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.

First let me start off by saying I think the new dreadnoughts are better looking and more practical than the castraferrum (box boys), which they're designed to replace. This begins the first point.

Please note I'm not talking about them on the gaming table. I'm looking at them through a realistic/scientific military viewpoint.

1. The castraferrum dreadnoughts have been improved upon over time (i.e. different editions/marks), has "venerable" units, and many different weapon options, but they're all called castraferrum dreadnoughts. All three new dreadnoughts (and the warsuit) have roughly the same build schematics. They all should/would have the same build but with different weapon options which castraferrums can be capable of. Having three different dreadnought schematics would mean you'd have to have three different production lines rather than one and just build different attachments. GW could just have made one new dreadnought and include all different weapon layouts. It would probably have even made GW more money because they wouldn't need three different molds, each one costing money.

2. The naming scheme is idiotic at best. Contemptors, castraferrums, deredeos, and leviathans all have possible different weapon layouts, they aren't called different dreadnoughts. Now there are seven patterns of dreadnoughts (not including the telemon) with the addition of the ballistus, brutalis, and redemptor, which all look very similar; just like all castraferrums looking similar. Given the 40k in-world naming conventions, they could be called the Cawl ballistus, Cawl brutalis, and the Cawl redemptor dreadnoughts (Land Raider anyone?). Telling a person what type of "thing" a person is referring to, in this case a dreadnought. Then what "pattern" of dreadnought, Cawl, then the "weapon" layout, brutalis. There a many different kinds of land raiders, we don't call each one its own special snowflake pattern.

3. The ballistus dreadnought is suppose to be the "long distance" pattern of new dreadnoughts. Yet anyone with common sense can see it's the worst by far, including the warsuit, at distance fighting. The ballistus has no optional layouts like the brutalis, redemptor, and warsuit do, you don't even have a choice of chest weapons. The ballistus has eight missiles on the left arm, the redemptor has seven smaller missiles on the top turret, the warsuit has three on top, so the ballistus wins this one at a huge cost. Unlike the other two new and warsuit, once those missiles are used, its left side is useless, while the other three have at least one free hand with the ability to operate smaller firearms. If out of ammunition, the hand can grab something to use as a weapon or just use its hand to punch and crush enemies. The ballistus is the only of the three that has no top weapon, decreasing its possible firepower, like an aimable gun. Once the ballistus uses all its missiles it only has a twin laser and two twin chest bolters, all line-of-sight weapons, meaning the ballistus has to move to the frontline of the battlefield so they can fire without causing friendly casualties. The ballistus can only change its horizontal aim by turning its entire body for each new target, making it the slowest, worst aimer, and least dangerous of its fellows. The other two and warsuit have the ability to aim their ballistics. The redemptor has two aimable weapons, a major in the right hand and a minor in the left. The brutalis as a weapon option to have aimable ballistics on each wrist, in addition to a top turret that can aim independently and nearly any direction, plus hands to attack enemies nearby. The warsuit is very similar to the weapon loadout of the redemptor. However the pilot of a warsuit has no protection.

4. All that being said, the best version of this type of dreadnought is done by the modeling group Blackrock, that has both hands free and its major gun as a shoulder weapon.

 NorthernXY wrote:
It would probably have even made GW more money because they wouldn't need three different molds, each one costing money

I just
need to rant about this

GW literally pays off those molds in the preorders. Molds aren't cheap, but GW makes a lot of money because their market share is basically uncontested.

This way you can't magnetize them. I guarantee some bean counter realized that the extra $45k for three more molds (each dread is three sprues, that doesn't mean three molds, but I am assuming the worst) was a drop in the bucket compared to forcing people to buy three models for each dread type - instead of using 5$ of magnets to do whatever combo you want like you can on a rhino. GW takes 55% of retail, and makes about $37 ($80*.55 - $6 sprues and - $1 for the packaging) so they only have to sell about 1200 boxes to make that mold cost back (preorders are higher then that guaranteed since limited boxes run about 2000 units and are gone in less then 5 minutes).

That $45k cost is nothing in the scope of their revenue of ~$610,800,000 (~470,800,000 pounds) with their Net Profit (pure cash after absolutely everything taken out including wages, upgrades to buildings/machinery, taxes, materials and whatever) of ~$201,700,000 (~155,500,000 pounds) in 2023.

This tactic of spending a drop of money on more molds to make more specific sprues (to get you to buy more models) is also why:

The obnoxious bs with killing tac squads in favor of several, single pose/loadout easy builds (can't proxy a squad if they are actually different models/sheets vs just a weapon swap - congratulations, you now need to purchase four separate squads of infantry to even play those same loadouts causally).

The two walker bug things in the necron codex are not the same size (No proxy/magnets for you).

Various Primaris tanks are not the same size. You have to buy impulsors and repulsers to field them both despite the fact the only real difference is the repulser is bigger (No proxy/magnets for you).

Primaris are separate sheets from firstborn instead of a "quiet" upscale/updetail to existing sheets (Makes people replace some units up to whole armies to keep playing). The excuse "oh just use the squatted firstborn as the Primaris sheets" is pandering bs, they know you can't do that in practice, even in casual play, let alone if you want to go to some event.

Money is the only thing GW gives a flying feth about, and it's important to remember that so we can call them out for their predatory behaviors.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and to be clear, that $37 dollars is only if you buy from a third party (FLGS, Amazon). Buying directly from the site is $73 of revenue.....

Also everything that draws us to 40k kits already exists. GW is not selling anything new. The chainsaw sword and space cathedral look has been around for 37 years.

The game already exists. If GW went out of business tomorrow, or if it went out of business in 2008, we'd still be able to play 40k.

Literally zero connection in my mind between GW the company in 2024 and the miniatures game called 40k.

 CynosureEldar wrote:

The obnoxious bs with killing tac squads in favor of several, single pose/loadout easy builds (can't proxy a squad if they are actually different models/sheets vs just a weapon swap - congratulations, you now need to purchase four separate squads of infantry to even play those same loadouts causally).

The two walker bug things in the necron codex are not the same size (No proxy/magnets for you).

Various Primaris tanks are not the same size. You have to buy impulsors and repulsers to field them both despite the fact the only real difference is the repulser is bigger (No proxy/magnets for you).

Primaris are separate sheets from firstborn instead of a "quiet" upscale/updetail to existing sheets (Makes people replace some units up to whole armies to keep playing). The excuse "oh just use the squatted firstborn as the Primaris sheets" is pandering bullgak, they know you can't do that in practice, even in casual play, let alone if you want to go to some event.

- Tacticals are still a unit you can buy.
- I assume you are talking about the Doomstalker and Reanimator here. So the complaint is that two things that are similar aren't the same kit? Should all models that are similar be one shared kit?
- Do you also not like how Land Raiders and Rhinos are different sizes?
- Not sure GW has ever said "just use Firstborn as Primaris units" because as you put it, the company is there to sell products.

I agree with the sentiment on the Dreadnoughts but the complaints listed by yourself are bizarre.

 Gert wrote:

 CynosureEldar wrote:

The obnoxious bs with killing tac squads in favor of several, single pose/loadout easy builds (can't proxy a squad if they are actually different models/sheets vs just a weapon swap - congratulations, you now need to purchase four separate squads of infantry to even play those same loadouts causally).

The two walker bug things in the necron codex are not the same size (No proxy/magnets for you).

Various Primaris tanks are not the same size. You have to buy impulsors and repulsers to field them both despite the fact the only real difference is the repulser is bigger (No proxy/magnets for you).

Primaris are separate sheets from firstborn instead of a "quiet" upscale/updetail to existing sheets (Makes people replace some units up to whole armies to keep playing). The excuse "oh just use the squatted firstborn as the Primaris sheets" is pandering bullgak, they know you can't do that in practice, even in casual play, let alone if you want to go to some event.

- Tacticals are still a unit you can buy.
- I assume you are talking about the Doomstalker and Reanimator here. So the complaint is that two things that are similar aren't the same kit? Should all models that are similar be one shared kit?
- Do you also not like how Land Raiders and Rhinos are different sizes?
- Not sure GW has ever said "just use Firstborn as Primaris units" because as you put it, the company is there to sell products.

I agree with the sentiment on the Dreadnoughts but the complaints listed by yourself are bizarre.

(not the same guy but i have similar opinions)

-But for how long? I think it's pretty self evident tacticals are not long for this world.
-I mean, yes. At least, as a general rule, or at least have significant shared engineering. That's just smart buisness and easier for the customer imo.
-I do like them being different, but the rhino and the rest of the motor pool are very interchangeable, and the Rhino and LR share a cupola mounting. The Primaris vehicles share basically nothing unless they are literally just kit options relisted on the store.
-Several times actually, even if not those words verbatim. In the article for the 2023 retiring they said to use bikes as outriders and Assault squads as vanguard vets. (because the Assault ints with JP weren't revealed yet.)

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/24/space-marine-range-update-bikes-land-speeders-and-more-are-soon-zooming-off-into-the-sunset/

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

(not the same guy but i have similar opinions)

-But for how long? I think it's pretty self evident tacticals are not long for this world.
-I mean, yes. At least, as a general rule, or at least have significant shared engineering. That's just smart buisness and easier for the customer imo.
-I do like them being different, but the rhino and the rest of the motor pool are very interchangeable, and the Rhino and LR share a cupola mounting. The Primaris vehicles share basically nothing unless they are literally just kit options relisted on the store.

- People have been saying "Tacticals are going" since 2017 and they're still around now in the latest Codex of the latest Edition. Unless GW decides to take them out halfway through 10th they'll at least be in the book until 11th which will be 2026. Will they go at some point? Sure but seeing as people have been saying "Firstborn are dead" since 2017 and we're almost a decade later, I'm not placing any bets.
- As for the Necron walkers, they're similar in that they are War of the World-esque designs. The Doomstalker is much larger than the Reanimator so it isn't possible to make them the same kit. We aren't talking about sharing the same body design like Hellblasters and Intercessors, it's saying that anything that looks similar should be one kit.
- I'd like you to re-read the bit about how the Rhinos and Landraiders are better than the Primaris ones because they share cupola designs and tell me if you really think that is a strong point. The reason they're better is because they share one generic Space Marine vehicle sprue.
The difference between the Rhino kits is what sits on the top hatch and sometimes the sides. The only Rhino kit that has significant hull changes is the Vindicator. Land Raiders are literally just different guns. Complaining that the Primaris vehicles are bad because they aren't the same size is absolutely laughable.

-Several times actually, even if not those words verbatim. In the article for the 2023 retiring they said to use bikes as outriders and Assault squads as vanguard vets. (because the Assault ints with JP weren't revealed yet.)

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/24/space-marine-range-update-bikes-land-speeders-and-more-are-soon-zooming-off-into-the-sunset/

Consider me corrected.

personally, i think the primaris dreadnoughts should have had more distinctly different designs to set them apart from one another and avoid this problem. they don't all need to be evolutions of the box design

 NorthernXY wrote:
First let me start off by saying I think the new dreadnoughts are better looking and more practical than the castraferrum (box boys), which they're designed to replace. This begins the first point.

Please note I'm not talking about them on the gaming table. I'm looking at them through a realistic/scientific military viewpoint.

Ahh, so it's not going to have any relevance to either the lore nor gameplay.
And maybe not to reality either....

 NorthernXY wrote:
1. The castraferrum dreadnoughts have been improved upon over time (i.e. different editions/marks), has "venerable" units, and many different weapon options, but they're all called castraferrum dreadnoughts. All three new dreadnoughts (and the warsuit) have roughly the same build schematics. They all should/would have the same build but with different weapon options which castraferrums can be capable of. Having three different dreadnought schematics would mean you'd have to have three different production lines rather than one and just build different attachments. GW could just have made one new dreadnought and include all different weapon layouts. It would probably have even made GW more money because they wouldn't need three different molds, each one costing money.

2. The naming scheme is idiotic at best. Contemptors, castraferrums, deredeos, and leviathans all have possible different weapon layouts, they aren't called different dreadnoughts. Now there are seven patterns of dreadnoughts (not including the telemon) with the addition of the ballistus, brutalis, and redemptor, which all look very similar; just like all castraferrums looking similar. Given the 40k in-world naming conventions, they could be called the Cawl ballistus, Cawl brutalis, and the Cawl redemptor dreadnoughts (Land Raider anyone?). Telling a person what type of "thing" a person is referring to, in this case a dreadnought. Then what "pattern" of dreadnought, Cawl, then the "weapon" layout, brutalis. There a many different kinds of land raiders, we don't call each one its own special snowflake pattern.

3. The ballistus dreadnought is suppose to be the "long distance" pattern of new dreadnoughts. Yet anyone with common sense can see it's the worst by far, including the warsuit, at distance fighting. The ballistus has no optional layouts like the brutalis, redemptor, and warsuit do, you don't even have a choice of chest weapons. The ballistus has eight missiles on the left arm, the redemptor has seven smaller missiles on the top turret, the warsuit has three on top, so the ballistus wins this one at a huge cost. Unlike the other two new and warsuit, once those missiles are used, its left side is useless, while the other three have at least one free hand with the ability to operate smaller firearms. If out of ammunition, the hand can grab something to use as a weapon or just use its hand to punch and crush enemies. The ballistus is the only of the three that has no top weapon, decreasing its possible firepower, like an aimable gun. Once the ballistus uses all its missiles it only has a twin laser and two twin chest bolters, all line-of-sight weapons, meaning the ballistus has to move to the frontline of the battlefield so they can fire without causing friendly casualties. The ballistus can only change its horizontal aim by turning its entire body for each new target, making it the slowest, worst aimer, and least dangerous of its fellows. The other two and warsuit have the ability to aim their ballistics. The redemptor has two aimable weapons, a major in the right hand and a minor in the left. The brutalis as a weapon option to have aimable ballistics on each wrist, in addition to a top turret that can aim independently and nearly any direction, plus hands to attack enemies nearby. The warsuit is very similar to the weapon loadout of the redemptor. However the pilot of a warsuit has no protection.

Except the pilot IS wearing full SM armor....

 NorthernXY wrote:
4. All that being said, the best version of this type of dreadnought is done by the modeling group Blackrock, that has both hands free and its major gun as a shoulder weapon.

So this was really just a long setup for a sales pitch.

ccs wrote:

 NorthernXY wrote:
4. All that being said, the best version of this type of dreadnought is done by the modeling group Blackrock, that has both hands free and its major gun as a shoulder weapon.

So this was really just a long setup for a sales pitch.

wait, i missed that part. lmao

Box dreads forever. Don't like any of the new ones.

 Arschbombe wrote:
Box dreads forever. Don't like any of the new ones.

^100% agree.

And yeah, Primaris are corperate greedmarines.

I'm okay with the 3 "Redemptor" dreads (not so much the Invictor, kind of dumb imo); I just wish the Ballistus had more weapon options. I mean twin-Lascannon/ML is the classic build but they could have brought back the Mortis load-out with double AC, etc. so easily.

And...why the f do the regular & close combat versions both have anti-air weapons while THE fire-support dread doesn't?

 Gert wrote:

- Tacticals are still a unit you can buy.
- I assume you are talking about the Doomstalker and Reanimator here. So the complaint is that two things that are similar aren't the same kit? Should all models that are similar be one shared kit?
- Do you also not like how Land Raiders and Rhinos are different sizes?
- Not sure GW has ever said "just use Firstborn as Primaris units" because as you put it, the company is there to sell products.

I agree with the sentiment on the Dreadnoughts but the complaints listed by yourself are bizarre.

GW, at least as far as marines goes. Produced a bucket load of units which should just have been a unit gear option. Why can't the new primaris dreadnought come with an option to take heavy weapons and a melee weapon, two ranged weapons or two melee ones? Do marines need the reavers box and the infiltrators on, which then again are separate from the snipers ? A unit of 10 flamer guys, 10 plasma gun guys and I assume the future will bring us 10 las talons etc.

Old marine vehicles were nice, because they were build around the same two bodies. Either something was a rhino chessis vehicle or something was a Land Raider size vehicle. It gave unity to how the army felt and looked

The tactical marines comment is an odd one GW gave them, just like almost all the non index stuff horrible rules. Even index old marine stuff they did update (terminators) ended up with bad rules too.
In the past starter boxes may not have been a perfect start to do marines (save maybe the old DA patrol box), but at least the stuff got used. Now for a year we had marines the tank edition. That was taken away, but nothing in return was given. But then again this whole edition is of the "if you got a good index, you don't want a codex update" type.

Karol wrote:
GW, at least as far as marines goes. Produced a bucket load of units which should just have been a unit gear option. Why can't the new primaris dreadnought come with an option to take heavy weapons and a melee weapon, two ranged weapons or two melee ones? Do marines need the reavers box and the infiltrators on, which then again are separate from the snipers ? A unit of 10 flamer guys, 10 plasma gun guys and I assume the future will bring us 10 las talons etc.

We're not talking about units that share the same body type though, what the post I was replying to was saying that two models that are different kits should be the same because they are similarly designed even though one is much larger than the other. The point I was making is that saying that two things that look similar shouldn't automatically be the same kit.

Old marine vehicles were nice, because they were build around the same two bodies. Either something was a rhino chessis vehicle or something was a Land Raider size vehicle. It gave unity to how the army felt and looked

Primaris vehicles are either Repulsor (the big one) or Impulsor (the small one). It is literally the same thing.

Removed for rule 1 - ingtær.

Personally I like the older ones best, the Boxnaut and the Contemptor. Both from a kit design and a modeling standpoint. I find the new dreads a bit, lanky?

Additionally, as people have mentioned, they're more modular. I've got my contemptors,levis and boat boys all magnetized up so I can build them however my fancy takes me. Which is also thematic as I imagine the techmarines disconnecting one weapon and plugging in another before deployment.

The rhino chassie is also great for that. The forges mass produce the Rhino then it gets retrofitted as needed to fufill the mission.

Aaaaand, it also makes it easier to print out additonal components. The contemptor has a tonne of weapon options, the files to allow you to socket all of them are pretty available.

I personally also prefer the old boxes. Sure, they have stubby legs and all that, but to me, that adds to the feel. These are, in fact, not practical war machines but ancient relics. And of course the modularity also is/was a big plus. I guess that in the modern fluff, the dreadnoughts also are modular and every combination just has its own name or something like that? In a way similar to the Primaris marines who also have modular armour.

And it's a great sales strategy of course. Having to buy the same thing all over again for just a different gun.

I personally am not really liking any of the new figures. They are leaning more towards a cartoony WOW look (which I hate) and did the same thing with AOS which is why I haven't even started to really think about rebuilding a fantasy army.

my entire collection is firstborn and will always stay as such.

The way things are looking, I'll probably have to play an old edition of 40k sometime in the next few editions as many of the firstborn have been sent to legends this edition.

I remember when Primaris first started coming out, folks were worried that old models would be phased out and they were told not to worry, GW wouldn't do that! Now it seems that's exactly what they are doing as at least half my collection is legends and at some point, legends will have to dropped since there will be no rules updates for them.

kaotkbliss wrote:
I personally am not really liking any of the new figures. They are leaning more towards a cartoony WOW look (which I hate) and did the same thing with AOS which is why I haven't even started to really think about rebuilding a fantasy army.

my entire collection is firstborn and will always stay as such.

The way things are looking, I'll probably have to play an old edition of 40k sometime in the next few editions as many of the firstborn have been sent to legends this edition.

I remember when Primaris first started coming out, folks were worried that old models would be phased out and they were told not to worry, GW wouldn't do that! Now it seems that's exactly what they are doing as at least half my collection is legends and at some point, legends will have to dropped since there will be no rules updates for them.

yea, 9th edition seems to be the latest edition in modern style 40k where firstborn are / where relevant. That or switch to HH2 where firstborn marines are the only marines.

it's sad. Part of the reason I loved 40k was cause it was feasible to say a game was taking place at any point in the 10,000 years since the horus heresy. now it's the very, very limited window after the rift.

kaotkbliss wrote:
I personally am not really liking any of the new figures. They are leaning more towards a cartoony WOW look (which I hate) and did the same thing with AOS which is why I haven't even started to really think about rebuilding a fantasy army.

my entire collection is firstborn and will always stay as such.

The way things are looking, I'll probably have to play an old edition of 40k sometime in the next few editions as many of the firstborn have been sent to legends this edition.

I remember when Primaris first started coming out, folks were worried that old models would be phased out and they were told not to worry, GW wouldn't do that! Now it seems that's exactly what they are doing as at least half my collection is legends and at some point, legends will have to dropped since there will be no rules updates for them.

My opinions align very much with yours. I hope we will get some sort of "40K The Old World" before long. HH2 is not the same, For me a 40K game needs Orks, Eldar, GSC and Tyranids at the very least in order to qualify as a 40K fork. Modern 40K is like a shadow dimension version of the 40K I once knew, they messed with too many things which should have been left open - This great rift BS and retconning the "Dying ignorant Imperium" into "You get Primaris, You get Primaris, You all get Primaris" nonsense just takes a piss at the foundations IMHO. Feels like a serie meant for angsty teenagers suddenly turning into a morning cartoon show for kids half the age of the previous audience

As for the Redemptor Dreads, I hate the fact that the JOYTOY action figure version has better proportions than GWs version. My fave dreads are probably the HH era variants right now

I like them.

 tauist wrote:

My opinions align very much with yours. I hope we will get some sort of "40K The Old World" before long. HH2 is not the same, For me a 40K game needs Orks, Eldar, GSC and Tyranids at the very least in order to qualify as a 40K fork.

You have to know that's not going to happen right?
TOW was possible because AoS has moved most of the WHFB factions along to removal or replacement.
40k has gotten rid of some Firstborn and that's it. Every other army has retained its core units and just had them updated with new models.

 Gert wrote:

 tauist wrote:

My opinions align very much with yours. I hope we will get some sort of "40K The Old World" before long. HH2 is not the same, For me a 40K game needs Orks, Eldar, GSC and Tyranids at the very least in order to qualify as a 40K fork.

You have to know that's not going to happen right?
TOW was possible because AoS has moved most of the WHFB factions along to removal or replacement.
40k has gotten rid of some Firstborn and that's it. Every other army has retained its core units and just had them updated with new models.

Yea, and like it or not those firstborn marines where people's armies. a lot of people's armies. You could say it built the foundation of 40k as we know it.

and, it's not just the models. Like AOS, they completely re-wrote the game to the point that it's nearly unrecognizable to what the old editions where. A remaster of older editions of 40k in the style of HH2 wouldn't be too difficult as long as they learn from past mistakes or take lessons from old game mechanics.

why would you be ticked off about it if it used mostly the same models anyways?

the supposed issue of modern 40k being ruined by primaris is a symptom of how overrepresented space marines are in the fandom. i can't even tell what the difference is supposed to be between new and old marines, other than helmets being different, and now we're supposed to be making a whole new game system just to bring the old guys back (but it can't be the other game system which exists to bring the old guys back)

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
the supposed issue of modern 40k being ruined by primaris is a symptom of how overrepresented space marines are in the fandom. i can't even tell what the difference is supposed to be between new and old marines, other than helmets being different, and now we're supposed to be making a whole new game system just to bring the old guys back (but it can't be the other game system which exists to bring the old guys back)

That's fair.

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
the supposed issue of modern 40k being ruined by primaris is a symptom of how overrepresented space marines are in the fandom. i can't even tell what the difference is supposed to be between new and old marines, other than helmets being different, and now we're supposed to be making a whole new game system just to bring the old guys back (but it can't be the other game system which exists to bring the old guys back)

I take it you werent around when Rogue Trader launched?

In the beginning, 40K was mostly about Marines vs Orks vs Eldar. Then came Chaos and everything else. Out of these 4 "bedrock" factions, 2 have been overhauled to the point they are barely recognizable. Current marines and current Orks are visually different, and even their playstyles have changed. To me, thats 50% of change, if not more

 tauist wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
the supposed issue of modern 40k being ruined by primaris is a symptom of how overrepresented space marines are in the fandom. i can't even tell what the difference is supposed to be between new and old marines, other than helmets being different, and now we're supposed to be making a whole new game system just to bring the old guys back (but it can't be the other game system which exists to bring the old guys back)

I take it you werent around when Rogue Trader launched?

I wasn't alive when 3rd edition began

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
the supposed issue of modern 40k being ruined by primaris is a symptom of how overrepresented space marines are in the fandom. i can't even tell what the difference is supposed to be between new and old marines, other than helmets being different, and now we're supposed to be making a whole new game system just to bring the old guys back (but it can't be the other game system which exists to bring the old guys back)

I will argue that primaris brought a lot of unit bloat when it comes to space marines. It was already pretty bad I admit, but as stated before the way almost every wargear loadout is now it's own dataslate instead of a wargear change. it's a bit insane when you get down to it.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
Yea, and like it or not those firstborn marines where people's armies. a lot of people's armies. You could say it built the foundation of 40k as we know it.

Sure, so play older editions where you have the units. We live in the digital age where you can get literally everything online for free.

and, it's not just the models. Like AOS, they completely re-wrote the game to the point that it's nearly unrecognizable to what the old editions where. A remaster of older editions of 40k in the style of HH2 wouldn't be too difficult as long as they learn from past mistakes or take lessons from old game mechanics.

Rogue Trader and 3rd Edition are massively different from each other. Which older edition of 40k should be used as the baseline? Unit stats are still largely the same, USRs have returned in 10th, and the basic fundamentals of the game are unchanged (unlike AoS which moved from a rank/file system to a skirmish system) so the only big difference that isn't units or models is that force org is a thing of the past and that's being discussed elsewhere.

why would you be ticked off about it if it used mostly the same models anyways?

Who said I was ticked off? This comes up a lot when people look at HH and TOW and say "GW needs to do legacy 40k" and then the only justification is that they don't like Primaris. Have Aeldari players suffered as a result of changing editions? Have Necron players?
More to the point what is the selling point of this? "Come play this version of 40k that doesn't have Primaris, or Custodes, or Votann, or GSC, or any unit released after 2017. The rules are slightly different to the ones you have now."

 Gert wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
Yea, and like it or not those firstborn marines where people's armies. a lot of people's armies. You could say it built the foundation of 40k as we know it.

Sure, so play older editions where you have the units. We live in the digital age where you can get literally everything online for free.

I mean I am currently. I would just like another tome with it gathered together instead of having to scour the internet for older editions.

More to the point what is the selling point of this? "Come play this version of 40k that doesn't have Primaris, or Custodes, or Votann, or GSC, or any unit released after 2017. The rules are slightly different to the ones you have now."

okay, if it is 'slightly different' then pick a unit from 8th, 9th or 10th and use it in 4th edition.

it obviously doesn't work the way it used to without some heavy homebrewing. part of the reason why this comes up a lot is because people want it. They want to play GSC and eldari in with a HH2 rules without having to go to homebrew. they want to play orks and votann in those legacy systems. that's why they keep bringing it up. HH2 is great if you like power armor, but if you want to play eldari or any other xenos then you're SOL.