Blurring between Firstborn and Primaris incoming with 10th?

[Marshal Reinhard]

4 hours ago, MegaVolt87 said:

 

You don't want this. Check out the CSM termi and chosen melee weapons Accursed weapons" as a catch all for all melee weapon types. An appropriate name, because it is a cursed change. Also a further errosion of squad loadouts-  restrictions like BT sword brethren, DG etc. 

Restrictions like sword brethren as you call it was always gonna happen. Those're dependant on box contents, and thats the way forward for GW, doesnt matter if we get shared sheets or not

[Blindhamster]

interesting video on the topic:

 

[WrathOfTheLion]

I think if that's the way they go, then it's perfectly fine. I think the Sternguard being replaced is a substantial pivot on their end, where we very well may end up with a merged range with the existing older kits updated to a new Primaris (really, MK X armor) sculpt.

 

This is a very preferable change, as it means folks with existing armies will not have them invalidated wholesale. I.e., they might come out with a new Assault Squad in MK X armor, but your old assault squad (assuming no skewed/weird loadouts) still has a place, just like any previous update of the kit.

 

Edit: I want to note that any loadout restrictions are completely irrelevant to this, even if I mention it in passing, as it's a different policy. Were they to even update the Sternguard to a new MK VII sculpt, or perhaps even if they didn't update them at all, they are still going to be dinged on options to be in line with what the box contains.

Edited May 4, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Kallas]

Ah yes, the classic Eldar problem: it's not selling well, so we won't put any effort into supporting it - ignoring the fact that they're not selling well because they're not supported. Hell, we've seen that people are plenty willing to buy bad/old models based on good rules, and buy good/new models based on looks even with bad rules. Really don't understand why people think updated Firstborn kits wouldn't sell. If current Tacticals are apparently still a top ten selling Marine kit (which is still the best selling line in their company-wide range), then a new, upscaled Tactical kit would definitely sell well.

 

The notion that bad selling kits should be discontinued is basically just a way for them to push sales of specific lines that they want to sell. Don't want to make that kit? Just give it no attention and people will forget about it (almost like they've done with the entire Firstborn range since Primaris released). As I've been saying since Primaris came out: they've given Firstborn so little time in pictures and any kind of article that they've have engineered the situation to remove them, while justifying it by saying that sales are down - but sales are down because they've removed Firstborn from stores and only ever display Primaris!

 

*sigh* 

 

If they go about blurring the lines and actually merging the two lines of Marines, then fine. But pushing Firstborn design aesthetics out and only keeping Primaris ones isn't that. If the Sternguard Leviathan kit is close to the MPK then that's a problem: one helmet is not mixing the armour, it's just MkX with the lowest effort nod possible; but if the MPK actually has other marks of armour present then great.

 

The part in the video that really struck me was pointing out that cycling kits out is when they stop getting put in Codexes, such as Yarrick and the CSM Jump Pack Lord. 10th's Codexes are really going to show us how accurate that is, but it is concerning that they have already begun that kind of process.

[Kallas]

@Arbedark, anything specific you disagree with, or just everything? Because there are a couple of different points in there.

[WrathOfTheLion]

I'm not that individual, but it depends on what your complaints are in particular. Usually it's about forward compatibility of the existing army, which is a valid complaint, but clearly is now being somewhat directly addressed.

 

Model aesthetics that you don't like I'm less concerned with, as that's a subjective measure by nature.

[Captain Idaho]

Long as I can use my models, I don't care if your models are newer and bigger. Can be a good change. 

 

Of course, having hope is the first step on the road to... how does that 40K quote end again?

Edited May 4, 2023 by Captain Idaho

[Arbedark]

51 minutes ago, Kallas said:

@Arbedark, anything specific you disagree with, or just everything? Because there are a couple of different points in there.

 

I disagree that GW are ignoring factions because they aren't selling well, and that the factions aren't selling well because they're being ignored, leading to a vicious circle - in 9th we had an almost complete revamp of Necrons and the relaunch of a 25-year extinct faction in the Leagues of Votann, and for 10th we're getting another massive overhaul of a xenos race in Tyranids. Factions get ignored because of the available capacity and release schedules (which require an injection of cash given by the safe bet of marines), but GW are clearly trying to diversify the business from the ~60% revenue coming from marines that was the case at the tail end of 8th edition Warhammer Fantasy.

 

Your statement about Tacticals being one of the best selling kits is also at odds with your follow-up statement that firstborn sales are (purposely) down, and are being used as a justification to get rid of them.

 

I also disagree with your view of merging the two lines - I think it'd be fantastic if GW merged the two rulesets and lore for Firstborn and Primaris together (an Intercessor and a Tactical marine don't need to be different IMO, same with basically all the other squad types), to allow people to continue to use their existing collections, and then focused solely on making the better (in my opinion) Primaris sculpts and never made anything overtly Firstborn ever again.

 

Finally, I disagree that it's an issue that out of production resin models, which haven't been given an updated plastic model, are cycled out of codexes, provided they have legends rules.

 

So basically I disagree with everything in the post.

 

Do let me know if I've misinterpreted anything you have posted

[Kallas]

8 minutes ago, Arbedark said:

I disagree that GW are ignoring factions because they aren't selling well, and that the factions aren't selling well because they're being ignored, leading to a vicious circle - in 9th we had an almost complete revamp of Necrons and the relaunch of a 25-year extinct faction in the Leagues of Votann, and for 10th we're getting another massive overhaul of a xenos race in Tyranids. Factions get ignored because of the available capacity and release schedules (which require an injection of cash given by the safe bet of marines), but GW are clearly trying to diversify the business from the ~60% revenue coming from marines that was the case at the tail end of 8th edition Warhammer Fantasy.

Did the Necron revamp, the Sisters revamp, and the Votann release all yield large spikes in sales for those factions? I would guess that yes, they did. Why? Because they got new models (ie, attention). Did Primaris release (and subsequent drip of releases) draw in a large spike in sales on release? Yes, because they got new models. Have Firstborn been declining in sales since the release of Primaris (and lack of Firstborn releases)? I would guess yes; if anyone knows where to find the numbers for this, please let me know.

 

The point is that releases draw attention, and lack of releases stagnates sales. This is not unique to any one faction, but the point related to Firstborn/Primaris is that, of course Firstborn models are being bought less because GW is promoting Primaris models and reducing attention (ie, they are ignoring) to Firstborn units - as I've brought up many times before, you can see this in Codexes and articles, where Firstborn models are simply absent from everything: there aren't Firstborn models shown in the Codexes, except in the Datasheet portraits; there aren't Firstborn units in any of the pictures; and there are some Firstborn in some of the art pieces, with still a preponderance of Primaris in the art.

 

Simply, if models are being promoted then they receive more attention from the consumers. That is very basic marketing, and why so much is spent on advertising products even in ways that disgruntle people (eg, crappy ads on videos) because it still gets brand recognition out there. For 40k, it's less about brand as a whole and more about specific models: if people literally aren't seeing models (ie, pretty much all Firstborn models) then they have less awareness of their existence which in turn drives sales down.

 

17 minutes ago, Arbedark said:

Your statement about Tacticals being one of the best selling kits is also at odds with your follow-up statement that firstborn sales are (purposely) down, and are being used as a justification to get rid of them.

No, my statement about Tacticals is:

2 hours ago, Kallas said:

If current Tacticals are apparently still a top ten selling Marine kit (which is still the best selling line in their company-wide range), then a new, upscaled Tactical kit would definitely sell well.

This is not saying that Tacticals = all Firstborn units. As the video talks about, Tacticals have been declared 'safe for now' because they sell well enough; but many other units apparently do not sell well enough, so they are looking at axing them. But why don't they sell well? Because they're bad? But people say that Tacticals look bad. Because of their moulds (ie, Finecast)? Because they don't even see them anymore (ie, shelf space in the Warhammer stores which is pretty exclusively Primaris, since they're the new releases)? Because they're never displayed in any GW publications? Firstborn units aren't shown. They simply aren't advertised beyond having a Datasheet, and Primaris are absolutely plastered all over everything.

 

So to bring it back to the point I'm making is that the whole "bad sales = should get rid" argument is a vicious cycle. Sales are driven by advertising; lack of advertising leads to bad sales; bad sales leads to canning models: ergo, if a model is not being promoted (eg, the poor selling Firstborn units, which are apparently on the chopping block) then they are in the process of being gotten rid of.

 

Further to that, if they are focused on sales = keep/kill, then if they are not advertising Firstborn units, then they are pushing to remove them: they can choose to promote these poor selling units which, it should stand to reason, would increase sales and thereby make them not viable for removal; but by choosing to not promote them, they are choosing to let them slide into obscurity and using that as the justification to remove them.

 

Essentially the point I am making is that they can drive sales of whichever models they want, and the act of not driving sales of specific models is an intentional decision on their part.

 

25 minutes ago, Arbedark said:

I also disagree with your view of merging the two lines - I think it'd be fantastic if GW merged the two rulesets and lore for Firstborn and Primaris together (an Intercessor and a Tactical marine don't need to be different IMO, same with basically all the other squad types), to allow people to continue to use their existing collections, and then focused solely on making the better (in my opinion) Primaris sculpts and never made anything overtly Firstborn ever again.

Right, your opinion is that you should get toys and others peoples' toys should be discarded to make room for your toys. You prefer the aesthetic of Primaris, I prefer the aesthetic of Firstborn, so my aesthetic should be thrown out.

 

My argument ("If current Tacticals are apparently still a top ten selling Marine kit (which is still the best selling line in their company-wide range), then a new, upscaled Tactical kit would definitely sell well.") is that your opinion that they should stop making Firstborn models is not particularly well supported via the sales-driven model GW apparently uses. If Tacticals are still selling well enough, even with the lack of promotion, then it stands to reason that the Firstborn aesthetic is not a tiny minority; and if new Firstborn units were released in the updated scale and detail, they would be successful, much like the Primaris models that you enjoy have been.

 

Simply, a preference for one design should not be the basis for an argument for the wholesale removal of the other.

 

29 minutes ago, Arbedark said:

Finally, I disagree that it's an issue that out of production resin models, which haven't been given an updated plastic model, are cycled out of codexes, provided they have legends rules.

I vehemently disagree that Legends is appropriate support for any model line.

 

30 minutes ago, Arbedark said:

So basically I disagree with everything in the post.

Thank you for actually taking the time to write it out.

 

As a follow on question, are we expecting to see bad selling Primaris units be canned? I rarely ever see anyone talk about the Firestrike Turret, so is that a bad selling unit? Is that going to be removed from the line? Or is it, specifically, Firstborn that are on the chopping block? and if it is specifically them, then the question is why: of course, we all know it's because they're 'old' and people prefer the new scale of Primaris. But it begs the question that if Tacticals are selling well enough to be 'safe' while being in the less preferred scale, why not update them into the new scale, with the point being that actually removing the Firstborn aesthetic does not appear to be a universal held desire.

[Blindhamster]

I suspect we will indeed see some primaris stuff get legends’d. Most likely suppressors, they said the Phobos combat patrol is being replaced, and there isn’t an mpk. I could see the turret and atv both go too, but I’ve no idea on sales for those 

[WrathOfTheLion]

The ATV likely well outsells the Firestrike, so I see it sticking around.

[ZeroWolf]

I think we can all agree that Veteran Intercessors will be shuffling off to Legends for obvious reasons 

[Kallas]

13 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

I think we can all agree that Veteran Intercessors will be shuffling off to Legends for obvious reasons 

Pretty sure they never had actual models released for them. One of the weirdest units GW made, when they were ramping up their "no model = no datasheet" style.

[ZeroWolf]

Oh I know you were supposed to just paint Intercessors differently but it was more that the datasheet itself won't be present in the Codex/Index

[Sea Creature]

It’s just easier for GW to design new SM units that adhere to the Primaris look for 40k. Sure there will be some exceptions but I think those will be few.

[Bryan Blaire]

Was there a statement somewhere about Legends for 10th edition?  I’m figuring I missed it, but I haven’t actually seen a direct reference for it in regards to 10th.

 

Overall, the aesthetic differences between the classic Marine line and the Tacticus armor line is pretty minimal.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Bryan Blaire

[Karhedron]

44 minutes ago, Bryan Blaire said:

Was there a statement somewhere about Legends for 10th edition?  I’m figuring I missed it, but I haven’t actually seen a direct reference for it in regards to 10th.

 

Someone asked GW on a Facebook thread about Legends and GW replied "Legends aren't going anywhere. That's why they are Legends!". I took this to mean that Legends will be updated for 10th.

[Bryan Blaire]

4 hours ago, Karhedron said:

Someone asked GW on a Facebook thread about Legends and GW replied "Legends aren't going anywhere. That's why they are Legends!". I took this to mean that Legends will be updated for 10th.

It’s an interesting situation, because if GW does really embrace the digital data cards, then I guess the only real differences to Legends and everything else would be getting updates during the edition (at their “balance data slate” timings/Seasons/whatever), and whether they are printed in the Codex.  I realize the stigma is still there for folks, it doesn’t remove that, but it does provide another avenue of access for anything not printed in the book.

 

5 hours ago, Sea Creature said:

It’s just easier for GW to design new SM units that adhere to the Primaris look for 40k. Sure there will be some exceptions but I think those will be few.

In what way?  Presumably GW has the digital files for classic Marines as well, so any digital magic they could do for ease of design for looks could be applied to any digital assets.

 

And I guess you, Sea Creature, could just “Respectfully Disagree”, but at the same time, there’s also the possibility that what someone considers a minimal difference, others consider the entire world’s worth of difference, so on a 2.5 inch high plastic army man, is it really a big difference?

 

I’ve been working to understand the view of folks who say there are large/huge aesthetic differences between Primaris and the classic Astartes line for a long time (basically since they came out), since the differences between them are minor to me - it would be really beneficial if someone that feels strongly that they are widely different to list what those big differences really are.  I say this, because to me, if you just had Primaris Tacticus armor tomorrow, for the models themselves, it probably wouldn’t make much of a wave at all (other than some of the molded iconography, which is itself minor details).

Edited May 4, 2023 by Bryan Blaire

[Sea Creature]

I think there are significant differences - such as the latter is much more physically correct in terms of what I think a Space Marine should look like. That’s just my opinion though.

[WrathOfTheLion]

Is that not just a difference in sculpt though? You could make a MK VII sculpt with the same proportions. Were they to do a new one now, they would not sculpt them like they were, but basically exactly like a Primaris kit.

[Sea Creature]

To me the older sculpts often look like they have gorilla arms (too long). I really first noticed it when I started playing HH 1st edition, the FW models have longer legs.

[Bryan Blaire]

So what are the other significant differences?

 

We’ve got one - arm length on Primaris is more proportionally correct to body size.

 

Other differences I see on the Tacticus from the majority of the previous armor marks:

• Round ankle actuators instead of the shrouded wire connector
• More involved plating lines
• Raised knee flare above the knee plate
• Abdominal plating instead of exposed abdominal wiring
• Small vent lines on the lower breast plate
• Two part breast plate
• Few breast plate icons
• No breast plate wiring harnesses

None of that strikes me as substantial personally, even as a whole, they are minor variations on armor that could have been done on any previous armor mark (and some did exist on Mark 8).

 

The size of the models is clearly different, they are proportionally scaled differently, but the silhouette is effectively the same.  So is it these (in my mind small) differences that are keeping people from visualizing a merging the lines, or is it really more than just the appearance of the models?

 

I’m wondering if those who have taken more readily to the new Marine models themselves, regardless of the lore (because I know I greatly dislike that particular part of the Primaris concept), are more similarly inclined to view the model changes as minor, while those who cleave more tightly to the older models are those that generally have the mindset that the differences in the models are much larger in scope?

 

I do agree with WrathOfTheLion - GW would likely do any Marine armor more in line with their new proportions if they did them today, and I think that can be seen on the new Mk6 armor that’s in the current HH line, as well as the new Mk3 they previewed.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Bryan Blaire

[Sea Creature]

The visual aesthetics of the models is more important to me. I tend to ignore their origins lore.

[Arikel]

It does seem that the firstborn/primaris line is being blurred, especially with the lack of the keyword appearing so far in any of the 10th edition rules, and even the almost complete non mention of it in descriptions of the new models for 10th. This is good I think, and really should have been the way it was all along.  As long as there are rules for tacticals, devastators and assault marines, I don't especially care what they look like. It is the classic squad and chapter organization that I want, not mono weapon squads that they have pushed with the new models.

 

13 hours ago, Sea Creature said:

The visual aesthetics of the models is more important to me. I tend to ignore their origins lore.

 

Nobody is disputing that primaris marines have better proportion and posing. What they do suffer from a is lack of diversity in their armour . For the most part, with the exception of characters, they all look the same. Same helmets, same armour, same weapons. There is generally no variety within the kit itself, and since they all share the same armour design, no easy way to get variety from other primaris kits. All the firstborn kits came with a variety of helmets and armour pieces from different marks, which you could mix and match quite freely, to give every marine his own look. Many also came with various items of bling so you could flesh out your marines even more, especially the veteran and commander kits.

 

From what I have seen of primaris kits, there are much less of these options available. Sure there are non helmeted heads, but if you want helmets you have the one look. If you are lucky, there might be a couple extra shoulderpads with a special design on them. Not much to work with to start , little compatibility between kits anyways, added on to the fact that most loadouts are fixed or very limited for the initial primaris runs, means that they all look much more similar to each other than the first born marines that came before them.

 

Keep the scale, keep the proportions. Up the variety and ease of kitbashing to where it was before, personally, I would even lose some of the dynamic posing to get that back.

 

[Doghouse]

I think the easiest solution is just do Primaris that are firstborn that have crossed the Rubicon that go to battle in modified older marks of armour. I think they want to keep the Mk X silhouette though to be honest.