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.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Spoiler:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Old World is to Fantasy as Horus Heresy is to 40K (this is GW’s stated aim) so we already have ‘40K Old World’.

We also had mini End Times in Gathering Storm or Psychic Awakening. But it never needed burning to the ground as 40K always sold orders of magnitude more than WHFB. So they retooled rather than reset. AOS was always a sales decision over a narrative one.

Bolded text is worth noting, I think. If you want to see the plot move forward with things being shaken up somewhat significantly, I think the fluff we got around the creation of the Cicatrix Maledictum, the return of primarchs, the creation of the ynnari, the return of the Silent King, etc... are pretty good examples of the direction a major time skip would move in. If they suddenly announced Warhammer 50k tomorrow, I'd expect to see something along the lines of all the primarchs having returned at some point, the eldar pantheon having been reborn following some Ynnead-related plot, the Silent King reuniting the 'crons, etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if people don't like the recent major lore changes, what makes them think they'd like another round of the same taken further? Like, the possibility for an overall better setting/batch of lore exists, but is there a reason to think we'd get better lore and not just more awkward stuff like how Cawl and the primaris were handled?

I think part of the issue is that instead of over a long period of time, all of these major lore things are happening over the course of like 10 years in a setting that spans thousands. It they time jumped from 999.m41 to 999.m42 and then unveiled what happened over the past 1,000 years with these developments coming up that would be one thing. Instead we have the galaxy splitting, all the primarchs jumping out of the caves they have hidden in for the past 10,000 years, the Silent King returning from his...what....60 million year siesta? Eldar are getting Ynnari stuff started and then kind of forgotten about. Tau have now gone from 3rd sphere expansion in 999m41 to their 5th one now just a decade or two later. Also we are getting Leviathan again, instead of a new Hive Fleet, but this time bigger.

Yes on a human scale a short period can be super big in terms of change, but when pretty much every faction has huge things reshaping them pop in at the same time its kind of weird. Hell, do a big time skip, show us how the galaxy has changed, what is the same and what is different in the Imperium, and what factions have altered, changed, reformed or the like, GW just needs to step away from everything happening at once. New lore could also easily be made in earlier times as well, filling in a blank here or there while still leaving a massive tapestry of what ifs and questions.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
or the Age of Apostasy, or the Reign of Blood

With every fiber of my being I want this.

All six founding saints of the major Orders as primarch-style center-pieces and an Ecclesiarchy range of dual release Corrupted/ Loyal kits. Custodes for days.

And Goge Vandire and Cardinal Bucharis models that strike terror into the hearts of Imperial minions.

I'd kill for a game about the AoA's immediate predecessor, the Nova Terra Interregnum, and the Moirae schism. Biggest civil war in imperial history since the heresy and has yet to be beat, and all we know about it is the moirae schism, which is almost exclusively known about due to the 3rd ed Assassins codex, and any lore pertaining to the Sons of Medusa.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
or the Age of Apostasy, or the Reign of Blood

With every fiber of my being I want this.

All six founding saints of the major Orders as primarch-style center-pieces and an Ecclesiarchy range of dual release Corrupted/ Loyal kits. Custodes for days.

And Goge Vandire and Cardinal Bucharis models that strike terror into the hearts of Imperial minions.

I'd kill for a game about the AoA's immediate predecessor, the Nova Terra Interregnum, and the Moirae schism. Biggest civil war in imperial history since the heresy and has yet to be beat, and all we know about it is the moirae schism, which is almost exclusively known about due to the 3rd ed Assassins codex, and any lore pertaining to the Sons of Medusa.

This helps make my point for me Yet more interesting lore from 40k I'd forgotten about, which GW is phasing out the Space Marine models for right now.

Narrows the scope of the game. I want a sandbox not a comic book plot.

You know, it's interesting: I complain a fair bit about the size of the Space Marine range relative to the sizes of other factions... But I do think something is lost by retiring Firstborn.

I haven't actually played through the story arc (yet), but I loved 9th ed's Crusade rules for Torchbearer Fleets. I've written about it extensively here, so feel free to ignore me if you've already read this rant.

The idea is that a bunch of green Primaris Greyshields are being delivered to the frontlines by Custodes and Mechanicus to reinforce firstborn chapters that have suffered huge losses.

So in the first phase, you have to find the Chapter- investigating to determine their location/ journeying to a location that will allow you to make contact. Once that phase is complete, then the Greyshields begin to earn the trust of their new Chapter and learn their ways, while the Custodes and Mechanicum support begin to play smaller and smaller roles. And then finally, the Primaris are Blooded and excepted into the chapter.

Now the coolest thing about it was that all of this narrative action is facilitated by Agendas. And that means that IN ADDITION to this narrative, you also have the capacity to tell the story occuring in the theatre of war by stringing together missions in a narrative stucture.

So for example, you can run a Torchbearer Fleet through an Octarius style Planetstrike campain. So that you're making Planetfall and establishing your beach head in game one, conduction recon game two, cutting off enemy supply lines game three, laying seige to a stronghold in game four... At the same time as your army's internal drama is playing out via Agendas.

Now, eliminating Firstborn compromises that story. And there are dozens of other stories that could use the firstborn/ Primaris schism as a central plot device. What about the factions that resisted the influx of Primaris support? Does that conflict drive one or the other to working with renegades, and walking the path toward chaos? Do Inquisitors step in?

Haighus wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:Why can't people just enjoy the setting as it is

People could say that about the current backlash to the setting as it currently is.

Let people enjoy the wars on armageddon, the sieges of vraks or whatever. Those two are very well written warzones. Instead of waking up primarchs and replacing peoples collections, expand the setting! Introduce new battle zones.!New ways to play 40k. Not 41k or some other strange and unfamiliar gakshow.

Why not both?

You can still play Vraks. You can still set your games on Armageddon. Primarchs existing doesn't change that you can still play games in "historical" battles. And you're not being "forced" to rebuy models. GW aren't going to break your door down and force you to add a Primarch into your army.

Well, GW are making one option harder, which is my personal biggest issue with the way Primaris have been introduced and Firstborn models phased out.

If I want to play Space Marines in a campaign set in the Badab War, or any of the Armageddon Wars, or the Fall of Cadia, or the Macharian Crusade, or the Siege of Vraks, or the Age of Apostasy, or the Reign of Blood, or the War of the Beast, or any of hundreds of other conflicts mentioned in a rich lore covering ten thousand years, I can now only buy models for the first few hundred years or the last 5-100 (depending on the timeline interpretation/retcon). Otherwise, the "correct" models are out-of-production. You can't buy MkVII Marines any more, outside of a few kits soon to be replaced.

I'm not sure I fully agree. That would imply that all the models *had* to be completely accurate, and that every unit/model needed to be accurate to that snapshot in time. So, were people ONLY using, say, the exact armour marks present? Were people using exactly the right formations and units deployed? Or, can we perhaps agree that there's a degree of abstraction to factor in here?

Let's say we're looking at the ol' Battle for the Farm, beakies vs orks. According to GW, all marines there had beaky armour, and the orks were all stumpy looking. Now, I'm sure most people, when those models were phased out, realised that the newer models stand in just fine to reflect the initial battle, even if they're not the exact same. And sure, if you want to put in the extra effort to make it "photo-realistic", then you can put in that extra effort and make a bunch of squat orks and beakies.

What's the point in this? Ultimately, the Badab War, or Armageddon Wars, or Fall of Cadia, or Macharian Crusade, or Siege of Vraks, or Age of Apostasy, or Reign of Blood, or War of the Beast, don't really care if you're using Primaris minis, Firstborns, 30k Marines, or whatever other models you want to use. You can play the Fall of Cadia just fine using the new plastic Abaddon. It's still Abaddon. You can play the Armageddon battles using the new Ghazghskull mini. You can still play all those battles, because the fundamental element of those battles is the story around them, and the theme at play. You don't need to be using the *exact right models and units*, because we simply don't know them. As long as you get the theming, knock yourself out.

I don't see why Primaris minis couldn't be used in a Badab Campaign, and honestly, I think they'd look awesome in it. Same as new plastic Abaddon in a Fall of Cadia game.

The way I see it, unless you're gonna open yourself up to being rivet-counted, and then expecting to recreate all the individual marines photographed in FW's sourcebooks, "correctness" is a slippery slope, and it's much more fun (IMO) to go for spectacle and intent rather than "accuracy". And hey, if you NEED that sort of accuracy, I'm sure there's plenty of minis on ebay.

GW's decision has made it much harder to play anything except their most recent narratives if you play Marines... which many people do. And those narratives... a lot of them are not GW's best works, lets put it that way. Even if they were, some of the older settings are brilliantly crafted too. The choices in model line narrow the scope of the setting much more than the lore choices "justifying" them.

Should GW still sell the old Abaddon to recreate Fall of Cadia? Should GW still sell Macharius, in case I want to recreate the Macharian Crusades? Should they still sell the old Orks in case I want to recreate Battle on the Farm?

I want to know to what extent you expect GW to maintain old stock, and not refresh their range.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Spoiler:

Haighus wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:Why can't people just enjoy the setting as it is

People could say that about the current backlash to the setting as it currently is.

Let people enjoy the wars on armageddon, the sieges of vraks or whatever. Those two are very well written warzones. Instead of waking up primarchs and replacing peoples collections, expand the setting! Introduce new battle zones.!New ways to play 40k. Not 41k or some other strange and unfamiliar gakshow.

Why not both?

You can still play Vraks. You can still set your games on Armageddon. Primarchs existing doesn't change that you can still play games in "historical" battles. And you're not being "forced" to rebuy models. GW aren't going to break your door down and force you to add a Primarch into your army.

Well, GW are making one option harder, which is my personal biggest issue with the way Primaris have been introduced and Firstborn models phased out.

If I want to play Space Marines in a campaign set in the Badab War, or any of the Armageddon Wars, or the Fall of Cadia, or the Macharian Crusade, or the Siege of Vraks, or the Age of Apostasy, or the Reign of Blood, or the War of the Beast, or any of hundreds of other conflicts mentioned in a rich lore covering ten thousand years, I can now only buy models for the first few hundred years or the last 5-100 (depending on the timeline interpretation/retcon). Otherwise, the "correct" models are out-of-production. You can't buy MkVII Marines any more, outside of a few kits soon to be replaced.

I'm not sure I fully agree. That would imply that all the models *had* to be completely accurate, and that every unit/model needed to be accurate to that snapshot in time. So, were people ONLY using, say, the exact armour marks present? Were people using exactly the right formations and units deployed? Or, can we perhaps agree that there's a degree of abstraction to factor in here?

Let's say we're looking at the ol' Battle for the Farm, beakies vs orks. According to GW, all marines there had beaky armour, and the orks were all stumpy looking. Now, I'm sure most people, when those models were phased out, realised that the newer models stand in just fine to reflect the initial battle, even if they're not the exact same. And sure, if you want to put in the extra effort to make it "photo-realistic", then you can put in that extra effort and make a bunch of squat orks and beakies.

What's the point in this? Ultimately, the Badab War, or Armageddon Wars, or Fall of Cadia, or Macharian Crusade, or Siege of Vraks, or Age of Apostasy, or Reign of Blood, or War of the Beast, don't really care if you're using Primaris minis, Firstborns, 30k Marines, or whatever other models you want to use. You can play the Fall of Cadia just fine using the new plastic Abaddon. It's still Abaddon. You can play the Armageddon battles using the new Ghazghskull mini. You can still play all those battles, because the fundamental element of those battles is the story around them, and the theme at play. You don't need to be using the *exact right models and units*, because we simply don't know them. As long as you get the theming, knock yourself out.

I don't see why Primaris minis couldn't be used in a Badab Campaign, and honestly, I think they'd look awesome in it. Same as new plastic Abaddon in a Fall of Cadia game.

The way I see it, unless you're gonna open yourself up to being rivet-counted, and then expecting to recreate all the individual marines photographed in FW's sourcebooks, "correctness" is a slippery slope, and it's much more fun (IMO) to go for spectacle and intent rather than "accuracy". And hey, if you NEED that sort of accuracy, I'm sure there's plenty of minis on ebay.

GW's decision has made it much harder to play anything except their most recent narratives if you play Marines... which many people do. And those narratives... a lot of them are not GW's best works, lets put it that way. Even if they were, some of the older settings are brilliantly crafted too. The choices in model line narrow the scope of the setting much more than the lore choices "justifying" them.

Should GW still sell the old Abaddon to recreate Fall of Cadia? Should GW still sell Macharius, in case I want to recreate the Macharian Crusades? Should they still sell the old Orks in case I want to recreate Battle on the Farm?

I want to know to what extent you expect GW to maintain old stock, and not refresh their range.

Firstly, those others are (mostly) not the same. Abaddon has a new model, but it represents how Abaddon has been for most of 40k and is simply a cosmetic upgrade of his previous model. That works for Abaddon at any point after he obtained Drach'n'yen, which is millennia. I do find major changes to established characters annoying, as they no longer fit in their most famous settings- Ghazghkull is a great example. The model is Ghaz after the Armageddon wars. However, special characters are always an odd one, because they generally are a snapshot in time. Personally I'd prefer less focus on special characters for this very reason.

But Orks are orks- the current ork boyz are not materially different from orks who fought against the Great Crusade. The vast majority of basic kits for factions are applicable through extended portions of the history of the faction, and updates are cosmetic from a lore perspective. Primaris are visually distinct from Firstborn and explicitly not present for much of the history of the faction. It annoys me. Personally, I like to set my games in a lore period and build them to match. I wouldn't use Land Raider Crusaders if I was playing a War of the Beast campaign (for a small example). Most such examples are small and niche, Firstborn are not.

Re. Rivet-counting. That is an option. However, FW deliberately doesn't show every member of a faction, just a snapshot. The point is to give a flavour of what your force is built around.

Having to use eBay is much more annoying than proper on-sprue model support.

You know, noted like that, I am kind of thinking how in historicals you will see late war, mid war, late war models for say World War II, or specific snapshot instances of the history of a national army. Obviously 40k cannot do that in its entirety, but it actually would be neat if they made a nod to it. Say down the line they want to look at some wars in the 39th millennium, release a new generic tactical kit + an upgrade sprue for the war zone so players could build based on the gear, tactics, chapters of the engagement if they so choose, and then reuse said kit with a new upgrade for a later war with different chapters involved. Its not perfect but it at least would let some of the older stories be told with the wargears and tactics of the era a bit better. Even though its stagnant, the Imperium still changes over time - new STCs are recovered, old ones are lost and a 'good enough' replacement tool needs to be found, and very rarely, something brand new is invented, so the war gear can change slightly from period to period still even with the Imperium's lack of innovation and change.

I honestly thought they were going to go all in on this during gathering storm, full on faction changes the whole shebang of AoS. Their were so many parallels in the stories of end times and gathering storm it seemed inevitable.

Guess in the end they didn't want to feth with their main cash cow quite as much and yeah it does seem a bit of an unsatisfying time leap on the whole, it could still be done well but I think much of GW's problems come down to corporate dictates to the talent way too much, having spoken to a few people who've worked their recently I am sure they do actually have the talent.

 Haighus wrote:
Firstly, those others are (mostly) not the same. Abaddon has a new model, but it represents how Abaddon has been for most of 40k and is simply a cosmetic upgrade of his previous model. That works for Abaddon at any point after he obtained Drach'n'yen, which is millennia. I do find major changes to established characters annoying, as they no longer fit in their most famous settings- Ghazghkull is a great example. The model is Ghaz after the Armageddon wars. However, special characters are always an odd one, because they generally are a snapshot in time. Personally I'd prefer less focus on special characters for this very reason.

Again, I ask the question again regarding what GW should do with the models they sell? Should they also stock the metal Ghaz? And, sure, we have a story about why the new Ghaz is bigger, but honestly - why wouldn't the existing model be fine for Armageddon? He was already pretty big and the Prophet of the Waaagh! then too.

It's Ghaz. Does it really matter which version of the model it is? Next, will we be hearing that the mega armour version of him isn't "correct" because there's the ORIGINAL version which doesn't wear mega armour, but power armour?

But Orks are orks- the current ork boyz are not materially different from orks who fought against the Great Crusade. The vast majority of basic kits for factions are applicable through extended portions of the history of the faction, and updates are cosmetic from a lore perspective. Primaris are visually distinct from Firstborn and explicitly not present for much of the history of the faction. It annoys me. Personally, I like to set my games in a lore period and build them to match. I wouldn't use Land Raider Crusaders if I was playing a War of the Beast campaign (for a small example). Most such examples are small and niche, Firstborn are not.

If you use firstborn helmets (easy enough to find), the aesthetic differences are honestly pretty negligible.

Again, it's great that you have such a strong opinion on how you want your models to look, but I promise you, most people will be quite happy with "they're Space Marines painted in the right colours for that Chapter that fought in this war". And, fundamentally, Primaris Marines (Intercessors and Tacticus Primaris) look just fine as any old Space Marines, and the "impression" will be maintained. Personally, I wouldn't see a diorama of the fall of Tyran using Tyrant Guard and think "my immersion is ruined" because, apparently, Tyrant Guard shouldn't exist at that point in time.

Re. Rivet-counting. That is an option. However, FW deliberately doesn't show every member of a faction, just a snapshot. The point is to give a flavour of what your force is built around.

Sure, but let's not pretend that flavour is an objective thing, and what people find flavourful can only be achieved by certain things. I'd still call an Armageddon battle "flavourful" if it used Primaris Marines, because, at the end of the day, they're just Space Marines. And, you know, if you put on Mark VII helms, that's cool, that's a nice indicator of age, but I personally wouldn't kick up a fuss and say it's "non-canon" if they don't. Impression isn't supposed to be reality.

Having to use eBay is much more annoying than proper on-sprue model support.

Again, I ask again, how much do you expect GW to cater to backwards compatibility like that?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Firstly, those others are (mostly) not the same. Abaddon has a new model, but it represents how Abaddon has been for most of 40k and is simply a cosmetic upgrade of his previous model. That works for Abaddon at any point after he obtained Drach'n'yen, which is millennia. I do find major changes to established characters annoying, as they no longer fit in their most famous settings- Ghazghkull is a great example. The model is Ghaz after the Armageddon wars. However, special characters are always an odd one, because they generally are a snapshot in time. Personally I'd prefer less focus on special characters for this very reason.

Again, I ask the question again regarding what GW should do with the models they sell? Should they also stock the metal Ghaz? And, sure, we have a story about why the new Ghaz is bigger, but honestly - why wouldn't the existing model be fine for Armageddon? He was already pretty big and the Prophet of the Waaagh! then too.

It's Ghaz. Does it really matter which version of the model it is? Next, will we be hearing that the mega armour version of him isn't "correct" because there's the ORIGINAL version which doesn't wear mega armour, but power armour?

But Orks are orks- the current ork boyz are not materially different from orks who fought against the Great Crusade. The vast majority of basic kits for factions are applicable through extended portions of the history of the faction, and updates are cosmetic from a lore perspective. Primaris are visually distinct from Firstborn and explicitly not present for much of the history of the faction. It annoys me. Personally, I like to set my games in a lore period and build them to match. I wouldn't use Land Raider Crusaders if I was playing a War of the Beast campaign (for a small example). Most such examples are small and niche, Firstborn are not.

If you use firstborn helmets (easy enough to find), the aesthetic differences are honestly pretty negligible.

Again, it's great that you have such a strong opinion on how you want your models to look, but I promise you, most people will be quite happy with "they're Space Marines painted in the right colours for that Chapter that fought in this war". And, fundamentally, Primaris Marines (Intercessors and Tacticus Primaris) look just fine as any old Space Marines, and the "impression" will be maintained. Personally, I wouldn't see a diorama of the fall of Tyran using Tyrant Guard and think "my immersion is ruined" because, apparently, Tyrant Guard shouldn't exist at that point in time.

Re. Rivet-counting. That is an option. However, FW deliberately doesn't show every member of a faction, just a snapshot. The point is to give a flavour of what your force is built around.

Sure, but let's not pretend that flavour is an objective thing, and what people find flavourful can only be achieved by certain things. I'd still call an Armageddon battle "flavourful" if it used Primaris Marines, because, at the end of the day, they're just Space Marines. And, you know, if you put on Mark VII helms, that's cool, that's a nice indicator of age, but I personally wouldn't kick up a fuss and say it's "non-canon" if they don't. Impression isn't supposed to be reality.

Having to use eBay is much more annoying than proper on-sprue model support.

Again, I ask again, how much do you expect GW to cater to backwards compatibility like that?

I feel you are being oddly obtuse on this. Firstly, I haven't pretended that my opinion is universal and clearly GW is not going to cater to my thoughts on this as they have commited to phasing out Firstborn models. My thoughts are essentially that an update of the space marine range with "improved" proportions would have been preferable to an in-lore replacement of the older units. This is what GW does for every other faction. "Backwards compatibility" is simply not wholesale replacing the model line and lore with a new alternative which is similar, but distinct.

There is a very clear distinction between the same unit upgraded with a new, cosmetically improved kit and a unit that is replaced with a similar but different unit. Your slippery slope approach is very odd here as they are not the same. One is entirely compatible with the predecessors, the other replaces them.

For example: I have models of the old 2nd edition Leman Russ. I also have models of the current 5th edition Leman Russ. One is recognisably a modernisation of the design of the other, and includes all of the options of the older kit (plus more). I have no complaints about that. If GW now phased the Leman Russ model out and said that all forge worlds have retooled to the Rogal Dorn, it would annoy me as it makes it harder to represent a lot of Guard lore for armoured regiments. Is it a deal breaker? No. But it would be frustrating. I'd rather they just updated the Leman Russ kit again.

For me, Primaris are quite distinct both aesthetically and in equipment from Firstborn. I see you think the differences are negligible, but I (subjectively) disagree. I am also invested in 40k lore and representing it in my models matters to me, so whilst I wouldn't be upset if people played Primaris for "historic" conflicts, I won't do it myself if I am playing a campaign and would prefer to play a campaign with players who share my sensibilities on this. Given how many people spend a lot of time on the lore of their force, I don't think this is an uncommon position, although it is quite likely not in the majority (or even close!). However, I do think that GW could have introduced larger models for "firstborn" instead of Primaris like they have done for Chaos Marines and the Hous Heresy, and kept the best of both worlds. That is the main thrust of my point- this clash was totally unnecessary and avoidable by GW. Frankly, I think they have recognised this to some extent, as they held off on phasing out the Firstborn until they created essentially Primaris copies of iconic Marine units like Terminators and Scouts. This suggests there was enough pressure of some kind that they felt they needed to represent these units closer than Gravis or Phobos units.

The special character bit is not particularly important to me in this discussion- I fully accept that special characters always represent a specific lore timeframe, and simply preferred it when GW focused less on special characters and encouraged homebrew characters more. I prefer it if GW doesn't drastically change the model when they update the aesthetics, but a special character will always have progression in a way units don't need to.

The argument would be stronger if there were existing primaris units for every previous marine unit.

Which at the moment is basically devestators and tacticals.

if they had those then the argument that you can use them for historicals is stronger - it becomes an aesthetics thing in the same way orks are aesthetically different over the years.

But at the moment you couldn't assemble a pure primaris force to reflect a historical engagement.


If GW had not created lore around the concept of primaris, but still released the models, it would be a null issue. They'd fit the same aesthetic evolution that every other faction has received and there would be no issue.

They would have released inceptors et al as 'lesser known squad loadouts totally in keeping with the codex that we are only just now mentioning Guyz' and people would roll their eyes, or enjoy them in the same way centurions were received.

So to me the main issue is unit rules reflected in their equipment, rather than miniature aesthetic choices.

I agree that this is an issue by design from gw. Primaris marines will never be true space marines in my head and this distinction is for me mainly because of the lore GW wrote. The distinct weapon options and play styles between primaris and classic marines does not help. The visual style is also for me too different to be a true replacement.