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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
One of the reasons Primaris exist is specifically because they can't keep getting people to re-buy Tac/Dev/Assault Squads over and over again. Each one has had 3 revisions (IIRC) since the start of 3rd. They even made super special ones in the Van/Sternguard units. I don't think they could do it a 4th time.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I can't see plastic releases for '30k' Not being playable in 40k. Every unit in the Battle for Calth set had 40k rules, and the "Horus Heresy" Mk 3 and 4 kits were built to Tactical Squad format.

And those can be shifted to Legends pretty easily. So yes, they'd technically still be playable in 40k, but as Legends units.

And remember, Tartaros and Cataphractii Terminators aren't playable anymore. They're "Relic Terminators".

They're still playable and not legends. Just condensed the way Predators and a number of Captains should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
TBH Primaris feels like an attempt to avoid the "buying your army over again" issue in tyhat they can now just introduce new niche units since primaris are no long generalists like first born where

Aye, very much so. "You want meltas? Buy the specific box to create the specific unit of Melta-marine" vs. the glorious Devastators box.

For the last four editions like 90% of the models I field has been just combinations of the Tactical and Devastator boxes, and it's served me extremely well since they're so flexible. Command, Sternguard, Tactical and Devastators, armed with whatever particular Special/Heavies are meta-viable, and just swapping guns when it changes. The Primaris paradigm encourages more purchases in order to chase the competitive scene.

I don't want any primaris, and prefer the original models that I got into the hobby with.

So I just picked up what I want from the old range and finished out my space marine collection. I'm happy for Primaris to exist for all the other (probably greater number) of people who like them. I'd suggest to anyone who is upset about them to just finish out their space marine collections, or if they already have extensive collections, accept that it's not going to expand any more.

In any case, space marines are going to be available in the secondary market for years and years yet. I just don't see the reason to get annoyed about it, the old models are still available if you want them.

BrianDavion wrote:




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 Flipsiders wrote:

 ImperialArmy wrote:
Primaris marines replacing firstborn

God, I hope so.

You're delusional. GW wants SM players to re-buy their own army over and over again. So in a few years they'll launch a new line of model. The only question is: are those new marines gonna be 3.0 dudes with even better profile than gravis armour or a firstborn revamp? The latter seems more likely, GW is even planning on revamping old WHFB armies on square bases with The Old World.

8-10 years after the release of 8th edition and a huge portion of SM players will not have a single firstborn dude, then it would be a great opportunity to revamp them and unlike some hypothetical new marines 3.0 they will also have the nostalgia card to play.

I don't think he's delusional dude. Though your little conspiracy theory sure feels like it. TBH Primaris feels like an attempt to avoid the "buying your army over again" issue in tyhat they can now just introduce new niche units since primaris are no long generalists like first born where

So you don't think GW wants SM player to constantly buy tons of stuff? Nice. I guess you missed the fact that since forever the bulk of the new releases are SM related. In just 4 years SM got an entire new huge roster with the primaris/gravis release. I think that in the next 4-5 years SM releases will still be massive, as always. Now that the primaris/gravis line is basically complete, what's next? Improved marines or firstborn revamp is the logical guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
One of the reasons Primaris exist is specifically because they can't keep getting people to re-buy Tac/Dev/Assault Squads over and over again. Each one has had 3 revisions (IIRC) since the start of 3rd. They even made super special ones in the Van/Sternguard units. I don't think they could do it a 4th time.

This assuming the vast majority of the SM players are long time hobbysts. 8-10 years after the launch of 8th edition not many SM players will actually have firstborn models. I already know a lot of guys which only have primaris/gravis stuff.

 Blackie wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 Flipsiders wrote:

 ImperialArmy wrote:
Primaris marines replacing firstborn

God, I hope so.

You're delusional. GW wants SM players to re-buy their own army over and over again. So in a few years they'll launch a new line of model. The only question is: are those new marines gonna be 3.0 dudes with even better profile than gravis armour or a firstborn revamp? The latter seems more likely, GW is even planning on revamping old WHFB armies on square bases with The Old World.

8-10 years after the release of 8th edition and a huge portion of SM players will not have a single firstborn dude, then it would be a great opportunity to revamp them and unlike some hypothetical new marines 3.0 they will also have the nostalgia card to play.

I don't think he's delusional dude. Though your little conspiracy theory sure feels like it. TBH Primaris feels like an attempt to avoid the "buying your army over again" issue in tyhat they can now just introduce new niche units since primaris are no long generalists like first born where

So you don't think GW wants SM player to constantly buy tons of stuff? Nice. I guess you missed the fact that since forever the bulk of the new releases are SM related. In just 4 years SM got an entire new huge roster with the primaris/gravis release. I think that in the next 4-5 years SM releases will still be massive, as always. Now that the primaris/gravis line is basically complete, what's next? Improved marines or firstborn revamp is the logical guess.
.

so I just think GW's doing it differantly. by having a large number of specialist units they give themselves more design room. then "LOOK IT'S MALIBU-DEVESTATOR SQUAD WITH A NEW GUN!"

BrianDavion wrote:




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 Flipsiders wrote:

 ImperialArmy wrote:
Primaris marines replacing firstborn

God, I hope so.

You're delusional. GW wants SM players to re-buy their own army over and over again. So in a few years they'll launch a new line of model. The only question is: are those new marines gonna be 3.0 dudes with even better profile than gravis armour or a firstborn revamp? The latter seems more likely, GW is even planning on revamping old WHFB armies on square bases with The Old World.

8-10 years after the release of 8th edition and a huge portion of SM players will not have a single firstborn dude, then it would be a great opportunity to revamp them and unlike some hypothetical new marines 3.0 they will also have the nostalgia card to play.

I don't think he's delusional dude. Though your little conspiracy theory sure feels like it. TBH Primaris feels like an attempt to avoid the "buying your army over again" issue in tyhat they can now just introduce new niche units since primaris are no long generalists like first born where

I'm sorry, you think GW took the exact same existing roles and weapons that space marines historically used and doodled around with them slightly in terms of allowable unit composition so space marine players....WOULDNT have to re-buy their whole army again?

You think James Q Workshop didnt take a look at the average space marine player's collection and go "hmmm, well theyve probably got about 3-4 space marines armed with plasma guns, but if we released our new unit as a 5-man squad with just plasma guns, then they'd have to buy the new box in order to field the 'new' unit, but if we just replaced tacticals with a new upscaled tactical box like we did literally last edition they'd just not buy tht box and keep using their old marines.

We got so desperate to sell those new tacticals and assault marines and devastators that we literally wrote super-powerful rules into the game that REQUIRED you to use tacticals and assault marines and devastators to unlock them. Lets not do that again!"

I just like the old mixed weapons, it never worked well in game but I liked how it looked and felt.

Entire units with one weapon is an eldar thing, damnit!

But there's not really anything wrong with GW wanting people to buy a bunch of new space marines. They did it in a fairly okay way, they've left Firstborn as a background thing for people who care about that, and left the models and their rules available for two editions now.

Nobody else got treated like that if there was a change of this nature.

I dunno. After nearly 20 years of one design paradigm I can forgive them for deciding they wanted to change things. I don't have to buy into it as an old fart who likes the way things were when my brain was producing more dopamine for new experiences than it does now, but I'm relaxed about it all happening.

I was much more annoyed about how they treated WFB, that was actually not very kind to the fanbase. I think they probably learned a bit from the backlash to that.

I have been expecting GW to replace Space Marines with Primaris Marines since they first came out so it will be no real surprise when they squat the original Space Marines. To me it is not only a way to get existing fanboys to buy a new set Marines, but the ability to sell legally "protected" marines. I am sure that everything about Primaris Marines has passed through the legal department at GW so that companies like Chapterhouse cant come anywhere close to replicate it. I have zero faith that they will keep "supporting" the older line of Space Marines in future editions.

If that is an issue to you, then do what I did when they killed WFB and either play an older edition or a totally new game system. Personally, the Primaris Marines look does not inspire me to collect them, so when they phase out the older Space Marines, my wallet closes to them on that faction. That is happening more and more with GW products as of late with me. I have not been impressed with a new release from GW in at least five years if not longer, so I will likely do the same thing with 40K as I did with WFB.

 Insectum7 wrote:
They're still playable and not legends. Just condensed the way Predators and a number of Captains should be.

They're not playable. They don't exist in the rules anymore. Instead GW invented a new unit called "Relic Terminators" that you can 'Counts As' using two unit types that used to be playable.

And Predators should be condensed in the same way? Armed with "Predator Turret Weapon" and "Predator Sponson Weapons" rather than specifics?

TinyLegions wrote:
That is happening more and more with GW products as of late with me. I have not been impressed with a new release from GW in at least five years if not longer, so I will likely do the same thing with 40K as I did with WFB.

If the condensed grim dark nonsense that Sisters are doesn't tickle your fancy, I believe your taste just changed away from what 40k wants to offer you.

Is it reasonable to expect GW to support the massive Space Marine range forever? I don't really think so. If you're a fan who hasn't got something yet, you've had a few years to do so. And even after it goes OOP, if you really want it you can get it on the secondary market.

It's not great, but it happens. Marine players have had a decently long run with a very extensive range, with nothing being taken away from them. And there's been an overlap period where you can keep using your stuff, and still buy the old stuff.

It's kind of interesting that the Primaris follow the design paradigm of the Eldar lines, which are generally known not to sell as well as the Space Marine line. Obviously it's working out for them, but I don't understand why they discarded a winning formula (the wonderfully kit-bashable modular Space Marines with mixed weapons) and went with the less popular formula they used in 'xenos' armies. I suspect early attempt to copy the Space Marine formula (5th/6th WHFB, 3rd edition 40k) of modular, mixed miniatures didn't work out. I recall reading comments that the multi-pose didn't really work well and tended to look terrible unless the poses were relatively static.

I mean there is nothing stopping GW from just selling Firstborn for the next 20 years without releasing anything new for them.

Look at 2nd edition Eldar... All of those kits should have broken even by that point and are basically like printing money.

That's totally possible but at some stage if they're not selling well they're just taking up inventory space to keep in production, so it depends if people keep buying them. It looks to me like it's mostly older players who like the old marines, and most new players (and many of the old) much prefer the new primaris. If I was joining the game now I'd probably go for Primaris over old marines, it's just my affection for the old designs that makes me choose otherwise.

I like both types of Marines but I will say that the Primaris are much less of a pain (in most cases, bloody Agressor cables) to build than Firstborn. The body being a single large piece means that I'm less likely to lose parts when I'm building the model and the lack of the hip joint makes it overall much more stable, i.e. no wobbling during the building process so the top half comes off in a light breeze.

Eh, I love the iconic Marine, but I won't buy them unless they get upscaled.

I really like the Primaris kits heaps more than the First Born. The only reason I'd buy firstborn stuff now, is to convert my existing firstborn army to be better suited for 30K.

I like the basic troops but I'm not a fan of the scout equivalents or the heavier armoured ones. And I dislike 32mm bases in general, so that puts me off them.

The bikers are fine but the rest of the vehicles leave me a bit cold, to be honest. I prefer the old style vehicles a lot more, I think all the hover tanks and stuff look a bit silly.

But the look of the basic troop is really important for any model range, and I think they did a good job there.

I've actually bought a couple of old kits (an attack bike and a land speeder storm) to finish off an army made from a mix of 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e and 6e models. It's been very fun to work on, and reminded me why space marines are cool. Maybe someday I'll get over my dislike of 32mms and make a Primaris army but I'm in no rush at all.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
They're still playable and not legends. Just condensed the way Predators and a number of Captains should be.

They're not playable. They don't exist in the rules anymore. Instead GW invented a new unit called "Relic Terminators" that you can 'Counts As' using two unit types that used to be playable.

It was silly to give different terminator armour marks bespoke rules to begin with. Just have an entry for terminators and let people represent them with whichever mark they want. Just like it was always with classic power armour marks. There are no different rules for mark III tacticals and mark VI tacticals.

I think that was a holdover from the 30k rules, where different terminator armour have different rules.

I would assume so. The rulesets at the time were very similar with AoD being adapted from 6th/7th Ed 40k. In AoD there are 3 types of Terminator armour, Terminator (to represent less common patterns such as Saturnine or Indomitus), Cataphractii, and Tartaros.
All types get Relentless, Bulky, a 2+ and 5++ and no Sweeping Advance.
Cataphractii gives a 4++ and Tartaros allows for Sweeping Advances.
The only type of armour that didn't exist at some point during the Heresy was Mk.8, which was developed post-Heresy. As long as the units are equipped correctly then most of the 40k stuff is a-ok to use. Indeed before the days of cheapish ways to procure Heresy era gear, people had to make do with 40k Marines/CSM and there was much removing of Aquilas and scrounging of fancy-looking parts to make your Marines look old.

 Nurglitch wrote:
It's kind of interesting that the Primaris follow the design paradigm of the Eldar lines, which are generally known not to sell as well as the Space Marine line. Obviously it's working out for them, but I don't understand why they discarded a winning formula (the wonderfully kit-bashable modular Space Marines with mixed weapons) and went with the less popular formula they used in 'xenos' armies. I suspect early attempt to copy the Space Marine formula (5th/6th WHFB, 3rd edition 40k) of modular, mixed miniatures didn't work out. I recall reading comments that the multi-pose didn't really work well and tended to look terrible unless the poses were relatively static.

I suspect this is an instance of people confusing a move not intended for them with a move that is stupid.

Games Workshop's goal with 40k and sigmar ultimately is to get people hooked in to a high-cost high-maintenance 'lifestyle game' that they play primarily above any other game system.

The space where people have spent their first 150$ getting into the hobby with a rulebook+start up box is an absolutely critical juncture for GW, because if they get that initial purchase to stick, then they sell 500$-ish in that new player's first army.

How many people quit, frustrated, because the first 200$ of stuff they purchased was non-synergistic, non-competitive or even not game legal because of the options they chose?

Existing customers who actively play and have 2000+ points of stuff actually probably aren't a huge fraction of GW's income stream, which is probably why forums are so heavily populated by people who feel screwed over by the idiot decision making process of a billion dollar company that somehow keeps making more money.

"Why do they keep making monopose models in starter boxes?" Because its easier for new players to put them together correctly.
"Why do they keep pushing these huge centerpiece models that you cant transport?" because the segment of the customer base that just buys, paints, and displays the kits gobbles them up.
"Why do they keep making me buy rulebooks and codexes?" Because statistically youve stopped buying nearly as many miniatures. It's a way to keep you in the revenue stream.

Does anyone actually take the fluff justifying Primaris vs. First Born seriously? They're essentially the exact same models and sculpts just at a larger scale. If you like Primaris sculpts, buy those, if you like first-born sculpts, then buy those. Use the sculpts you like and give them the relevant datasheets for your army list.

No amount of hastily slapped together Black Library D-grade Sci-Fi rubbish is going to ever occlude the fact that this is simply a marketing/design ploy by GW.

Actually, keeping them separate datasheets is hurting GW a bit on that front.

I'd seriously consider playing Primaris if they had tactical-marine like organization (more like a modern army, less like a typical "wargame" min-max army pre-built )

But as it stands, I don't really like the Firstborn sculpts (they're gorgeous, don't get me wrong, just a personal opinion) and the Primaris sculpts feel a good bit better, but the actual way Primaris armies are organized (mono-type squads) irks me.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
It's kind of interesting that the Primaris follow the design paradigm of the Eldar lines, which are generally known not to sell as well as the Space Marine line. Obviously it's working out for them, but I don't understand why they discarded a winning formula (the wonderfully kit-bashable modular Space Marines with mixed weapons) and went with the less popular formula they used in 'xenos' armies. I suspect early attempt to copy the Space Marine formula (5th/6th WHFB, 3rd edition 40k) of modular, mixed miniatures didn't work out. I recall reading comments that the multi-pose didn't really work well and tended to look terrible unless the poses were relatively static.

I suspect this is an instance of people confusing a move not intended for them with a move that is stupid.

Games Workshop's goal with 40k and sigmar ultimately is to get people hooked in to a high-cost high-maintenance 'lifestyle game' that they play primarily above any other game system.

The space where people have spent their first 150$ getting into the hobby with a rulebook+start up box is an absolutely critical juncture for GW, because if they get that initial purchase to stick, then they sell 500$-ish in that new player's first army.

How many people quit, frustrated, because the first 200$ of stuff they purchased was non-synergistic, non-competitive or even not game legal because of the options they chose?

Existing customers who actively play and have 2000+ points of stuff actually probably aren't a huge fraction of GW's income stream, which is probably why forums are so heavily populated by people who feel screwed over by the idiot decision making process of a billion dollar company that somehow keeps making more money.

"Why do they keep making monopose models in starter boxes?" Because its easier for new players to put them together correctly.
"Why do they keep pushing these huge centerpiece models that you cant transport?" because the segment of the customer base that just buys, paints, and displays the kits gobbles them up.
"Why do they keep making me buy rulebooks and codexes?" Because statistically youve stopped buying nearly as many miniatures. It's a way to keep you in the revenue stream.

The starters have been mono-pose since 2nd edition. I'm thinking downstream of those, the sorts of boxes people buy primarily to build and paint rather than to 'play' the game with. In fact, I'd say people just collecting rather than playing is who're driving revenue. Something neat about collecting and building regardless of the rules is how much more enjoyable and relaxing it makes the hobby. I bowed out of the game a couple of years ago and it really improved my Hobby experience because I could buy and paint whatever I wanted rather than budgeting to keep up with my local meta.

 Crimson wrote:
It was silly to give different terminator armour marks bespoke rules to begin with.

Based on...? Because of... ? Due to... ?

And by that reasoning there shouldn't even be a Relic Terminator entry.

 Crimson wrote:
Just have an entry for terminators and let people represent them with whichever mark they want. Just like it was always with classic power armour marks. There are no different rules for mark III tacticals and mark VI tacticals.

I think it's fun when things are special, when there's a distinct difference between things. I think adding granularity and options to a game is something that is more enjoyable. Having three different types of Terminator armour with their own strengths and weaknesses provides a choice. Lumping things that are distinct from one another into one catch-all unit is less creative, less fun, and just plain boring.

As for Power Armour, the problems are twofold:

1. Power Armour tends to be mixed not just within squads but on individual Marines as well. You can have Marines with Mk.8 chest plates, Mk.6 legs and a Mk.7 helmet. Variation within squads is too high to account for that in rules.
2. The differences between power armour marks are not quite as stark as the clear differences between Cataphracti and Tartaros armour (same as the three main types of Mk.X power armour).

It's one of those 'levels of detail' things that isn't something appropriate to a game of 40k's scale, especially when you tend to have far more power armour Marines compared to Terminators. I would apply the same thinking to Combi-Weapons, where the idea that they only ever got one shot never made any sense, as you can reload guns (a change I'm glad they made for more recent editions). In the 40k RPGs, Combi-Weapons get one shot and then have to spend time reloading. Power Armour Marks all have slightly different rules as well. For 40k scale, that's not necessary.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It was silly to give different terminator armour marks bespoke rules to begin with.

Based on...? Because of... ? Due to... ?

And by that reasoning there shouldn't even be a Relic Terminator entry.

 Crimson wrote:
Just have an entry for terminators and let people represent them with whichever mark they want. Just like it was always with classic power armour marks. There are no different rules for mark III tacticals and mark VI tacticals.

I think it's fun when things are special, when there's a distinct difference between things. I think adding granularity and options to a game is something that is more enjoyable. Having three different types of Terminator armour with their own strengths and weaknesses provides a choice. Lumping things that are distinct from one another into one catch-all unit is less creative, less fun, and just plain boring.

As for Power Armour, the problems are twofold:

1. Power Armour tends to be mixed not just within squads but on individual Marines as well. You can have Marines with Mk.8 chest plates, Mk.6 legs and a Mk.7 helmet. Variation within squads is too high to account for that in rules.
2. The differences between power armour marks are not quite as stark as the clear differences between Cataphracti and Tartaros armour (same as the three main types of Mk.X power armour).

It's one of those 'levels of detail' things that isn't something appropriate to a game of 40k's scale, especially when you tend to have far more power armour Marines compared to Terminators. I would apply the same thinking to Combi-Weapons, where the idea that they only ever got one shot never made any sense, as you can reload guns (a change I'm glad they made for more recent editions). In the 40k RPGs, Combi-Weapons get one shot and then have to spend time reloading. Power Armour Marks all have slightly different rules as well. For 40k scale, that's not necessary.

Bleh. This is one area I strongly disagree on. We don't need separate rules for each mark of armor, or half a dozen suits of terminator armor. The 10,000 different types of bolters is equally annoying. To me Light Power Armor (Scout, Phobos; 4+), base Power Armor (3+), Improved Power Armor (Artificer, Gravis; 2+), Terminator Armor (1+, 5++) and Relic Terminator Armor (1+, 4++) is more than enough, and certainly more than any other gets.

My problem with Primaris(I own 5-6k pts of them) is that it's really hard to play with them in M37.

In M41/2 sure and do often.

Not sure why the timeline is relevant unless you're playing a specific campaign event.

If I'm playing a game set in m37, why would primaris be there?

Just like how Rowbowt wouldn't be there(unless I missed something), but if we are playing war of the beast, Vulkan would be around so that at least makes sense.

I can understand that when you play, you have zero story or narrative in mind(& that's ok), We just refuse to be boring.

Last week I played against my buddy's TS, we were playing a game set at the opening of the Rift(so no Primaris). O I also didn't have a razorback or is that immersion breaking???

Or any of the wars for Armageddon, 1st Tyrannic war or (insert historical event)?

Just like how Rowbowt wouldn't be there(unless I missed something), but if we are playing war of the beast, Vulkan would be around so that at least makes sense.

Well, if there is Ultramar...