to the right of the SoB made into being a model in 40k? The red robed guys? How can you possibly say that is 40k when barely anything in that image is actually in 40k.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
...Have any of the figures to the right of the SoB made into being a model in 40k? The red robed guys? How can you possibly say that is 40k when barely anything in that image is actually in 40k.

The Redemptionists? They had Necromunda models back in the day, but GW decided that the KKK hoods may be impolitic so they left them off when they did the Cawdor for N17.

So as far as I can see from this thread anything clean is toyetic? So I guess that would include eldar guardians, most wraiths, literally all the Tau.

I'd wager Tau look the most like toys or action figures out of the entire range of armies thanks to their big suits.

Basic Space Marine boxes have always been smooth/uncluttered with very few exceptions. Mainly because they're leaving it up to the players to style them with "bits" and "doodads" after the fact. The chapter specific models will be more ornate (probably far too much, in typical GW style).

That being said, the newer Primaris units do have a ultra high tech aesthetic which is pretty blase and not very interesting. So while I agree with the aesthetic issue, I don't agree with the expectation that basic marine units would be covered in gothic accessories.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Good catch!! Way to hyper focus on one irrelevant thing in the entire context of what I was saying. Your example was rubbish. Last I saw there was a Funko made of a SoB. Is that toyetic?

Yes...

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. To me it seems like you're agreeing with me. Unless you're genuinely arguing that Funko pops improve anything ever?

Also if you're not willing to do even the barest modicum of research before asserting something, why should we listen to you? You've demonstrated you're not worth listening to.

This ^^ exalted.

I think that you nailed the issue with imagination and world building vs no model no rules.

Some posters focus on the models and from there the game as if the only evidence is in physical models.

Meanwhile what 40k as a so called IP is, is really a context. A universe. A fantasy world that reflects this one...

I think that maybe restartes do reflect the current world and associated values, e.g. profit driven and excusable or even rational behaviours include squatting lines, thereby betraying loyal fans and failing to support tradition. This sort of attitude is evident in the OK boomer type dismissals of life experience that seems to have become such a common attitude in the west. Not that i am a fan of boomer gen as this is where "greed is good" finally takes off but the mantra was the dream of preboomers who set the stage for these so called values. But my point here is simply that we saw the empty rituals point to higher goods even as the rest of the world was turning in the other direction. This transition was gothic leading into new science... now kids only seem to see the plastic in their hands in an ahistorical sense. Posthistory we may say...

Anyways where do my dudes fit into this context? They see restartes for what they are. Heresy.

I think the issue may not be so much in the accessorizing.

The old marines look like something out of the Heavy Metal animated movie, they're much more animation and comic art given form.

The Primaris marines on the other hand, by dint of being more realistically scaled, have less of that fantastical edge (they're still very fantastical, don't get me wrong), and a lot of the game art has gone this route as well. With the shift in GW's art styling over the last few years, new generations of artists and significantly more (almost exclusively) computer assisted depictions, coupled with the scale change and more realistic stylings, it kinda gives everything a different flavor. Less proudly defiant striking metal-band poses, more "tacticool" poses.


We can use these earlier examples to illustrate it

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
What about these two Marines?

Spoiler:

Conversely, what about these pictures?

Spoiler:

The very bottom pic could basically be a thinly reskinned Call of Duty game cover, and it's not really due to anything different about the marines equipment or decoration. The more realistic interpretation, as expressed in both the art and the models, definitely changes the flavor. There's often either significantly less color or a wash of one and fewer contrasts, and a darker tone in general. (I actually quite like that Space Wolves picture however)

Using some of the previous examples, we can look at this same trend with videogames, Duke Nukem 3D and CoD


I think a lot of us underestimate how much of the classic Space Marine look and feel was tied to that fundamental 80's/90's Blanchian aesthetic. Whether that is good or bad is going to be entirely subjective. I enjoy the larger scale of the Primaris marines in many ways, the models themselves are marvelous from a technical perspective, but at the same time, they really do feel less "40k" in some hard to explain way (and their hamfisted background is awful, but we'll ignore that for now).

It isn't hard to explain. It's just complaining to complain, simple as that. None of the complaints have been grounded in reality, from saying they're not gothic enough (which Manlet Marines aren't without gluing a bunch of optional stuff on them anyway, nor is the armor actually gothic in nature) to saying the models aren't flexible (which is silly because how many angles are you really getting out of Manlet Models? That answer is not a lot).

It's also probably refusing to accept change as well.

I feel it's worth noting GW by their own admission purposefully made Primaris fairly clean so we could add stuff on or not to taste. for every person who liked the highly skulled up purity seal covered marines we occasionally saw, there where people who hated it. it's a lot easier to give us the empty armor and let us decoate as we wish.

More profitable too as it means GW can hypotheticly if they see demand put out chapter upgrade packs, purity seal packs "SKULL ARMOR" upgrade packs etc.