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.

I started playing Warhammer in 3rd edition and stopped around 5th edition. Only started taking interest and getting back into it 2 years ago. And here is my main issue with the Primaris releases, it has taken away the uniqueness of Space Marines in both the play style and look and feel.

One of the unique play style of Space Marines were that they were generalist super soldiers to some extent. Every squad could hold its own against nearly anything and has the flexibility to specialist a bit with one or two unique war gear in each squad. Now a days it seems like with Primaris, each squad has a very specific purpose similar to how eldar plays. Rather than have a squad of intercessors and allowing the squad to take a heavy weapon like a melta or heavy flamer. We now have a squad of all bolsters and a squad of all meltas in the form of eradicators. I feel that this is a loss in one of the unique play style features of space marines.

Speaking of look and feel, I remembered back in the day, Terminators were absolutely iconic. Not only were they Space Marines but they were freakin terminators with 2+ saves and all wielding powerfists. Nowadays with Primaris releases of Gravis suits and things like centurions; they just feel like another variation of many other units.

So play Firstborn?

I feel they finally got the marine size right and the feel that a unit should look like compared to other units.
I quite like intercessors on the table, and feel the heavy intercessors being just the devastator unit would have been great.

But I feel like the all special weapons should have been vet units equipment.
And feels like they have overshadowed the boltgun weapons iconic to marines so much at this point.

The eliminators are ok.
But the inceptors hurt me, I hate them! They should be using a bolter, as a hybrid scout midrange assault.

The Aggressors I do actually like, I think they mostly suffer from not being able to customise the unit. And overdesigned with lots of guns.
Makes them harder to balance around a force.

Also new marines suffer from price bloat here, 3space marines not worth what they are asking.
And even a killteam of marines is a big investment.

Space marines is a line that needed better design oversight before primaris, so now I think they suffer from the same issues.

Fairly mixed overall and I think the early world building for them sucked the soul out.
Marines should be marines, having the rules so seperate does so much to make the game worse, and makes it even harder to move forward.
Which is why I think the mined nostalgia for marines tends to hit better than these weird new things.

Play with chaos marine rules, they still function (ironically) with more of a firstborn codex feel than the legion-esque feel of primaris.

Or as others have said just avoid the primaris. Honestly I think loyalist marines aren't for you at this point however.

Attrocious lore put aside for a moment, the only "problem" with primaris is the fact that GW both stretched their releases time wise and unit wise.
Did space marine scouts really had to change in to 4 separate units? Can't there just be one floating predator and new landspeeder, with different weapon options?
It looks like the whole reset is going to take 3 editions. It feels almost as if to avoid backlash, GW just decided to age out their players out of playing non primaris marines.

But even after those 3 editions the problems will not be gone. Because, to teeth grinding of all marine haters, will then have to make specific SW, BA etc primaris units. Which again will probably take them 2-3 editions.

All of this could have been done in one. Without stupid lore changes, just say Cawl made new MK versions of bolters and power armour. People would have upscale their models, they have been doing that on their own, before even primaris were a thing.

All we need now is for abadon get his key of time travel. Journey and time to HH, partialy achive success by changing history and then in 12-13th ed we get AoSed w40k. And a new marines model rescale. Assuming anyone isn't playing with 3d recasts and prints of super expensive GW models.

I play Space Marines in 40K and have only a few Primaris units. 80% or more of my army is Firstborn. I don't know what you're talking about? Firstborn play just like they've always played.

SM dex is deliberately made in a way which allows fielding exactly the type of Marine army you want. Use that flexibility!

JadeDoo, I agree completely. My first reaction when Primaris became a thing was 'why are they structured like the Eldar? Dumb.'

I too started at the beginning of 3rd and midway through 5th my group realized that GW was more about change than improvement so we veered off with our own ruleset which we happily improve and play to this day.

On a personal note, I don't even like the term 'Firstborn'. If our group ever needs to make a distinction, we call them 'Trueborn'. After all, the Primaris marines aren't born at all, they are simply vat grown from petri dishes. Like mold.

I have a hard time looking beyond the lore of the primaris. It’s easily the most stupid piece of lore gw has ever pulled. You can’t just bring in legions of space marines that have been chilling in space for thousands of years. Also can we talk about the fact that there already was a unit called the “primaris psyker” when the marines came out? It’s an imperial guard unit. They didn’t even change the name of the psyker to something else later. That’s just lazy, even with copyright rules and such. Weird rant aside the primaris intercessors looks awesome. Pretty much everything else looks silly.

Another lore rant. There’s an in lore reason why space marine chapters and even squads are equipped as they are. The codex astartes put them up to be able to operate in a wide variety of situations. Most of the primaris just feel like specialist with no unifying core. It’s just silly to me. Also how come every chapter can suddenly produce so much of the new equipment while the resources are more scarce then ever? More lore rant, more lore rant, more lore rant, more lore rant.

GW saturated the SM product line with Primaris units so heavily that the whole faction is now a disjointed mess. Even sending First Born off into the sunset will not be enough to course correct.

At this point the overabundance of SM units is actually a deterrent; causing new and even existing players to be overwhelmed. Having options is good; having too many options is paralyzing.

I actually stopped collecting SM's because of the over saturation of product.

@amanita: Spot on... "GW was more about change than improvement"

I love the primaris minis(minus a few duds) and have a ton of them. But I PLAY firstborn.


Although I don't really play my Salamanders in 40k since i have zero interest in playing Ultramarines....

30k has me covered

 amanita wrote:

On a personal note, I don't even like the term 'Firstborn'. If our group ever needs to make a distinction, we call them 'Trueborn'.

*Spit takes in drukhari.*

As an eldar player, I remember being pretty annoyed by what the OP describes prior to the latest eldar codex. Eradicators were doing specialized anti-tank better than fire dragons with more durability for barely any increased cost.

That said, specialization has been rewarded in 40k for a long time. If you give a tac squad a melta sergeant and a flamer, the squad will be split on whether it wants to move left towards the enemy infantry or right towards the enemy vehicles. If you give a sergeant a power sword and a marine a lascannon, then one model wants to move towards the enemy and another wants to stay away. If you have a stratagem that buffs your unit's flamer attacks, then having a melta model mixed in means you gave up the chance to have another more efficient flamer. And you see that same issue with other factions too. Before the new admech codex, skitarii squads generally tried not to mix their arquebusiers in with their other special weapons. Scourge squads generally take shredders or blasters but not both at once. Etc.

So while "aspect marines" do feel a bit off, they also just kind of make sense. It feels like the rules writers acknowledging that specialization is usually advantageous. (VS the annoying feeling that they're *not* aware of how the game plays that you get with units like oldschool dark lance scourges.)

I always found the Firstborn squatty design obsolete from the get go and it didnt get better with time.

Primaris eventually solved the design problem of Marines, which was a problem of proportions.

But it created new problems :

1) Proportions to other races went out of the window

2) Gravis units are a total failure as a design, until the Heavy Intercessor and the newer Gravis Captain.

3) Too many variations of the same units with a different name.

4) In the end a bloated range.

Horus Heresy eventually did what everyone wanted for marines (ie good proportions), but in the other setting.

Primaris made me more interested in other races and the Horus Heresy, because i can't summon the strenght (or the $$?) to collect them.

The Primaris models are above and beyond any Manlet Marines and the defenders of said Manlet Marines just refuse change.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
The Primaris models are poor imitations and the defenders of said True/RealMarines are superior beings in every way.

Fixed that for ya!

 Wyldhunt wrote:
If you give a sergeant a power sword and a marine a lascannon, then one model wants to move towards the enemy and another wants to stay away.

No, I end up with a squad that can more effectively (than simple bolter fire) deal with the vehicles/monsters/"big stuff" I know I'll face AND is prepared for the inevitable close combat.

I'm confused by what point you're trying to make OP?

The generalization you're talking about was never really present in space marines due how 40k heavily favors specialization. So while marines did "allow" you to take a bunch of generalists with 1 / 2 special weapons per squad (or mixed devastator loadouts), an army built in such a way usually got slaughtered by anything they faced. Like wise you speak of terminators, but termis were awful even in casual settings from 3rd edition all the way until 8th (when they still weren't great).

If your complaint is about SM playstyle with Primaris, nothing has changed from how you had to play; with having to specialize your units (rather than running around with every tac squad having a flamer, ML, and powersword). I even feel Primaris have actually made SM play more like the generalists they want to be. While Tac squads have always been bad, Intercessors are reasonable anti-infantry fire and modestly fighty when they have to be. They're not bad, and have been the stars of the codex at multiple times.

Aesthetically Primaris look a bit different, but they're definitely a big step up proportionally. If the helmet and armor setup really bothers you then you can always capitalize on the new HH range, allowing you to have primaris scaled Firstborn you can run as a primaris force. Just make sure not to cross the streams in that case, and do the necessary conversion work.

I feel like making them bigger than firstborn and chaos marines was a mistake (in the lore and tabletop). If they were just a side grade kind of deal it’d be easier to ignore them if you want. Primaris could have simply been an attempt at a new organization of marines by guilliman, of which not every chapter would agree with. But now named characters are becoming primaris and they are literally supposed to be better than the champions of chaos… who gave up sanity for power. Kind of a raw deal IMO.

Admittedly the rules have now put primaris and firstborn at some sort of parity, but even if firstborn get new kits they’ll still be shorter (just like chaos).

A friend first introduced me to 40K way back at the end of 2nd Ed. He thought I'd love it since I built models and played wargames. He was right, but at first I thought the concept and models were just silly. Future super soldiers with gauntlets the size of a human torso used to grab and destroy vehicles? C'mon already!

But then I recognized the over-the-top appeal to the models and the setting. This was space fantasy, not hard core science fiction. And it was epic! Early games in 3rd Ed. made me appreciate the value of a well rounded squad too. I'll be damned if my bad-ass marines are forced to flee from some enemy dreadnaught because they can't hurt it in melee. Hence the powerfist!

My experience with 40K is similar to my appreciation with the old TV Batman series. As a small child I thought Batman was cool, fighting crime as a secret vigilante against crazy villains, with slanted floor fight scenes and absurd action. As I got older I decided how ridiculous it all was, even to the point of mocking how obviously idiotic the contrived premises resolved themselves week to week. Later, I realized that OF COURSE it was silly, and with maturity even more enjoyment could be gleaned from this classic.
Seriously though, the Penguin locking himself and his gang into a bank vault only to escape in a tank made out of gold? Genius on so many levels!

It's that kind of camp that 40K used to have. Emo space elves...check. Green fungus soccer hooligans...check. Implacable alien eating machines...check. Super soldiers winnowed from entire populations to be the vanguard of Mankind's greatest hope against xenos aggression...check. The same super soldiers but now super evil and have since betrayed humanity for their own ends...check!

It's not like the setting can't develop into to new things, its just that in so doing it shouldn't crap on what made it great in the first place.

Getting back to Primaris marines - I don't hate them; I find them just an unfortunate detour in both the setting and on the table top. The models are better proportionally...but then so what? People who think that this makes them superior have really missed the point, and should watch some old Batman reruns.

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
The Primaris models are poor imitations and the defenders of said True/RealMarines are superior beings in every way.

Fixed that for ya!

See, refusal to accept change.

I would bet the money in my wallet (let's say $25 right now) you've not put together any Intercessors, Aggressors, or Bladeguard. Hell, even the Tacticool Marines, as silly as they are, are still leagues better than Manlet Marines.

The complaint is always "but my options" but what options are you really missing? They've been getting deleted for a long time. If you think Loyalists are gonna continue to escape the CSM treatment, think again.

There is a significant difference between a range refresh and a range being pushed into obsolescence.

 oni wrote:


There is a significant difference between a range refresh and a range being pushed into obsolescence.

And once we get more bitz for the Primaris range it'll be good riddance to Squat Marines.

I think "combat squads"- and "split fire" rule did alot more to solve the gameplay issues with mixed gear squads than any of the new guillymarines did.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 oni wrote:


There is a significant difference between a range refresh and a range being pushed into obsolescence.

And once we get more bitz for the Primaris range it'll be good riddance to Squat Marines.

Do you need to point to the place on the Primaris marine where the 'manlet' marine touched you?

You advocate for change. Change has no intrinsic value of its own. It can be good or bad. The only way it's actually good is for GW to alter its product without making it really bad or good. Change for its own sake simply influences people to buy more product. I believe the main reason GW changed the size of marines was to curtail 3rd party interlopers creating options for the GW model line. They knew they'd have buyers because so many were already intrigued by 'true-scale' figures. Fair enough, that might be good business. Aesthetics are all subjective anyway.

I admit I personally don't like how a Sister fits into a Paragon warsuit or how the Leman Russ has no suspension, a ridiculously large bore cannon with a tiny turret. I have both models and have modified them according to my personal tastes. Win for all around. If GW decided to change the iconic Russ and make it look a better while retaining its aesthetic elements, who would really mind? But if on top of that you change how it has always functioned, it becomes more of an issue. "Oh, look! New Leman Russ rules!" It's got a great new model, but it's no longer an idiosyncratic lumbering tank with a big gun, it's a more like an armored high speed garbage truck with rocket launchers that moves in packs of 5! Sweet!"

ccs wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
If you give a sergeant a power sword and a marine a lascannon, then one model wants to move towards the enemy and another wants to stay away.

No, I end up with a squad that can more effectively (than simple bolter fire) deal with the vehicles/monsters/"big stuff" I know I'll face AND is prepared for the inevitable close combat.

Except that close combat isn't actually inevitable. Our hypothetical sword+lascannon squad could very possibly get shot off the table without making it into close combat, and the fact that you'll probably want to stay back and hold still to make the most of your lascannon makes it even more likely that you'll avoid close combat. Compare that to a squad with a sword and a flamer rather than a lascannon. You still might lose the squad to shooting before they make it into melee, but you can also increase your chances of getting into melee by moving forward, and you won't be suffering a to-hit penalty on an expensive long-ranged weapon when you do so.

Investing points in the sword is a risk for both units, but the latter unit is more likely to get a return on that investment.

You can make a similar argument with a flamer + lascannon squad. The squad is more versatile in that you've paid points to give it both a relatively efficient anti-tank weapon and a relatively efficient anti-infantry weapon. However, the unit is going to be torn between wanting to move closer to get in range with its flamer and wanting to sit still to avoid the to-hit penalty on its lascannon. With my drukhari, I *could* take both a shredder (anti-infantry) and a blaster (anti-tank) in my 10-man warrior squads, but I prefer to take either double shredders or (more likely) double blasters (and usually a dark lance to triple-down on the anti-tank role) so that I don't have to worry about getting into position to shoot at two very different targets with my expensive special weapons.

I'm not saying to *not* go the generalist route; I'm just saying that the game typically rewards units for specializing.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
The Primaris models are poor imitations and the defenders of said True/RealMarines are superior beings in every way.

Fixed that for ya!

See, refusal to accept change.

He says, refusing to accept that change can be bad or that people might simply have different tastes and opinions.

I would bet the money in my wallet (let's say $25 right now) you've not put together any Intercessors, Aggressors, or Bladeguard. Hell, even the Tacticool Marines . . .

Why the hell would I? They're out of scale with my collection, an army design that I find ridiculous, representing asinine fluff on top of that. And much of their line does nothing for me. If I wanted an army filled with models I don't like and dumb lore I guess I'd build a Primaris one. But again, why?

If I wanted bigger Marines, I'd 3d model them and print them myself.

The complaint is always "but my options" but what options are you really missing? They've been getting deleted for a long time. If you think Loyalists are gonna continue to escape the CSM treatment, think again.

"What options are they missing?"

First/True/RealMarine ones


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gitdakka wrote:
I think "combat squads"- and "split fire" rule did alot more to solve the gameplay issues with mixed gear squads than any of the new guillymarines did.

Very much so. Tactical Marines were harder to use prior to 8th. These days they're superior to Intercessors, and the only thing holding up Intercessors is their Strat support, imo. But even prior to 8th they were a good unit if you knew how to use them. I've had 30 Tactical Marines in the majority of my armies since 5th ed, and done well with them. (25 was my usual count in 4th, 50-60 in 3rd)

As usual with with primaris threads, I think the best path forward would be for GW to just roll firstborn/primaris datasheets together wherever possible. This would basically just make primaris into the updated truescale versions of marines, but older players wouldn't be missing out (on rules) if they want to just keep using their firstborn models. This would also allow players to embrace or sweep aside the primaris fluff to taste.

So intercessors and tactical marines become the same thing (with a new name?), hell blasters just become your plasma gunners, hell blasters with the heavy variant become your new plasma canoneers, etc. Outriders are the new bikes. Eliminators/infiltrators become the new scouts. Reivers become assault marines (I guess) or scouts.

The only weirdness is that gravis armor units don't always feel like a 1-to-1 with existing units.

JadeDoo wrote:

One of the unique play style of Space Marines were that they were generalist super soldiers to some extent. Every squad could hold its own against nearly anything and has the flexibility to specialist a bit with one or two unique war gear in each squad. Now a days it seems like with Primaris, each squad has a very specific purpose similar to how eldar plays. Rather than have a squad of intercessors and allowing the squad to take a heavy weapon like a melta or heavy flamer. We now have a squad of all bolsters and a squad of all meltas in the form of eradicators. I feel that this is a loss in one of the unique play style features of space marines.

To be fair rhe 'space marines are generalists' was always at the 'army level'. When you drilled down, squads were always specialised - even in third I was never told 'mix your weapons!' Taca were always las/Plas, devs were always equipped with the same load outs etc.

JadeDoo wrote:


Speaking of look and feel, I remembered back in the day, Terminators were absolutely iconic. Not only were they Space Marines but they were freakin terminators with 2+ saves and all wielding powerfists. Nowadays with Primaris releases of Gravis suits and things like centurions; they just feel like another variation of many other units.

I get rhe feeling but it's misplaced. This isn't a primaris thing. Truth is, Terminators have been continually 'elbowed out' of the 'elite space marines choice' since third ed. Every space marines codex for thr last 25 years has had some variation of 'elitier elites in shinier armour' that have been presented as the 'real elites'. Gravis ain't even that elites. It's just hard.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
As usual with with primaris threads, I think the best path forward would be for GW to just roll firstborn/primaris datasheets together wherever possible. This would basically just make primaris into the updated truescale versions of marines, but older players wouldn't be missing out (on rules) if they want to just keep using their firstborn models. This would also allow players to embrace or sweep aside the primaris fluff to taste.

So intercessors and tactical marines become the same thing (with a new name?), hell blasters just become your plasma gunners, hell blasters with the heavy variant become your new plasma canoneers, etc. Outriders are the new bikes. Eliminators/infiltrators become the new scouts. Reivers become assault marines (I guess) or scouts.

The only weirdness is that gravis armor units don't always feel like a 1-to-1 with existing units.

Same. This is best way forward. Glad they actually bit the bullet and did it for terminators, rather than bloat the marine line even more with 'primaris terminators'
Gives me some hope for the rest.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
If you give a sergeant a power sword and a marine a lascannon, then one model wants to move towards the enemy and another wants to stay away.

No, I end up with a squad that can more effectively (than simple bolter fire) deal with the vehicles/monsters/"big stuff" I know I'll face AND is prepared for the inevitable close combat.

Except that close combat isn't actually inevitable.

Inevitable enough in many of the games I've played over the years. To the point where I equip my Sgts to better deal with it.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Our hypothetical sword+lascannon squad could very possibly get shot off the table without making it into close combat, and the fact that you'll probably want to stay back and hold still to make the most of your lascannon makes it even more likely that you'll avoid close combat. Compare that to a squad with a sword and a flamer rather than a lascannon. You still might lose the squad to shooting before they make it into melee, but you can also increase your chances of getting into melee by moving forward, and you won't be suffering a to-hit penalty on an expensive long-ranged weapon when you do so.

Hypothetical to you, reality to me. You want pics?
I equip my squads to handle a variety of challenges. Left to my own devices? Yes, I would choose to avoid melee in this game. I think it's silly & given too much importance/viability in a game of sci-fi guns, big guns, bigger guns, & crazy bigger guns. I'd prefer to eliminate most targets through firepower.
The choice is not up to me alone though.... The tables are only so big & I can't seem to make my opponents not take melee options of their own. And they seem to want to use those options on my squads.... 9 editions, many hundreds of opponents & thousands of games played, this has been going on for 30 years now. So I equip my Sgts for melee.
I also have no qualms about taking some to-hit penalty because I moved & shot a heavy weapon (earlier editions I couldn't move & fire a heavy weapon at all. So a mere -1? Pfft.). Or using that heavy weapon on some lesser target.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Investing points in the sword is a risk for both units, but the latter unit is more likely to get a return on that investment.

I've never been worried about getting a "return" on a weapon/upgrade. I'd rather have the option & not need it than need it & not have it.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
You can make a similar argument with a flamer + lascannon squad. The squad is more versatile in that you've paid points to give it both a relatively efficient anti-tank weapon and a relatively efficient anti-infantry weapon. However, the unit is going to be torn between wanting to move closer to get in range with its flamer and wanting to sit still to avoid the to-hit penalty on its lascannon. With my drukhari, I *could* take both a shredder (anti-infantry) and a blaster (anti-tank) in my 10-man warrior squads, but I prefer to take either double shredders or (more likely) double blasters (and usually a dark lance to triple-down on the anti-tank role) so that I don't have to worry about getting into position to shoot at two very different targets with my expensive special weapons.

However equipped, the squad doesn't want to do anything. What matters is what I, the player, want it to do in pursuit of victory (or sometimes agendas in Crusade). Sometimes that's sit still & avoid a penalty. Sometimes that's move into optimal range for something like a flamer. Whichever is fine as long as whatever I picked furthers my goal. Hell, the other day? I moved a unit exalted 8-bound AWAY from an easy to murder target & had them squat on an objective....

Anyways, as long as the options exist? I'll keep equipping squads in ways that work for me & you do whatever works for you.

Anyways, as long as the options exist? I'll keep equipping squads in ways that work for me & you do whatever works for you.

Unacceptable. I insist you go rebuild your models to conform to my personal preferences.

</sarcasm>

Seriously though. Glad that's working for you, and there *is* merit to versatility. But I think it's pretty uncontroversial to say that units in 40k are usually better off when kitted out for a specific job. You don't see a lot of scourges mixing a shredder into a squad of blasters. You don't sisters mixing flamers into their melta squads (unless they're intending to use the holy trinity strat or something.)