Do you think firstborn marines will be discontinued?

[phandaal]

1 minute ago, Tacitus said:

 Never have I a seen a more textbook example of "Bloat means the stuff I don't like". 

 

That is one way to read it.

 

To me it says: The reason some people give for removing "Firstborn" is because removing those units would reduce bloat. However, the Primaris range introduced some bloat into the Space Marine range by replicating some functionality from the existing range.

 

It is a valid point.

[Orange Knight]

GW introduced new things. The bloat was compounded when the old things weren't removed to make way for the new things.

 

Of course this is a complicated issue as the Primaris were not a complete range. Only now, 5 years later, are we approaching a position where the old range can simply be dropped. If the rumors are all true, we will soon have Primaris Veterans, Jump Marines, and of course - new Terminators are around the corner.

[phandaal]

3 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

GW introduced new things. The bloat was compounded when the old things weren't removed to make way for the new things.

 

This is basically what Kallas is saying, but framed from a different direction. Both are fair ways of looking at it.

 

"Bloat means the stuff I don't like" is not a fair way of framing his point, as is usually the case when someone makes up a quote in response to someone else.

[Bryan Blaire]

39 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

we approaching a position where the old range can simply be dropped

We’re already at a position where anything GW wants to drop can be dropped.  We’ve been there for decades.  Your point is meaningless in that discussion.  Bloat was already present in the Marine Codex, and will remain in the Marine Codex regardless of which direction GW moves.  Primaris alone are not “less bloated” than the classic Astartes line is.

 

Some people would prefer the Codex contain only classic Astartes units.  Some people would prefer if the Codex only contain Primaris Astartes units.  Some people would prefer the Codex to retain all the Astartes units.  Some people would prefer to see the Codex contain units that could be built with classic template or Astartes units.

 

None of the above matters in reference to what GW will do.  As of now, GW doesn’t need to do anything - from their point of view, it is very likely that they don’t feel they have a problem at all - if models are selling and books are selling, then there is nothing to be done - sales aren’t a problem to them.  If the molds start to break down for any specific line to the point where the product being churned out is not capable of being sold, then we will probably see some changes to the product line.

 

People have drawn their line, but it sounds like we’ve reached the end of fruitful discussion.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Bryan Blaire

[Kallas]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

That is one way to read it.

To me it says: The reason some people give for removing "Firstborn" is because removing those units would reduce bloat. However, the Primaris range introduced some bloat into the Space Marine range by replicating some functionality from the existing range.

It is a valid point.

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

This is basically what Kallas is saying, but framed from a different direction. Both are fair ways of looking at it.

"Bloat means the stuff I don't like" is not a fair way of framing his point, as is usually the case when someone makes up a quote in response to someone else.

Thank you, yes this is what I'm saying especially the "The reason some people give for removing "Firstborn" is because removing those units would reduce bloat" bit.

 

Most times people say we need to reduce bloat, it's specifically targeting Firstborn units to "make way" for Primaris units, when those Primaris units contribute to creating the bloat in the first place (eg, Gladiators being basically Predators but Primarisified; or Storm Speeders being Land Speeders but Primarisified - they don't do anything different, they fulfill the same functions, albeit with differing degrees of success depending on points/gear).

 

As much as I don't like Primaris, my point is not "I don't like Primaris, so they are the bloat", my point is that the bloat is compounded by introducing more and more Primaris units that don't significantly differ from Firstborn. To say that Firstborn should be removed to reduce bloat is as much saying, "I don't like Firstborn, so they are the bloat" which is reductionist because the Firstborn weren't bloat until the Primaris units came along.

[Blindhamster]

Tbf, firstborn absolutely were bloated even before primaris came along. Totally agree that primaris compounded it, and the new approach of splitting datasheets apart compounded it even more.

 

realistically there is a lot of bloat, the answer won’t generally be removing the new units, as the new units are following whatever the new design direction GW has for marines is. That said, I do think that as they gradually axe things, some of the primaris specific things may well go.

 

I can totally see us going back to “captain” or “techmarine” as options, with the various options available being covered in a single sheet and being the same regardless of primaris or firstborn. I’ve also said many times I’d love to see tacticals and intercessors get merged, drop the regular bolt gun profile in favour of picking one of the bolt rifle profiles and allow the unit special or heavy weapons, it’s an upgrade to both units by combining them like that, and you simply allow either kind of model to represent it.

 

I’ve similarly said the same could be done for assault intercessors and assault marines. I think a lot of Phobos options could become simply the Phobos strike team etc.

 

will any of the above happen? Time will tell i guess! Wouldn’t be surprised if the broken status quo remains in place either though, and these kind of debates will rage on pointlessly

[Kallas]

22 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

Tbf, firstborn absolutely were bloated even before primaris came along.

It kind of depends on what you mean by bloat. Is it just units that are kind of similar (eg, Vanguard Veterans and Assault Marines both being melee jump pack units, with one being straight superior, even though they should ostensibly offer some differences (ie, cost)) or is it the fulfilment of roles (eg, fast close combat unit, so VV and AM are bloat not because they're similar (melee jump packs), but because they do the same job (ie, fast melee) which is also covered by some other things (eg, chainsword Bikers and Outriders))

 

Most Firstborn units didn't really fulfill the same roles as one another (though there are some bloat-y things such as the Veteran squads compared to basic squads), whereas the introduction of Primaris introduced units that almost exclusively did things that were already well covered (eg, Outriders are exactly chainsword-armed Bikers with no differences bar the numbers on a couple of stats).

 

Things like the Sternguard/Vangaurd Veterans did act differently to Tacticals/Assaults by virtue of equipment options and (kind of) cost (ie, the Veterans were/should be more expensive to compensate for the greater power); whereas introducing things like Veteran Intercessors makes sense (ie, they're an upgrade on Intercessors like Sternguard are) but it's pretty much pure bloat because they do literally nothing differently bar +1 A and +1 Ld.

 

So, yes, there is bloat in the Firstborn line. That bloat is fully compounded by Primaris introducing new units that are still covering the same roles but being ostensibly different (eg, Hellblasters and Devastators) as well as some units that are entirely bloating because they don't even have any nuance in their use (eg, Outriders and Bikers).

 

43 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

ealistically there is a lot of bloat, the answer won’t generally be removing the new units, as the new units are following whatever the new design direction GW has for marines is. That said, I do think that as they gradually axe things, some of the primaris specific things may well go.

Yeah, I highly doubt they'll fully drop any Primaris units. Merging some (eg, Phobos) is likely if they do go for datasheet bloat reduction, but they simply won't remove Primaris stuff, because it's obvious that they want them to be the mainline Marines.

[Captain Idaho]

To me the problem isn't necessarily the numbers of units. Look at the HH - lots of weapons and lots units, but it's not considered bloat.

 

The bloat is the counter intuitive and surplus rules that pile on top of each other, alongside additional rules being introduced and removed quarterly at times.

[Blindhamster]

3 hours ago, Kallas said:

Things like the Sternguard/Vangaurd Veterans did act differently to Tacticals/Assaults by virtue of equipment options and (kind of) cost (ie, the Veterans were/should be more expensive to compensate for the greater power); whereas introducing things like Veteran Intercessors makes sense (ie, they're an upgrade on Intercessors like Sternguard are) but it's pretty much pure bloat because they do literally nothing differently bar +1 A and +1 Ld.

Sternguard, Vanguard and Company vets should just get merged. They used to be a single entry, they got split up when sternguard had ammo options and vanguard had a unique ability to drop in and charge, those things are gone. Just make it a veteran unit. Then, if tacticals and intercessors got merged, you'd just have the "new" kit for veterans be veteran intercessors, with more interesting weapon options along the lines of current company vets.

 

imagine if "veterans" were a unit, somewhat similar to the HH veteran unit (which is what I've personally always felt "veteran intercessors" should have been modelled after:

• Give them the same base stats as veteran intercessors.
• Say they by default have Special issue Bolt Rifles, Bolt Pistols and Chainswords.
• Give them the option to replace the chainsword with special melee weapons (power swords, axes etc)
• Give them the option to replace the bolt pistol with special pistols (hand flamer, plasma pistol etc))
• Give them the option to replace the Special issue Bolt Rifles with Combi weapons
• Give them the option to replace the Special issue Bolt Rifles Storm Shields (or maybe just buy them separately)
• Give them the option to buy Jump Packs
• Potentially give them a rule pre game to be bodyguards for a specific character (like current company vets)

Now you can remove 4 datasheets (company vets, sternguard, vanguard, veteran intercessors).

 

Edit:

To me the above would literally be the dream, even pre primaris. It's something they could do with a 5 man box set these days. To me, the veterans of the chapter should just be that - veterans, using the gear that they individually are most suited to, they're the companies or even the chapters finest.

 

If you want to give them something cool and veterany, you give them something like +1 WS or +1 BS, or maybe something that makes them better able to perform actions even whilst doing other things (all those would represent their general competance)

 

edit2

id also have the kit have far more nods to firstborn relic armours than most primaris kits, because realistically, this is the sort of unit likely to be made up of marines that crossed the rubicon rather than purely made up of marines that haven’t. Naturally you’d be able to use  existing firstborn models for such a unit with no difficulty

Edited March 13, 2023 by Blindhamster
reasoning

[Tacitus]

10 hours ago, phandaal said:

 

This is basically what Kallas is saying, but framed from a different direction. Both are fair ways of looking at it.

 

"Bloat means the stuff I don't like" is not a fair way of framing his point, as is usually the case when someone makes up a quote in response to someone else.

Have you ever seen anyone refer to the things they DO like as bloat?   Or otherwise justify calling something bloat?  Ever seen someone say "These rules/sets-of-rules aren't really necessary but they should stay"?   Using the word bloat says one thing, and one thing only:  "I either actively dislike , or don't care enough about these things - so I'm willing to throw them under the bus to preemptively save the things I do like.". 

[phandaal]

46 minutes ago, Tacitus said:

Have you ever seen anyone refer to the things they DO like as bloat?   Or otherwise justify calling something bloat?  Ever seen someone say "These rules/sets-of-rules aren't really necessary but they should stay"?   Using the word bloat says one thing, and one thing only:  "I either actively dislike , or don't care enough about these things - so I'm willing to throw them under the bus to preemptively save the things I do like.". 

 

You could try responding to what people write, rather than a made-up version that sounds worse.

[Tacitus]

31 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

You could try responding to what people write, rather than a made-up version that sounds worse.

Pretty sure I just did, and you complained about it while ignoring all the questions that support my point.

 

Nobody explains why this stuff IS "bloat" except that it isn't the stuff they use, so that stuff should go away first.   Go ahead.  Go find all the posts that don't justify calling something bloat because they don't use it.  I'll find the posts that justify "bloat" because its stuff they don't use.  I'll wait - but I should warn you - I'm going to start wtih the guy who wanted to squat Assault Marines because Vanguard Vets are better. 

[Beta galactosidase]

8 hours ago, Kallas said:

It kind of depends on what you mean by bloat. Is it just units that are kind of similar (eg, Vanguard Veterans and Assault Marines

i think you can mean real-world bloat.  In the case of Vanguard and Sternguard, in 2010 there was a reddit interview by an anonymous studio employeee. I read it because it was linked here on b&c so I know other people have seen it too. Those two units were created because the studio was told to make two new box sets of *something* for the fifth edition codex, and they came up with those. That’s a fairly factual threshold of bloat.

 

People do world building all the time for free, or for reasons other than selling models.  It could be just for a few people in a role play group, or it could be for a commercial film or novel.  Either way there’s a difference between sculptors and writers coming up with things just for fun that can the be sold, and on the other hand being assigned to come up with a couple new PLUs.

 

we also know that the reason regular assault squads stopped having armoury options was… to speed up games with high model counts. That’s another real world way to define bloat.

[spessmarine]

All the X in Y armour or on a Z are the most clear examples of sheet bloat I find. In more than just 40k I feel.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Tacitus said:

Have you ever seen anyone refer to the things they DO like as bloat?   Or otherwise justify calling something bloat?  Ever seen someone say "These rules/sets-of-rules aren't really necessary but they should stay"?   Using the word bloat says one thing, and one thing only:  "I either actively dislike , or don't care enough about these things - so I'm willing to throw them under the bus to preemptively save the things I do like.". 

I like gravis units but have so many individual gravis datasheets os bloaty 

there are several strats I do like, however those abilities/rules being a part of a completely separate mechanic outside of core rules, faction rules, sub faction rules, and datasheet rules, means that they’re bloaty

Edited March 14, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Tacitus]

34 minutes ago, Beta galactosidase said:

i think you can mean real-world bloat.  In the case of Vanguard and Sternguard, in 2010 there was a reddit interview by an anonymous studio employeee. I read it because it was linked here on b&c so I know other people have seen it too. Those two units were created because the studio was told to make two new box sets of *something* for the fifth edition codex, and they came up with those. That’s a fairly factual threshold of bloat.

 

People do world building all the time for free, or for reasons other than selling models.  It could be just for a few people in a role play group, or it could be for a commercial film or novel.  Either way there’s a difference between sculptors and writers coming up with things just for fun that can the be sold, and on the other hand being assigned to come up with a couple new PLUs.

 

we also know that the reason regular assault squads stopped having armoury options was… to speed up games with high model counts. That’s another real world way to define bloat.

Except Vanguard and Sternguard were already sort of a thing all the way back in 2nd Ed, and were overdue to be a thing to get Jump Infantry with Power Weapons again once the Power Weapon thing settled down after the 3rd Ed Charlie Foxtrot.   So I'd take that studio interview with an entire shaker of salt

[Tacitus]

25 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I like gravis units but have so many individual gravis datasheets os bloaty 

there are several strats I do like, however those abilities/rules being a part of a completely separate mechanic outside of core rules, faction rules, sub faction rules, and datasheet rules, means that they’re bloaty

So you want to get rid of all the datasheets which you don't like, and the strats system - which you don't like? 

[Sword Brother Adelard]

1 hour ago, Tacitus said:

So you want to get rid of all the datasheets which you don't like, and the strats system - which you don't like? 

 

That's not what he said. He's saying that he can see why things are bloaty despite liking them.

 

 

[Blindhamster]

4 hours ago, Tacitus said:

Have you ever seen anyone refer to the things they DO like as bloat?   Or otherwise justify calling something bloat?  Ever seen someone say "These rules/sets-of-rules aren't really necessary but they should stay"?   Using the word bloat says one thing, and one thing only:  "I either actively dislike , or don't care enough about these things - so I'm willing to throw them under the bus to preemptively save the things I do like.". 

see: my post above.

I don’t dislike veterans, in fact veteran intercessors were a thing I wanted for blood angels before they were a thing for them. I loved and dedicated a lot of time to my other veteran models in the past too.

however, realistically at this point, all that separates the four veteran units I listed, is weapon load outs and that could all be handled easily in a single datasheet. The final unit would be more interesting too as you could even make a breacher type of unit or a ranged jump pack unit by being able to mix and match. And at the same time, you’d reduce the datasheet count by 3 (hell, if you allowed master crafted melee weapons, you could merge bladeguard too).

 

similarly, you could merge apothecary and primaris apothecary etc, with no real loss to the end user. 

[Sword Brother Adelard]

30 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

similarly, you could merge apothecary and primaris apothecary etc, with no real loss to the end user. 

If anything, it could be a gain, as we could maybe take a chainsword on a Primaris one?

[Marshal Reinhard]

 I feel like we can state over and over that it would be beneficial to merge the data sheets. It definately would.

 

I frankly feel the number of sheets we have now is absurd, almost embarrassing compared to other factions.

 

But this is pretty much preaching to the choir, GW the business do not share these sentiments.

 

They split them up, rather than merge them. Even in the case of predators? Why? Just so they can display the respective names of the different loadouts, Destructor and Annihilator? That's seemingly all it takes.

 

So they could merge X number of sheets. But I don't see them doing it. They certainly haven't displayed any signs that they think its neccessary.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Marshal Reinhard

[Bryan Blaire]

2 hours ago, Marshal Reinhard said:

They certainly haven't displayed any signs that they think its neccessary.

Agreed - and at this point, going by that same logic, GW hasn’t displayed any signs that they think removing any data sheets/slates/whatever at all is necessary, unless they specifically don’t sell models for them any more - and the ones they don’t sell models for that are historical they seemingly moved to Legends.

 

GW sells classic Astartes models.  GW sells Primaris Astartes models.  Both lines of models are currently for sale for 40K.

 

So maybe instead of everyone arguing about whose models need to have their data sheets/slates/whatever, we all do each other a solid and drop this inane argument until we actually see GW do something?  Because until GW actually does something, the status quo is going to remain.

 

The Space Marine Codex has the highest count of units playable because the Space Marine line has the highest number of models available - all because GW knows that they can rely on players to buy Marines - and that’s going to be the way it remains.

 

So if you like only Primaris Marines, buy and play only Primaris Marines.  If you like only classic Marines, buy and play only the classic Marines stuff.  If you like Marines, buy and play whatever Marine stuff you want.  Do that until something actually changes without fear, and when something changes, adapt, regardless of what those changes may be - because worrying about what a company does for any reasons other than money are silly, and there’s currently money to be made from selling all of it.  There’s no reason to snipe at each other or call for the things that you don’t enjoy to be removed or highlight them as “the problem” - because as far as GW is concerned, if the money flows, they only actually care to keep selling the models.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Bryan Blaire

[Marshal Reinhard]

That said, I think they will eventually retire kits. They've always done this. Typically the retired kit was then renewed by a newer kit of the same type.

 

But I also think they will move things to legends. Older versions of characters are already there? Other models not being produced. They even released a Primaris character straight into Legends, the hard to get company champion model.

 

I imagine in the future other no longer in production models will be moved there: a prime suspect of mine would be the thunderfire cannon. Other existing kits once the mould breaks and they stop producing them should follow in line. This goes for both sides. Case in point: unless we see some kind of updated multipart/improved design of the Vanguard Surpressors, I imagine them being put into legends, eventually. Their reception seems to have remained lukewarm and GW has not exactly rushed to flesh them out. Imagine other not overly well recieved units could be quietly retired as well, unless they take the time to redesign them.

 

But they're not gonna retire an entire slew of models from either line, from some kind of perceived need to clean up the codex or make it more "overviewable".

Edited March 14, 2023 by Marshal Reinhard
Grammar

[MadGreek]

Pardon if I ramble, this thread had a lot to go through. So much passion from both sides, and I can empathize with both. My thoughts:

My first Marines were the Rogue Trade, cream colored, hard plastic, beakies. I LOVED those models. Also had the old (tiny) Rhino, the Land Raider, and make a deodorant stick Land speeder. Then I got pewter ones. Nicer. Then the various iterations of the plastic Marines. Every new version nicer and better quality than the previous. Up to and including now. I REALLY like (most of) the new Primaris models. I didn’t like the Rogue Trader models next to them, and sold them off. I have been slowly selling off many of my first born, and will likely try and sell the rest. They don’t look good, to me, next to the newer models. Others may feel differently, and I certainly would have no issues playing someone with a mix of new and old (even very old) models. 

I do get that GW erred (in my opinion, and probably many of you) in the WAY they introduced the new models. It wasn’t great. And introduced whatever you want to call it – bloat, redundancy, confusion, (anger), etc. Instead of a clean replacement, we have a lore replacement. Instead of our cherished Tac Squad we have a straight rifle squad.

I plan on keeping a Tac Squad for now. Just using Primaris models. For Special and Heavy Weapons I can use any of the various Primaris Marines that HAVE heavy or special weapons to be a “counts as.” Voila, Tac Squad. Four of those Primaris bodies and 6 Intercessors, voila, Dev Squad. Old units, new models. Same could be done with old Tac Squads counting as Intercessors. Just make it clear on the model, to your opponent, and I don’t see the issue. Play the models you want, play the units you want.

Will they get rid of Tac Squads and Dev Squads completely? Maybe. Probably. And I can see the drawback there. I like Tac Squads. I have a fix for GW, a way to combine the Data Sheets and maybe keep everyone happy? Intercessor Squad could have an option that, when the squad is not full strength (less than 10 Int Marines), you could add a Plasma, or Melta, or even a missile Marine to augment the squad. Call it what you like, maybe a Tactically reinforced Intercessor Squad   That could be expanded to incorporate 4 heavy weapons as a retooled Dev Squad (No name pops to mind.)

Anyway, just my thoughts, my plans, and my (slim) hope that GW incorporates rather than eliminates, but still streamlines.

[Evil Eye]

One point I will say in favour of merging units together and removing Primaris vs Firstborn as a rules-level distinction altogether is the 4th edition Marine Codex, which I acquired recently. There's actually very few unit entries in the book, especially compared to nowadays, but between the wargear options, codex-divergent/custom chapter rules and veteran skills, the army is incredibly flexible and would basically allow you to run your Marines however you see fit (points allowing). You can basically make any kind of crazy squad option you want and with very few "datasheets".

 

By the same book of datasheets being less "specific", if a Tactical Marine is ruleswise identical to an Intercessor, etc etc, you could theoretically drastically reduce the amount of bloat and keep everyone happy. There are some units that couldn't be merged because they don't have direct Firstborn counterparts but these are mostly vehicles (which could be crewed by Firstborn anyway), specialists that could still be represented with Firstborn models with conversion (Phobos armoured Marines for instance), characters (see previous) or weird units like Suppressors, Aggressors, Inceptors etc, none of which are backbone units the way a Tactical Marine or Intercessor is and are pretty divisive amongst the community anyway by virtue of how not very good some of them look! Who knows, maybe it'd encourage people to convert versions that don't look completely silly...

 

Again, you'd need to keep Firstborn models in print but I don't see that being a big problem, especially given the success of HH 2.0 so far. And honestly I don't think either side would be missing out too much if entries were merged, especially in the cases of things like Outriders where they're borderline identical to regular bikers anyway. Even with basic Intercessors, the only real difference between a Tactical Marine and an Intercessor in terms of wargear options is that Tacticals can take special/heavy weapons, whilst Intercessors can take 3 different types of bolter; now personally I think that the bolter differences should be scrapped and left purely aesthetic (I feel the same about Plague Marine melee options) but if they must be kept, I guess Firstborn have access to different models of bolter along with Intercessors actually being able to take flamers or meltaguns or whatever.

 

As a TLDR to all that, I reckon you could probably merge a LOT of units without actually culling any kits, decreasing bloat and keeping both sides of the divide happy and actually increasing flexibility and build options in the process.