Astartes really do suck, unfortunately!

[Ishagu]

Yeah, if they reduce Centurions by 55 points per model, along with the cost of the Grav Cannon, and allow them to Enter a Drop Pod?

Now we're talking.

 

The lack of units worth putting in a Pod is something that should be taken into consideration. It's a real showcase of how poor the book is, unfortunately.

 

I really miss my Centurions. They are utter garbage at the moment :-(

[Captain Idaho]

How dare you tell people what they should think. I've been playing, building and painting space marines since 2nd edition and I absolutely resent the idea that your view of where the game should go is somehow superior to mine - it isn't. They're just different views. I like primaris, I like the progression, you might not. Thats fine.

Get over yourself. I've clearly pointed out, using the literary concept of context, that the background material since time began was a specific theme and changing that will substantially spoil the game. It's like changing the background material of Star Wars fundamentally.

[Basteala]

That's how I feel about Ravenwing Black Knights. On paper they're fairly good--a plamsa spamming unit with access to a 4++, that can melee at S5...trouble is, they have half the firepower of the Inceptrors, can't deep strike, are locked down in combat unlike previous editions, and can be nuked down if you're opponent goes first. And they only cost slightly less than a Plasma Inceptor.

 

I mean they're not utter garbage statistically, but they have no real place on the battlefield either.

 

 

 

How dare you tell people what they should think. I've been playing, building and painting space marines since 2nd edition and I absolutely resent the idea that your view of where the game should go is somehow superior to mine - it isn't. They're just different views. I like primaris, I like the progression, you might not. Thats fine.

Get over yourself. I've clearly pointed out, using the literary concept of context, that the background material since time began was a specific theme and changing that will substantially spoil the game. It's like changing the background material of Star Wars fundamentally.

 

What's it matter? There's plenty of topics about hating or loving Primaris lore anyway. Last I looked this was a mechanics discussion thread. From a mechanical standpoint, primaris and regular marines both have damning problems, especially in Vanilla marines. It should have been obvious Marines were in trouble when their buffs brought us in line with Index Armies.

[BitsHammer]

 

How dare you tell people what they should think. I've been playing, building and painting space marines since 2nd edition and I absolutely resent the idea that your view of where the game should go is somehow superior to mine - it isn't. They're just different views. I like primaris, I like the progression, you might not. Thats fine.

Get over yourself. I've clearly pointed out, using the literary concept of context, that the background material since time began was a specific theme and changing that will substantially spoil the game. It's like changing the background material of Star Wars fundamentally.

 

 

Not everyone feels like it's a "substantial change" but more a side shift that fits the setting as the Astartes have always butted heads with the Mechanicus about adjusting things to suit battle roles they need filled versus dying to the last man in a futile last stand.

 

To me it feels more like the Mechanicus is finally supporting them a bit in giving them some extra bite to fill battle roles better instead of stalling them for decades to centuries because they want to put something like Assault Cannons or Lascannons on their Razorback.

That's how I feel about Ravenwing Black Knights. On paper they're fairly good--a plamsa spamming unit with access to a 4++, that can melee at S5...trouble is, they have half the firepower of the Inceptrors, can't deep strike, are locked down in combat unlike previous editions, and can be nuked down if you're opponent goes first. And they only cost slightly less than a Plasma Inceptor.

 

I mean they're not utter garbage statistically, but they have no real place on the battlefield either.

 

 

 

How dare you tell people what they should think. I've been playing, building and painting space marines since 2nd edition and I absolutely resent the idea that your view of where the game should go is somehow superior to mine - it isn't. They're just different views. I like primaris, I like the progression, you might not. Thats fine.

Get over yourself. I've clearly pointed out, using the literary concept of context, that the background material since time began was a specific theme and changing that will substantially spoil the game. It's like changing the background material of Star Wars fundamentally.

 

What's it matter? There's plenty of topics about hating or loving Primaris lore anyway. Last I looked this was a mechanics discussion thread. From a mechanical standpoint, primaris and regular marines both have damning problems, especially in Vanilla marines. It should have been obvious Marines were in trouble when their buffs brought us in line with Index Armies.

Balancing the army against the Index would have been fine if that was the standard by which all armies were balanced against.

 

That said, a year later, I'm holding some positive feelings that we could see some fixes in the book.

[Panzer]

 

 

How dare you tell people what they should think. I've been playing, building and painting space marines since 2nd edition and I absolutely resent the idea that your view of where the game should go is somehow superior to mine - it isn't. They're just different views. I like primaris, I like the progression, you might not. Thats fine.

Get over yourself. I've clearly pointed out, using the literary concept of context, that the background material since time began was a specific theme and changing that will substantially spoil the game. It's like changing the background material of Star Wars fundamentally.

 

 

Not everyone feels like it's a "substantial change" but more a side shift that fits the setting as the Astartes have always butted heads with the Mechanicus about adjusting things to suit battle roles they need filled versus dying to the last man in a futile last stand.

 

 

 

^this

[Brother Lunkhead]

I just think we are suffering from The Curse of the First Codex...… I remember many new codex editions coming out and making a faction nigh unstoppable (Grey Knights comes to mind). Eventually they were almost snuffed out of existence game-wise. For many years Dark Eldar were a joke on the gaming table. The biggest problem with this game as I see it is GW's inability or unwillingness to balance out factions. There is always this up and down (mostly down) movement as new codices come out. One can only hope that the next Chapter Approved edition will fix some (too much to hope for a "all" ) of the problems we are facing and return Space Marines to their rightful place in the competitive arena.

 

Space Marines have always been the showcase faction for drawing in new players. New players (especially young new players) are not going to be impressed with their shiny new loser Space Marine army.... and whoever is shelling out the money for it isn't going to be impressed either. I'm not holding my breath for a quick fix to this problem, but I am keeping my fingers crossed.

[MARK0SIAN]

I do think we sometimes overstate how big a factor it is being the first codex. Death Guard were a very early codex and aren’t nearly as bad as the marine one. In fact, when it came out I remember wishing that even a fraction as much effort had gone into the SM codex to create a flavourful and thematic force as had gone into the Death Guard codex.

 

Other Early Codexes (with the exception of Grey Knights) aren’t in the same dire straits as the SM one. For me it felt like the SM codex was done by people in a hurry who didn’t really care about the faction and were just trying to get it done so they could move onto the armies they did care about.

 

There has certainly been codex creep as the edition has gone on but SM was simply a bad codex, I don’t think being first out is the reason for that.

[Blindhamster]

 

How dare you tell people what they should think. I've been playing, building and painting space marines since 2nd edition and I absolutely resent the idea that your view of where the game should go is somehow superior to mine - it isn't. They're just different views. I like primaris, I like the progression, you might not. Thats fine.

Get over yourself. I've clearly pointed out, using the literary concept of context, that the background material since time began was a specific theme and changing that will substantially spoil the game. It's like changing the background material of Star Wars fundamentally.

 

This is obviously like when space marines absolutely could be female, or when they were often criminals that were enhanced via bio-chem or psycho surgery and primarchs were just great leaders. 40k has changed and evolved a lot over the editions and years, its themes have changed over the various novels that have been released.

 

Primaris don't fundamentally change the themes of the current iteration of the lore with their inclusion, progression is a thing we've seen for quite some time, sometimes its under the guise of recovering a lost STC, other times its through innovation. Of all the imperial factions, space marines are the area i'd expect to see advancements, because they're pragmatic and winning the war is of the utmost importance to them.

 

TLDR: no u

 

 

 

EDIT

 

But on the more relevant topic, yeah, space marines of all varieties are on the backfoot, they cost too much and don't achieve enough. This even goes for the other marine codexes, not just the main one. Sure captain smash is great an all, but he's also cheesy and a MASSIVE crutch that some players rely on, and the lists that do well with him basically run him and then anything that isn't space marine related.

[Lord_Caerolion]

 

How dare you tell people what they should think. I've been playing, building and painting space marines since 2nd edition and I absolutely resent the idea that your view of where the game should go is somehow superior to mine - it isn't. They're just different views. I like primaris, I like the progression, you might not. Thats fine.

Get over yourself. I've clearly pointed out, using the literary concept of context, that the background material since time began was a specific theme and changing that will substantially spoil the game. It's like changing the background material of Star Wars fundamentally.

 

 

You're telling someone to get over themselves... when they're replying that they disagree with your stated One Interpretation To Rule Them All, by saying that they're both valid views, and isn't disagreeing with your interpretation, just that it isn't objectively the only correct view? Do you even hear yourself?

 

Yes, 40k has always had a theme of "raging against the dying of the light", and, in my view and opinion, the Primaris don't detract from that. Their technology is still stagnant, most of the "new tech" that the Primaris have is either using tech that the Mechanicus have had all along (Ironhail, plasma tech, etc), minor developments of existing tech in the same way that we've seen developments done before (new Marks of power armour, developed at the same time that there had been numerous new Marks of power armour developed), or bastardised attempts to recreate poorly-understood technology (the repulsor-tech used in the Repulsor, as opposed to the far more efficient grav-tech used in Land-style patterns).

 

Things are darker than they've ever been for the Imperium. Sure, Guilliman's back, but his Indomitus Crusade has, at best, only managed to somewhat hold the line against the ravages of the Cicatrix Maledictum. At worst, he's sowing the seeds of a future civil war by alienating several of the High Lords and Ecclesiarchy.

 

None of these developments really change the core themes of 40k. And yes, it is frankly insulting to be told that only one interpretation of the fluff is correct. The universe is still just as screwed as before. The Imperium is still losing ground. This is still the 40k that I have known and loved for over a decade. You disagree? Cool. I'm not going to tell you how to enjoy your hobby. Just don't presume to tell me how to enjoy mine.

[Lemondish]

Yeah. It's why the Primaris are the real only hope for a solution, unfortunately. They have a set of unique units with statlines and wargear that don't repeat across the codex meaning they can be adjusted easily.

 

Put it this way; You can change Agressors quite easily, but if you change Terminators you need to address Chaos as well, and then it becomes sticky when you factor in Deathguard who have boosted statlines, etc etc.

 

I've seen fellow users on the forum propose changes, but the truth is they aren't nearly drastic enough! To put the humble marine back on the table he'd need to cost no more than 9 points! But then we have to adjust Khorne Berserkers and Plague Marines, Dev Squads, Assault Squads, Longfangs, etc... Gets messy!

 

Edit:

 

This is also why Chaos needs a unique range that doesn't repeat units from the loyalist side.

Nonsense.

 

Chaos already has a unique range. You said it yourself, even! Deathguard carry their own statline for Terminators separate from codex marines, separate from Scarab Occult, and likewise separate from chaos Terminators. Even Deathwatch Terminators are handled separately already, with different costs, bonuses, wargear options, etc.

 

Those units don't currently derive their balance solely by how effective they are compared to each other. That's needlessly restrictive. Keyword: needlessly. Units should be balanced internally with other options in their codex, not other similarly named units across codexes. All that needs to change is the will for GW to abandon this archaic 7th edition baggage. What I'm saying is that they embrace what they've already done with Terminators - tweak balance by unit, not by trying to balance all marine profiles across multiple different ranges. The fact that they're already so piecemeal with this is telling.

 

Primaris aren't the silver bullet. Actually balancing regular marines by embracing the power of data sheets is the solution. It's easy because they are already doing it .

[BitsHammer]

While restrictive it's clear that historically (save for a few outliers) the Marines across all armies were basically forced to be the same give or take special rules or coats of paint. While this is getting better, there is definitely some legacy hold overs on this that will go further away as the game is continually updated and we see things expanded further.

 

That said, it's not going to happen overnight, but hopefully they start doing more of it in the future.

[Captain Idaho]

No I'm replying "get over yourself" to the outrage implied by words such as "how dare you".

 

Let's not snowflake this argument.

 

Now the premise that there have been changes so let's accept more is flawed and somewhat disingenuous. The current theme of 40K had been consistent for more than 30 years and changes have been minor amendments and expansion as the hobby has evolved over that time.

 

There is an argument, of course, that the Primaris advancement is minor but that is something I disagree with. In fact, famed Primaris supporters on this site often confirm that the benefit of Primaris is (I paraphrase) "It's a much needed progression in technology for the elite Space Marines".

 

You can deny that the list of new and powerful weapons and wargear is progression, to which I would contend is ideological denial because you bought into the new line since it is clear from the evidence that Primaris is about new weapons of war (the Warhammer Community site uses the descriptor all the time and tells us it's advancement. The Dark Imperium novel tells us it's all new technology). As such denial of the fact is a pointless position for me to discuss with because it's denying actual facts and I won't engage any longer as it does waste time.

 

***

 

Ultimately you're either for a change in the fundamental core in the setting or not. My position is you can have new models and new weapons without that change. An example would be rejigging just what Space Marines use. A popular one is Boarding Shields. Not new and exotic progress but used in a new way. Destroyers are also an old concept yet would introduce new ways to play and models.

 

The damage done to the setting by changing it's fundamental core hurts long term. The IP is paramount to the success of 40K and eroding it or just stamping over it with Nu Primaris is bad for the universe we all bought into.

 

As precedent look at other IPs that change the premise of the core background to establish how good it'll be for the hobby.

[Blindhamster]

As always, it's clear we have very different views of the setting, the current setting has not been consistent for 30 years, it's been "fairly" consistent since 3rd ed came out, but rogue trader and even 2nd ed were fairly different beasts.

I'll simply say that a lot of the advancements in terms of tech we have seen with the primaris have actually been seen numerous times over the last 25 or so years already, the only key difference being that they came as a bit of a "big bang approach" this time. We've seen new power armours multiple times, we've seen new dreadnought marks, we've seen new tanks, we've seen new weapons, we've had grav vehicles and lost grav vehicles.

The only area that is truly new and could have any real argument for dramatic change is the actual gene forged upgrades that go into the primaris themselves, and even that, we know other characters in the setting have been doing for a long time to, albeit less successfully or less evidently in the rules.

I completely disagree with the concept that any fundamental changes to the core setting have been made with the introduction of primaris or any of the other newer factions and concepts we are seeing. The imperium is a rotting corpse that is seeing very little progress up until guilliman came back and he ordered cawl to activate the primaris, but there WAS still progress, there was still innovation, there were occasional new ideas and new weapons or armour.

 

Recent novels have been showing that the introduction of the primaris hasn't really helped all that much, the imperium is still dying, its still losing, it has more enemies on more fronts than ever before, there is a quote from of honour and iron that robbienw quoted earlier in this thread that highlights how the primaris have helped extend the imperiums life but simply arent enough of a change to grant victory.

 

Maybe it would be easier to understand if you could outline which themes you feel have been fundamentally changed?



 

[Ishagu]

I think 40k hit the peak of grimdark with 4th and 5th edition. I remember reading that thousands of slaves manually load the torpedoes on star ships and physically put them into the loading tubes, similar to how the a slaves in Egypt carried the sandstone used to build the Pyramids.

 

This has been abandoned. Star ships are now a lot more "conventional" with auto loading tubes, machine assisted function, etc etc

 

40k will always be a grim and dystopian future, but change is natural and in this case necessary.

[Wargamer]

I wouldn't say it's been consistent at all, which is precisely why we have these divisions. I hear people insist that Marines are monastic warrior-monks who are deeply, fanatically devoted to their own personal version of the Imperial Cult... which is not how they were depicted in 3rd Edition when I started. Yeah, they had Chaplains, but they were just supersoldiers, not warrior monks.

 

This is the challenge really - there are many competing flavours of Space Marine; the supersoldier, the unleashed monster, the warrior monk and the ones that just poke fun at 80s action hero tropes. We can, we have, and we will argue for days about which of these is essential and which is just some tacked-on concept that isn't part of the core identity of 40K or Marines in general.

 

As with lore, so with rules. Some people are just fine with the idea of totally ditching everything and starting over with Primaris. Others (who are objectively correct) believe that if you're not wearing a Heresy-era suit of plate, you're not a Space Marine. Some think Marines should be a gunline, some a combat army, some an all-rounder. Some thing Marines should be able to bring everything to the table, others that they should have everything on the roster, but should specialise into a specific role in one list.

 

Good luck untangling that.

[Blindhamster]

Others (who are objectively correct) believe that if you're not wearing a Heresy-era suit of plate, you're not a Space Marine.

 

Agree with everything you say except this bit lol, why would a heresy era suit be required to be a space marine? are deathwatch (who wear mk8 more than anything else) not space marines? mk8 was created post heresy, even mk7 was BARELY a heresy era suit, being used at the siege and thats it.

[Ishagu]

I'm just pointing out that Primaris are quite a minor evolution of lore that has been altered for a long time. The example I gave with the starships is actually more of a change!

[Kallas]

This has been abandoned. Star ships are now a lot more "conventional" with auto loading tubes, machine assisted function, etc etc

Um, has it?

 

Fancy new Primaris ships might have them, but the extremely old ships are more than likely still going with the massed-labour option.

 

Machine assistance has been a thing for a long time to varying degrees, and it's been a mystical thing for almost as long too; such as how Land Raiders have extremely aggressive Machine Spirits - it's not simply machine assistance but the Spirit can fully control and even go out of control. Adeptus Titanicus has something similar when reactor heat builds up. It's safe to say that there aren't as massive changes to the setting as you might purport.

[Wargamer]

I'm just pointing out that Primaris are quite a minor evolution of lore that has been altered for a long time. The example I gave with the starships is actually more of a change!

It's not, actually. BFG Lore established the idea that the Imperium had various shifts in naval doctrine and ship quality; the fact they could effectively mass-produce Armageddon Battlecruisers by refitting Lunars shows the Imperium can do much better than they typically do when the pressure is on. The Mechanicum Fleets are also significantly better despite being built on the same base hulls of their Navy counterparts.

 

But improving on the Astartes template and producing something that doesn't implode, explode or turn to Chaos twenty minutes after deployment? That's a feat and a half.

[Ishagu]

BFG lore is ancient. I've read many books since, and nothing like some of the super primitive stuff is ever mentioned again.

 

This is exactly what I mean. Change has always happened.

[Wargamer]

Priests of Mars from 2012 had an Ark Mechanicus whose engine room needed armies of slaves to shovel fuel pellets into a reactor. That was from 2012; Battlefleet Gothic came out in 1999. So yes, it's an older concept, but it's more recent than the modern incarnation of the Necrons, which came around in 2011.

[SoulessGod]

But improving on the Astartes template and producing something that doesn't implode, explode or turn to Chaos twenty minutes after deployment? That's a feat and a half.

Even if it took 10,000 years just to add two organs?

[Ishagu]

In response to Wargamer

 

But that's still from 5th edition. This is what I mean - Since the end of 5th the setting has become more progressive, gradually.

[Kallas]

BFG lore is ancient. I've read many books since, and nothing like some of the super primitive stuff is ever mentioned again.

 

This is exactly what I mean. Change has always happened.

I mean, the lore being ancient is also pretty much irrelevant. A lot has changed over time, but after the formative firsg 10 or so years 40k has been predominantly the same.

 

Major shifts in technology have come through STC recovery (full or partial), with only minor iterative changes elsewhere (eg, Power Armour, Razorback variants). Massive technological departures not extending from rediscovered Golden Age/Great Crusade tech is, by and large, considered heretical. Yes, change has happened, but not on this scale for this reasoning.

 

Also, we're getting hugely off topic

[Captain Idaho]

I disagree with many of you and Ishagu has actually confirmed it. 40K HAS been consistent. "It's always been grimdark" he said.

 

So a Razorback weapon variant has been introduced? Big deal. It's using established background - the STC tech - to build on what has come before.

 

Primaris are a big evolution. Let's not keep the pretence going any longer that it isn't a big background change. Some of you have acknowledged it and call it a big bang or necessary.

 

I applaud Ishagu for his honesty - he is of the position it is a change in background but believes it is necessary.

 

I contend that it wasn't necessary. New things could be added without big changes in theme. Story changes I can handle and actively encourage. Theme changes are a not the same thing and fundamentally change the product.

 

As I've said, changing the background material theme is detrimental to a product as can be seen from the backlash on other popular franchises.

 

***

 

Now I am going to retire from this topic as we're taking it off topic somewhat. Reply to me directly if you wish or better yet start a PM discussion, I will read your replies, but after a reply please let's get back on topic.

 

:)