Your thoughts on the Primaris and lore progression

[Panzer]

To be honest, I'm not overly excited about Primaris. I like them. Their look and their feel on the table is what I always wanted for Space Marines. I also don't mind how they got introduced in the fluff. Could it have been better? Maybe. Was it the worst thing ever? Not at all.

However the Primaris line still feels VERY unpolished and also very unsupported with most Stratagems focussing on units and weapons Primaris don't have access to. I'm looking forward to the future here and am happily waiting for more chapter specific Primaris unit and Codexes that support them better.

 

Tho I have to say I disagree about it being great that they got rid of the whole technological regression thing.

For one, they didn't really get rid of it since most of the AdMech are still opposing Cawl and only accept him due him being a big number now. Everything he did was only for the Primaris project and reviving Guilliman (which he only could pull off with the new Eldar god of death even). Nobody else in the Imperium got new toys nor is there any indication that Guardsmen will suddenly get something more advanced than the good old Lasrifles etc.

And then I also agree with Lord Marshal that the technological regression aspect is one of the big things people like about the 40k IoM. Without it 40k would lose a lot of its charme.

 

About the "GW is focussing on Imperium AGAIN" thing....eh, whatever. It's the "Chaos coming back with full force and the IoM has to do something to survive" storyline now. Of course most things will be for Imperium or Chaos for now. I'm not that impatient. Xenos stuff will come eventually and it will be just as awesome. Tons of potential there.

[Tyriks]

The Primaris lore is about the only thing I don't like in everything that's changed. I love the models even though I'm not sure if marines are an army I am interested in anymore. I'm a big fan of the concept of the Dark Imperium. It might stink when it gets fleshed out more but right now it's interesting with huge potential.

 

I don't mind Cawl inventing new stuff either, though I wish he wasn't the only one. The AdMech's anti-progressive stance was badly shown in fluff. As presented in fluff, they never really seemed to be opposed to anything new anyway, I think the concept of that just sounded good and got thrown around a lot. But I think every AdMech oriented novel I've read has had multiple examples of various people innovating and no one ever complained. It didn't add up.

 

The fluff in 8th hasn't been the best. Far from it. But I'd rather have extra super special marines than have half the Blood Angels rebel because one guy grew wings.

[Bryan Blaire]

I have to admit, I love the Primaris marines. The models anyway.

 

However, there are a few annoyances. I love the models, but I hate what had to be sacrificed for them to be released.

 

First of all, their addition was a lose-lose situation, in a way; Games Workshop had two options:

 

• Release new re-scaled SM and CSM ranges, thus invalidating your best-selling line and pissing off a huuuuuge portion of your player-base
• Create a new breed of Uber SM, which would require some terrible fluff explanation...

Both options blow, truth be told.

I see your point, but I don’t think it’s that cut and dried.

 

While there would be a portion of players that would have had an issue with scale differences, I think that it is much overblown to say that a huge portion of them would be upset. I know several that wouldn’t have cared at all, and some that would. There are people here that have said they’d have a big problem with it, but some of them are the same folks that have a big problem with Primaris anyway, so nothing except doing nothing to the line would have satisfied them to begin with.

 

Some portion of your player-base is going to be willing to accept them, some are going to grudgingly, and so on. Few people are going to outright drop the game simply because of a change in size for the Marines, especially a size that somewhat more roughly reflects how they should have been all along.

 

And the CSM part of the comment has happened, but there hasn’t been a massive Chaos player push-back. The results are somewhat like Marines and vary in response. The new DG do seem bigger, as do the new TS, but not quite as large as the new Primaris.

 

Something else to consider is that those that have a huge problem with the size difference between Marines and Primaris would probably have simply made the choice to stick with what they have, or abandon them completely, regardless of whether Primaris are simply “new basic Marines” or are the Uber-Marines, so GW doesn’t necessarily have a lose-lose situation, because those people’s feelings already make it a lost situation - there wasn’t going to be anything done to appease them.

 

The thing I keep asking myself about Primaris is “Why?” And that ends up a huge string of “Why” questions. For example, the Reiver bolt carbine. “Why?” Why is it different at all from the standard Bolter that a basic Marine uses? Why are they missing a segment of armor on the shin and calf? These just spiral down a question hole that can be hard to get out of. What I usually conclude is that it just is simply because GW made the decision, in my view for the worse - introducing “Uber-Marines” was about the worst thing they could have done, because honestly, given the setting, it was going to be insanely difficult for them to do well, and even if it was done well, it wouldn’t have been as quick as they clearly needed it to be. I think a lot more people would have gotten over it more quickly if they had just said “new Marine size” and dropped TLoS to accommodate both sizes of Marines, and let people sort their armies out on their own.

 

Me personally? I actually had individuals in my army that are supposed to be larger than normal and I was having to work out using Terminators for them when I didn’t really want to and had a hard time working out the rules for it all, so the Primaris actually allow that to happen with just a few tweaks, so on that front, the Primaris make me happy. On the rules side, not so much...

[m0nolith]

But that's an assumption that the change is objectivey bad?

 

I've read Dark Imperium - it was really good. I was perfectly content with the Primaris and other things after that. Devastation of Baal re-enforced this also - Another book taking part in the 42nd millennium so to speak.

There are some plot summaries knocking about that don't do the story any favours. There are bigger plot holes in the Horus Heresy novels and everyone by and large likes those.

What do you mean by plot holes?

Things that aren't explained and kept vague aren't plot holes.

[Panzer]

I don't mind Cawl inventing new stuff either, though I wish he wasn't the only one. The AdMech's anti-progressive stance was badly shown in fluff. As presented in fluff, they never really seemed to be opposed to anything new anyway, I think the concept of that just sounded good and got thrown around a lot. But I think every AdMech oriented novel I've read has had multiple examples of various people innovating and no one ever complained. It didn't add up.

Yeah they really aren't really against anything new. They are just against tinkering with the old stuff and for some reason never really invent new stuff for the military aspects to use. Just collecting knowledge from everywhere. ^^

[Leif Bearclaw]

But that's an assumption that the change is objectivey bad?

 

I've read Dark Imperium - it was really good. I was perfectly content with the Primaris and other things after that. Devastation of Baal re-enforced this also - Another book taking part in the 42nd millennium so to speak.

There are some plot summaries knocking about that don't do the story any favours. There are bigger plot holes in the Horus Heresy novels and everyone by and large likes those.

 

No, if anything the error here is your repeated assertion that the change is objectively good. When really it's neither, like all stories, it's subjective. You like it, great for you. But there's no shortage of people who don't, for various reasons and to different degrees.

 

I haven't read Dark Imperium, because the entire set up, synopsis and all promotional info seemed to me like an uninteresting hack job. 'Didn't like this thing you've bought? Buy this additional book, that'll make things better' isn't an argument that cuts much weight with me. So I didn't spend my monies. Just like I haven't bought and read ADB's BL books, because as skilled an author as he is, I don't like a bunch of the events/ideas in those books, and Abby is my least favourite character in all of 40k. I also don't go into BL threads and bemoan that Abby hasn't been killed of by now, and how much better that would make the Chaos fluff imo. If people want to vent and be negative about new aspect A of the hobby that doesn't resonate with them, or indeed be positive, let them, it's perfectly fine.

 

 

 

 

The 40k setting was never about progress, innovation, hope and was made clear just about everywhere, including the first few pages of the rulebooks. Cheering for that going away is like clamouring for Star Wars to lose the Light and the Dark Side, or wishing Lord of the Rings was about a bunch of morally ambiguous arseholes going on a selfish quest to claim Sauron's power for themselves.

So The Last Jedi and Shadow of War respectively then ? 

[Ishagu]

 

 

But that's an assumption that the change is objectivey bad?

 

I've read Dark Imperium - it was really good. I was perfectly content with the Primaris and other things after that. Devastation of Baal re-enforced this also - Another book taking part in the 42nd millennium so to speak.

There are some plot summaries knocking about that don't do the story any favours. There are bigger plot holes in the Horus Heresy novels and everyone by and large likes those.

What do you mean by plot holes?

Things that aren't explained and kept vague aren't plot holes.

I mean terrible decisions made by characters who are supposed to have genius level intelligence.

[Prot]

Well Ishagu it appears on this topic we definitely agree.

 

I never commented on the negative thread of this variety... there was no point.

 

But frankly I have thoroughly enjoyed the new direction. And quite honestly I did not know what to think when it started.... so many fires started on the BnC. It was the greatest 'sky is falling' conversation(s) across the forum that I've witnessed in a long time.

 

I understood both sides of the coin. But in the end this is why I loved most of it:

 

+ The Dark Imperium Novel: Many hate it. I get it. I understood the perspective from which it was written: for kids, for new players, for old player, for launching the 'new era' , and for introducing us all to a 40K era of Imperium push back AND 40K Primarchs. I know I'm in the minority when I say I very much enjoyed Guilliman's portrayal. His masked disgust for what has become of the era and the Imperium was very interesting for me.

 

+ Dark Imperium Box set: I can only imagine how many boxes GW sold. I loved it. What a box set. And I was CERTAIN GW would give us 'bad' units in that box and make us buy 'good' units all over again upon full release. Nope. For the most part that box set still rocks (for Deathguard too).

 

+ Primaris: I was uncertain, but I loved them so much the painting became a joy to me again. (I've painted and sold more armies in the last 5 years than a lot of people will ever own.) This was refreshing.

 

+ Chaos is back: Neglected for waaaay too long. Don't get me wrong there's still a lot of fixing to do, but at least we can finally move on from "Gav-dex" era discussions.

 

+ Primaris era (Indomnitus) Campaign: I loved going to my local GW store during the Primaris release. The Campaign was a lot of fun. Chaos was definitely better in my end of the world (lots of new Marine players), but the campaign brought people out from their basements. I got to play a lot of new players, and people I hadn't seen for a long time. People really did have fun in the stores during that campaign. I saw it first hand.

 

+ Old School Respect: When the sky was falling on the forums, the big money was on 'Marines suck now. It's all going to be Primaris". Turns out the opposite was the truth. GW gave someone like me something new to paint, and a challenge to play while respecting the the 'common' marine was still going to be the competitive marine build. I applaud them for that.

 

+ Most of all.... I just love the Aesthetics of the new Primaris. I love painting them, I enjoy reading about them.

 

Those are just my personal reasons.

[The Yncarne]

I would like Primaris more and even buy a new army of them if I didn’t already have two relatively large marine armies I cannot seem to shift.

 

I am not the background / story snob I used to be so their intro via the Gathering Storm doesn’t bother me. I understand why it bothers many though.

 

Primaris didn’t invoke a passion for the game though. That was a relatively large break from the rules and leadership direction of 6/7 editions. I enjoy playing the game again which, in turn, makes me more likely to buy stuff.

[Panzer]

Well Ishagu it appears on this topic we definitely agree.

 

I never commented on the negative thread of this variety... there was no point.

 

But frankly I have thoroughly enjoyed the new direction. And quite honestly I did not know what to think when it started.... so many fires started on the BnC. It was the greatest 'sky is falling' conversation(s) across the forum that I've witnessed in a long time.

 

I understood both sides of the coin. But in the end this is why I loved most of it:

 

+ The Dark Imperium Novel: Many hate it. I get it. I understood the perspective from which it was written: for kids, for new players, for old player, for launching the 'new era' , and for introducing us all to a 40K era of Imperium push back AND 40K Primarchs. I know I'm in the minority when I say I very much enjoyed Guilliman's portrayal. His masked disgust for what has become of the era and the Imperium was very interesting for me.

 

+ Dark Imperium Box set: I can only imagine how many boxes GW sold. I loved it. What a box set. And I was CERTAIN GW would give us 'bad' units in that box and make us buy 'good' units all over again upon full release. Nope. For the most part that box set still rocks (for Deathguard too).

 

+ Primaris: I was uncertain, but I loved them so much the painting became a joy to me again. (I've painted and sold more armies in the last 5 years than a lot of people will ever own.) This was refreshing.

 

+ Chaos is back: Neglected for waaaay too long. Don't get me wrong there's still a lot of fixing to do, but at least we can finally move on from "Gav-dex" era discussions.

 

+ Primaris era (Indomnitus) Campaign: I loved going to my local GW store during the Primaris release. The Campaign was a lot of fun. Chaos was definitely better in my end of the world (lots of new Marine players), but the campaign brought people out from their basements. I got to play a lot of new players, and people I hadn't seen for a long time. People really did have fun in the stores during that campaign. I saw it first hand.

 

+ Old School Respect: When the sky was falling on the forums, the big money was on 'Marines suck now. It's all going to be Primaris". Turns out the opposite was the truth. GW gave someone like me something new to paint, and a challenge to play while respecting the the 'common' marine was still going to be the competitive marine build. I applaud them for that.

 

+ Most of all.... I just love the Aesthetics of the new Primaris. I love painting them, I enjoy reading about them.

 

Those are just my personal reasons.

/sign

[m0nolith]

 

But that's an assumption that the change is objectivey bad?

 

I've read Dark Imperium - it was really good. I was perfectly content with the Primaris and other things after that. Devastation of Baal re-enforced this also - Another book taking part in the 42nd millennium so to speak.

There are some plot summaries knocking about that don't do the story any favours. There are bigger plot holes in the Horus Heresy novels and everyone by and large likes those.

 

No, if anything the error here is your repeated assertion that the change is objectively good. When really it's neither, like all stories, it's subjective. You like it, great for you. But there's no shortage of people who don't, for various reasons and to different degrees.

 

 

One can make the argument that there is an objectivity to the qualitative nature of a work based upon the subjective opinion of the majority while at the same time avoiding falling into a trap of conformation bias.

 

For example, the vast majority of people that I have come across say that the Gathering Storm books are bad when it comes to their story, and when I take a look at my sampling I can also make the argument that its not a skewed perspective, so in this case I can make the argument that the Gathering Storm books are objectively bad.

 

...and they are. They suck.

They objectivity suck.

[Panzer]

Yeah their storywriting sucks because they got written by some GW staff instead of proper novelists. But I don't think the content sucks at all. ^^

 

As always, it's a matter of HOW something gets told and less about WHAT it is.

[Ishagu]

I actually think Gathering Storm was simply very rushed, and there were too many battles in Volume 2 and 3.

[m0nolith]

Yeah their storywriting sucks because they got written by some GW staff instead of proper novelists. But I don't think the content sucks at all. ^^

 

As always, it's a matter of HOW something gets told and less about WHAT it is.

Leonardo Da Vinci can take a pike of trash and paint a beautiful fresco out of it, but that pile of trash is still a pile of trash.

Here's hoping that Aaron Dempski Da Vinci and Ghram McLangelo can make this pile look halfway decent.

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

One can make the argument that there is an objectivity to the qualitative nature of a work based upon the subjective opinion of the majority while at the same time avoiding falling into a trap of conformation bias.

 

For example, the vast majority of people that I have come across say that the Gathering Storm books are bad when it comes to their story, and when I take a look at my sampling I can also make the argument that its not a skewed perspective, so in this case I can make the argument that the Gathering Storm books are objectively bad.

 

...and they are. They suck.

They objectivity suck.

 

Doesn't that run the risk of hitting the appeal to popularity fallacy though? Just because a bunch of people think it sucks (and I'm certainly not going to argue that it doesn't, it really, really does suck) doesn't make a viewpoint objective. Even the simple fact that even the 'worst' of GW's writing has it's defenders (with the possible exception of CS Goto) like Ishagu surely means we can't make sweeping statements about objectivity.

 

Hope this makes sense, brain is kinda fried atm.

[m0nolith]

 

 

One can make the argument that there is an objectivity to the qualitative nature of a work based upon the subjective opinion of the majority while at the same time avoiding falling into a trap of conformation bias.

 

For example, the vast majority of people that I have come across say that the Gathering Storm books are bad when it comes to their story, and when I take a look at my sampling I can also make the argument that its not a skewed perspective, so in this case I can make the argument that the Gathering Storm books are objectively bad.

 

...and they are. They suck.

They objectivity suck.

 

Doesn't that run the risk of hitting the appeal to popularity fallacy though? Just because a bunch of people think it sucks (and I'm certainly not going to argue that it doesn't, it really, really does suck) doesn't make a viewpoint objective. Even the simple fact that even the 'worst' of GW's writing has it's defenders (with the possible exception of CS Goto) like Ishagu surely means we can't make sweeping statements about objectivity.

 

Hope this makes sense, brain is kinda fried atm.

 

I addressed that when it comes to conformation bias. You need to go past that and look at the reality of the situation instead of confirming what you believe to be true. There is no simple solution on how to do this, and it goes far further than just critiquing art, ie, look at politics.

[Mileposter]

So now we have sister threads for those that like and dislike the Primaris (both models and introduction ramifications).

 

In the first one, folks are told not to attack the OP for stating his views. That they are allowed that because people share them. Many of those same faces attend the second thread to attack the OP for holding their view, even if many people share them.

 

Gonna go with WAT.

 

--------------------------------------

 

I started on the dislike side of Primaris. I didn't want progress. Not like this. As a Game Designer, 40k being nothing but a setting for the game made sense to me - that's how it's supposed to work. That there were books, that there was a story, was great. But it's a game. Played with models. The story might come first for people, but the it could never come first for the game, because the game informs the lore not the other way around.

 

But even with that, the game is supposed to respect lore - in the sense that you're not supposed to upend your own content. And yet, upending your own content is a brilliant way to get people to reexamine your content. Or reapproach it. Or rebrand it. Or. Or. Or. It has to be done with purpose or it just kills everything, so I watched to see where this would go.

 

... And I like it. Primaris models are better and cooler than the half-man marines. I didn't mind half-man styled marines - I figured it was just GW's style. But the recent model quality has been fantastic. The more uniform look to each model in a squad makes far more sense for a military organization. The sculpt lines. And the weapon design! Oi, Hellblasters stole my imagination something fierce.

 

... but I didn't want to play them. >.>;

 

Like their look as much as I did, I was not a fan of the rules. Dunno why. I suspect it was largely part of my falling out with Marines as a whole (partially because of Marines, partially because of Marine players). The Repulsor almost dragged me back in. So much tech I could do to that model. I still might.

 

I'm babbling. I'm rambling. My opinion on this one is all over the place - I have feelings on it as a fan, as a consumer, as a game designer, as a community member, and as a hobbyist. And some of them conflict!

 

I still play Marines. I still win with Marines. I will continue to play and win with them until I finish another army I can play with instead. I like that the world we play in has consequences now. People always claim that they want their choices/lore in games to matter... Well, can't matter if you don't lose something. Maybe that means we'll lose Space Marines current models. Maybe that means that those who continue to play with them will mean more. Maybe it means we'll get new stuff. Maybe it means we'll redo old stuff. Dunno.

 

Unless you're GW, you have no clue what's gonna happen. Anyone making statements like they do is only making a fool of themselves. Think X will come to pass? Fine and fair. Leave it at opinion. As a Game Developer, even GW doesn't always know what's going to happen - sometimes things just do. The convergence of marketing and customer appeal and product is a nebulous and dangerous intersection that rarely anyone can navigate perfectly.

 

... So yeah. Primaris improved 40k for me. But hell if it didn't also make it more complicated.

[chamberlainskeksil]

When the Gathering Storm series started coming out, the similarity to the End Times was obvious.  Warhammer: Age of Sigmar was going to be joined by Warhammer: Age of the Primarchs

 

Once I borrowed a friend's Stormcast Eternal miniatures for an AoS narrative event.  It was the first time the playing of a GW game really gave me a true space marine experience.  2 or more wounds and other factors like that really made them feel like a special and elite force in a way space marines never have in 40k.

 

So the Primaris were exactly what I wanted out of 8th edition.  I know they're not living up to their capabilities in the tournament scene, but outside of that they actually do feel elite.  Finally.

[Bryan Blaire]

Once I borrowed a friend's Stormcast Eternal miniatures for an AoS narrative event.  It was the first time the playing of a GW game really gave me a true space marine experience.  2 or more wounds and other factors like that really made them feel like a special and elite force in a way space marines never have in 40k.

 

So the Primaris were exactly what I wanted out of 8th edition.  I know they're not living up to their capabilities in the tournament scene, but outside of that they actually do feel elite.  Finally.

See, this is part of what’s making me ask ‘Why?’

 

Obviously it’s not just about them being Primaris that is making them feel like elite Space Marines, right?

[Wargamer]

Right, I want to hit on this "old people hate change" argument.

 

I'm going to give you a sample of changes I liked, and changes I didn't, and see if you can spot the difference:

 

Good Changes:

• The Marauder Destroyer - a Marauder variant invented during the Third War of Armageddon, hence why we never saw it before. 
• The Vanquisher - a new Russ variant built solely on Tigrus, a Forgeworld lost to the Orks and thus cannot be replaced. Most Regiment never see one.
• Vanquisher Mk 2 - Gryphonne IV and Stygies VIII have only recently begun making these tanks, hence their rarity.
• Conqueror / Executioner - Russ variants produced exclusively on Gryphonne IV / Ryza and thus are rare, if not nonexistent in armies not supplied by these Forgeworlds.
• Landing Craft - a rear-line vehicle designed to move Astartes in bulk. Always been there (supposedly), but not really meant to land in a front-line warzone.
• Storm Eagle - a second line support craft designed to come in after the Thunderhawks.  Always been there (supposedly), but not really meant for front-line duties.
• Breacher Squads - hyper-specialised Astartes units meant for extreme close-quarter boarding actions where Terminators are not available. Not really appropriate for typical 40K battles.
• "Heresy Era" technology - stuff that existed ten millennia ago and is now so rare most armies don't have it, and those that do have practically none of it.

The Bad:

• All modern Astartes flyers - totally new and unique vehicle designs that have always been used by all Chapters.
• Grav-guns - New weapons that have always been used by all Chapters.
• Centurions - Frontline assault troops in brand new battlesuits that are commonly used by all Chapters and have been for five millennia.
• Primaris - Nine UberLegions of SueMarines who are better than normal Marines in every way, who have been hiding for ten millennia for some reason and are now common in every Chapter, and the only Marines in some Chapters.
• Space Wolves - Wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf.

See any patterns?

[chamberlainskeksil]

 

Once I borrowed a friend's Stormcast Eternal miniatures for an AoS narrative event.  It was the first time the playing of a GW game really gave me a true space marine experience.  2 or more wounds and other factors like that really made them feel like a special and elite force in a way space marines never have in 40k.

 

So the Primaris were exactly what I wanted out of 8th edition.  I know they're not living up to their capabilities in the tournament scene, but outside of that they actually do feel elite.  Finally.

See, this is part of what’s making me ask ‘Why?’

 

Obviously it’s not just about them being Primaris that is making them feel like elite Space Marines, right?

 

From the game play perspective, I find the 2nd wound and attack to both be huge.  The stormcast have the same sort of thing going on.

 

Add in the model size increase and you have it from two angles during a game.  Both the models and their rules feel more like elite space marines.  

 

I think part of this has to do with the 5th through 7th trend of pushing larger and larger items into the game.  Knights.  Huge tanks.  Wraithknights, riptides and other crazy monsters.  In such an environment, a normal space marine is not really all that super human anymore.  The extra wound and attack pushes back on this a bit.

[Panzer]

 

Once I borrowed a friend's Stormcast Eternal miniatures for an AoS narrative event.  It was the first time the playing of a GW game really gave me a true space marine experience.  2 or more wounds and other factors like that really made them feel like a special and elite force in a way space marines never have in 40k.

 

So the Primaris were exactly what I wanted out of 8th edition.  I know they're not living up to their capabilities in the tournament scene, but outside of that they actually do feel elite.  Finally.

See, this is part of what’s making me ask ‘Why?’

 

Obviously it’s not just about them being Primaris that is making them feel like elite Space Marines, right?

 

I have the same impression. It's just that their base profile is more impressive (+1W +1A) and their most basic weapon already feels superior to others. So anything you take is automatically "good". Or at least not bad. And of course you have fewer models on the table unless you spam only Intercessors.

 

I always thought that Marines should have a wound more since they died so incredibly easily in 7th edition with all the AP2-3 around. Now we got multi-damage weapons but also Marines with an additional wound and an AP system that makes infantry usually more durable compared to 7th where everyone just took Grav and Plasma equivalents (imo!).

 

So....I guess it's just that they are...better? They lack many weapon options unfortunately but their base stuff simply makes them better than base Space Marines.

I guess the most comparable thing would be playing a full Bike army just without forcing yourself into a specific theme for your army.

[Panzer]

Right, I want to hit on this "old people hate change" argument.

 

I'm going to give you a sample of changes I liked, and changes I didn't, and see if you can spot the difference:

 

Good Changes:

• The Marauder Destroyer - a Marauder variant invented during the Third War of Armageddon, hence why we never saw it before. 
• The Vanquisher - a new Russ variant built solely on Tigrus, a Forgeworld lost to the Orks and thus cannot be replaced. Most Regiment never see one.
• Vanquisher Mk 2 - Gryphonne IV and Stygies VIII have only recently begun making these tanks, hence their rarity.
• Conqueror / Executioner - Russ variants produced exclusively on Gryphonne IV / Ryza and thus are rare, if not nonexistent in armies not supplied by these Forgeworlds.
• Landing Craft - a rear-line vehicle designed to move Astartes in bulk. Always been there (supposedly), but not really meant to land in a front-line warzone.
• Storm Eagle - a second line support craft designed to come in after the Thunderhawks.  Always been there (supposedly), but not really meant for front-line duties.
• Breacher Squads - hyper-specialised Astartes units meant for extreme close-quarter boarding actions where Terminators are not available. Not really appropriate for typical 40K battles.
• "Heresy Era" technology - stuff that existed ten millennia ago and is now so rare most armies don't have it, and those that do have practically none of it.

The Bad:

• All modern Astartes flyers - totally new and unique vehicle designs that have always been used by all Chapters.
• Grav-guns - New weapons that have always been used by all Chapters.
• Centurions - Frontline assault troops in brand new battlesuits that are commonly used by all Chapters and have been for five millennia.
• Primaris - Nine UberLegions of SueMarines who are better than normal Marines in every way, who have been hiding for ten millennia for some reason and are now common in every Chapter, and the only Marines in some Chapters.
• Space Wolves - Wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf.

See any patterns?

Did he write "old" people hate change? I thought he wrote only that "some" people hate change. Which is honestly true. Some people really instinctively reject any form of change.

[Wargamer]

 

Did he write "old" people hate change? I thought he wrote only that "some" people hate change. Which is honestly true. Some people really instinctively reject any form of change.

 

It's an argument made hundreds of times, whenever some half-arsed release is brought forward and we're supposed to swallow it because if we don't "we just hate change".

 

Go through my list and you'll see every single one of those changes included a good answer to the obvious question of "why haven't we seen this before?". The bad stuff either doesn't answer that question, or gives an utterly stupid answer.

 

Space Wolves are the exception there - I just hate their transformation from Space Vikings to weirdos with a fetish for humping dogs.

[Ishagu]

Chamberlainskeksil - That's one thing I didn't talk about at all. Primaris are so much more fun to play than old Marines. Forget the lore, my tabletop experience is a lot better.

 

Yes, they actually perform like elite super soldiers!