No primarchs ...

[DemonGSides]

Always fun to see some lore that got ripped apart and passed around to other places.

[Special Officer Doofy]

22 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

I don't blame primarchs, they have been strong on the tabletop and they've been weak on the tabletop.

It's Titanic units.  Get rid of all of em.

 

Mortarion before being nerfed in 10th was 450-490pts in 9th. He was as much points as a titanic unit, the size of a titanic unit and had the rules (and then some) to match titanic units. But you want only titanic units gone? 

[DemonGSides]

16 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Mortarion before being nerfed in 10th was 450-490pts in 9th. He was as much points as a titanic unit, the size of a titanic unit and had the rules (and then some) to match titanic units. But you want only titanic units gone? 

Yeah.  I don't necessarily mind big demons existing; I think a demon prince fits within scope, I even think a game that was aiming a little more in what I want would be able to have Mortarion at a more reasonable size and scope and still feel strong without being OP; I don't think many people would say the best counter a Primarch is a Titanic unit as is, so I think some rationale toning could make it work, though that would probably require a new model now and I don't anticipate nor expect that to happen any time soon.

But I think Knights were a huge mistake for the game and have indirectly (and directly) lead to a lot of bad decisions that have warped the game from where I think it should be.  And I dislike playing against monoliths currently so it's definitely not a fully rational belief, but one I believe would have enough positive knock on effects that a lot more people would like the game, though I get the approachability of "Buy like, 5 models."

 

They fit in Apocalypse (A game type I also love!  And wish got more chances to play, I don't think I've gotten an Apoc game in any way in almost a decade at this point), but warp a lot of what you are doing in 40k, and having to plan around possibly running into a Titanic unit has big implications.

Losing the Baneblade will hurt.  Trust me, it will, I love that big son of a bitch.  So would Mortarion, if we want to go that route too. But it think it'd make for a better, more fun game.  It feels a lot like DBZ with having things that are that powerful; they just force even more crazy things to be made which imbalances other things.  The business side of things also puts its thumb on this side, so it's like even MORE worrisome.

It'd have the knock on effect of making armies EVEN BIGGER as those points get used elsewhere, but maybe the game could stand a general raising of points.  I could be convinced of that.

(BIG DISCLAIMER FOR EVERYONE READING THIS; THESE ARE OPINIONS AND NOT STATING ANY FACTS.  I'M HERE TO TALK NOT GET IN FIGHTS.  WE'RE ALL FRIENDS I WANT YOU TO HAVE YOUR BIG KNIGHTS, THEY ARE COOL I EVEN OWN ONE.)

[bloodhound23]

4 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Lots of decisions from GW don't make the game better, they just try to increase sales.

Re: the YouTuber controversy, how does everyone agree with this and then fail to make the leap to “making the game worse is bad for sales”. 
 

It makes me feel crazy after watching the Arbitor Ian “rebuttal”, which was basically if you think bad lore is bad for business or that a bad game is bad business, then you’re taking this “model company” thing way too seriously, as if these aspects are somehow separable from model sales.

 

Are we not doing synergy anymore? Like just make them Apocalypse only or something. There are so many middle ground resolutions that don’t involve breaking the game, or in other cases, rolling out hastily produced lore/retcons. They should figure it out. I don’t understand why they don’t seem to want to. 
 

Some people seem to think it’s naive or something for me to have this opinion, and I just think it’s bad business and it’s painful to watch.

[Cpt_Reaper]

Counterpoint: Titanic units and Primarchs should not go away.

 

I see these lines of thought over and over by the same handful of people. It's by no means a majority, because every time I see it I recognise the same usernames online and hear the same phases from the same 4-5 people IRL. "The game is ruined. It was better in X previous edition. Y unit type ruined the game and I want it gone."

 

I own the Lion, and I own a growing household of Chaos Knights. I am glad I am not forced to play another game that nobody else plays in my city and lock them onto the shelf.

 

Now, I accept that certain unit types might not gel with everyone. That's fine, but I hate the immediate stance of "remove it from the game!". Eldar as a whole were not fun for me for the last few editions, am I then not justified to ask for their removal from the game? Psykers have caused great frustration to me in the past so should psykers be removed?

 

Just because you don't like something isn't a reason to take my toy soldiers away. Just because I don't like it doesn't give me right to take away yours.

 

 

[Scribe]

21 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Just because you don't like something isn't a reason to take my toy soldiers away. Just because I don't like it doesn't give me right to take away yours.

 

Very true, the reason is because some units have had an impact that has altered the core mechanics of the game, leave it worse off.

 

Like Knights.

 

Signed. The current, and former, owner of Knights.

[Cpt_Reaper]

Knights haven't altered anything. At all. They're big, tough and have 2-3 big guns. Back in the day a Land Raider was big, tough and had 2-3 big guns. Bringing one was could have been an auto-win if your opponent wasn't prepared for AV14 and two independently targeting twin-linked lascannons, or it could have been an auto-loss if they were very prepared for exactly that when you lose 250 points out of the gate.

 

Knights being introduced didn't do anything to any mechanic. The phases haven't changed because knights exist. Objectives haven't changed because knights exist. Winning or losing hasn't been influenced by knights existing, unless you are playing "who has the coolest big stompy robot?".

 

The game has faults. None of which are the fault of knights existing.

[Scribe]

43 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Knights haven't altered anything. At all. They're big, tough and have 2-3 big guns. Back in the day a Land Raider was big, tough and had 2-3 big guns. Bringing one was could have been an auto-win if your opponent wasn't prepared for AV14 and two independently targeting twin-linked lascannons, or it could have been an auto-loss if they were very prepared for exactly that when you lose 250 points out of the gate.

 

I disagree, and the 'a lasgun needs to be able to wound everything' argument is because of stupid things (which I love to pieces, my full set of FW Resin Knights was glorious!) like Knights.

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Counterpoint: Titanic units and Primarchs should not go away.

 

I see these lines of thought over and over by the same handful of people. It's by no means a majority, because every time I see it I recognise the same usernames online and hear the same phases from the same 4-5 people IRL. "The game is ruined. It was better in X previous edition. Y unit type ruined the game and I want it gone."

 

I own the Lion, and I own a growing household of Chaos Knights. I am glad I am not forced to play another game that nobody else plays in my city and lock them onto the shelf.

 

Now, I accept that certain unit types might not gel with everyone. That's fine, but I hate the immediate stance of "remove it from the game!". Eldar as a whole were not fun for me for the last few editions, am I then not justified to ask for their removal from the game? Psykers have caused great frustration to me in the past so should psykers be removed?

 

Just because you don't like something isn't a reason to take my toy soldiers away. Just because I don't like it doesn't give me right to take away yours.

I guess you didn't read my post but that's okay, sometimes it's easier to just rip out a response but I suggest going back and interacting with the specific points I made instead of just knee-jerking to what you think I said.

 

It's also mostly just idle talk; we all know they aren't getting removed any time soon.  No need to be worried!

 

52 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Knights haven't altered anything. At all. They're big, tough and have 2-3 big guns. Back in the day a Land Raider was big, tough and had 2-3 big guns. Bringing one was could have been an auto-win if your opponent wasn't prepared for AV14 and two independently targeting twin-linked lascannons, or it could have been an auto-loss if they were very prepared for exactly that when you lose 250 points out of the gate.

 

Knights being introduced didn't do anything to any mechanic. The phases haven't changed because knights exist. Objectives haven't changed because knights exist. Winning or losing hasn't been influenced by knights existing, unless you are playing "who has the coolest big stompy robot?".

 

The game has faults. None of which are the fault of knights existing.

 

They really did alter quite a bit.  They've been toned down, but it definitely pushed the upper envelope; it made something that used to be a rare occurrence into something routine.  That's gonna have knock on effects.  And I'm not JUST blaming knights, I said all titanic units, but once again, you didn't read my post.

The game has faults.  Some of those involve knights, for sure.

Edited April 16 by DemonGSides

[Scribe]

I'll also note, that the removal of the FoC, and allowing for spamming of units which fit a particular profile (LRs, or again, Knights) absolutely brought about gameplay that was 'oh you have Knights? All Knights? I cannot do anything to that, sorry maybe we can play next week.'

 

I know this, because I was both sides of that equation.

[DemonGSides]

Oh for sure, and fwiw, I think the FOC or any sort of organization being dismissed in favor of "Just rule of 3" is a HUGE mistake for the health of the game and creates balancing problems that are beyond anything that even the re-addition of granular points could resolve.

Edited April 16 by DemonGSides

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

I like the Primarchs. I'm glad they're back and to be honest I hope everyone of them returns. 

[Wormwoods]

I'm a radical on this, because I don't even like named special characters, let alone 'what if your named special character was 500 points and showed up in every competitive list'.

 

Make your own dudes, tell your own story, why would The Lion show up in a 1,000 point skirmish? Maybe make up your own, cool Captain, and have points spare to include some more cool infantry! It's a big galaxy, I'm sure you can find a spot for your own Guard Regiment, your own T'au sept, your own Splinter-Fleet. That's where the art of his hobby is.

[Valkyrion]

GW's cynical money grab started long before the release of the big toys by halving the points cost of everything between 2nd and 3rd edition, and has been going on ever since. We all know it's going on, they won't admit it informs their gaming decisions, nothing will change. Complaining about it is just tilting at windmills.

 

I think some perspective from players wouldn't go amiss though.  No one is going to take anyone's toys away and stop them being used in games. That will simply never happen, so arguments based on that impossible premise are just circular and unhelpful. Similarly, arguing that primarchs, titans and flyers have changed nothing is also fallacious as their inclusion forces the games designers to account for them. 

I do think there's fair debate to be had as to their initial inclusion, and the good or ill that has come from those decisions, but they are here to stay and will be part of the game for the immediate and foreseeable future. 

 

IMO, for what it's worth, 30k should have been the exclusive domain of super heavies, knights, titans and primarchs.  So HH doesn't cover xenos - so what, not everyone can have everything. I'd also have limited Custodes to 30k. This means no knights or stompas or primarchs etc in 40k. 

The rules were/are already there for full vehicle armies, and the game was/is designed to 3000 points and 4-6 hours play. 

 

I'd also have properly supported Apocalypse at 40k level, to allow GW to make a big toy and for players to use it in the appropriate setting. If 40k is a 3 year cycle, I'd have made Apocalypse a 6 year cycle using it's own set of rules and expansions. I remember being dead excited to see a Stompa and Baneblade, and stood agog at my first Warhound Titan.  Imagine the Tesseract Vault and Lord of Skulls doesn't exist, two wonderful models that never get used, and are released in a Necrons vs World Eaters apocalypse expansion where you have daemon Angron and the Silent King fighting alongside their super-heavies - I'm 40 and I'd still find that exciting even if I played neither faction. 

But if I did play either faction, I'd buy the new toys and be excited to put together a full days massive gaming with friends, with properly supported rules and glorious campaign book to pour over. 

 

To be clear, I'm not advocating for the removal of anything; I'm arguing against stuff happening in the first place. Now you have a Knight army I want you to be able to use it, but it is my belief that 40k as a game would be better had they never been introduced into mainstream play.  GW can't even fudge their own game to give either Knight faction a combat patrol, a brand new unique way of playing 10th edition that cannot be used by knight players. 

 

And I've just completed my own circular argument. QED.

 

[Dagoth Ur]

I am for options. If people want to play primarchs, they can. If people want to play named characters, they can. If they don't want to play named characters, they can. If they want to use named characters' rules as stand-ins for their own characters, they can. This is a collaborative game, at the end of the day. If you don't want primarchs on the board, discuss this with your opponent. This has always been the case.

 

This also hasn't made the lore any substantially worse - every year novels and short stories are published about characters that don't have big names and a lot of them make for fun reading. I'm convinced that anyone who purports that lore nowadays is just about big names doesn't actually read any of it.

 

I also don't understand the argument that it allegedly made the setting feel smaller. I've been managing to crank out successors/regiments/craftworlds/tomb worlds of my own just fine with all the big characters returning/appearing. I don't need limitations of my options or removals of profiles/characters to do that. But it's whatever. People can complain - I'll just continue having fun with my minis and fan fiction.

 

What I never will be in favor of, is removal of options unless it is for the express purpose of balancing the game and even then I don't think an option should wholesale disappear. I dislike that it was Guilliman that returned, and I loathe his miniature. I still wouldn't want to deprive players who do enjoy having him in the lore, using his mini and playing with like-minded people. That just seems like the most base of childish notions "I don't like this so nobody should be able to do this!!"

[crimsondave]

1 hour ago, Wormwoods said:

I'm a radical on this, because I don't even like named special characters, let alone 'what if your named special character was 500 points and showed up in every competitive list'.

 

Make your own dudes, tell your own story, why would The Lion show up in a 1,000 point skirmish? Maybe make up your own, cool Captain, and have points spare to include some more cool infantry! It's a big galaxy, I'm sure you can find a spot for your own Guard Regiment, your own T'au sept, your own Splinter-Fleet. That's where the art of his hobby is.

To be fair, the Lion was basically showing up in Kill Team size engagements in parts of Son of the Forest.

 

The couple games I’ve played (totally narrative) It’s been him and Imperial Guard  with no other Space Marines at all.  Like early in the book.

 

But to your point, I totally get it.  I remember early in 8th guys at the flgs put on a tournament for new players and those same guys showed up with Morty/Magnus chaos soup and trashed all the new players.  I haven’t thought about playing in a store since so I totally get where you’re coming from.

 

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

My problem with a Primarch (in this case Ferrus Manus) would be:

 

What kind of story do I tell with him on a 30K battlefield? He is for sure not going to be present when the Tainted Militia (one of two possible opponent armies) sends forth again hordes of plague zombie interns. He will be busy on his flagship organizing the Great Crusade. And the following sentiment:

 

"Ah, just don´t worry pal! Stick him in a spartan with ten terminators and have simple fun."

 

That´s...just not working. 

 

However I might buy him once all the other 30K units have been finished just to stand guard in my glass cabinet.

[Indy Techwisp]

I'm going to chime in here with my (probably unpopular) opinion:

Primarchs will continue to return to 40k, but not for long or at the fast pace they are now.

 

There's only one Cult Marine primarch left to arrive and if today's new index announcement is indicative of anything he's coming this edition.

Of the divergent loyalists, DA got their primarch, BA have a dead primarch, SW's primarch is AWOL, BT's Primarch would be in base Marines instead of their little codex and neither Grey Knights or Deathwatch have a primarch.

 

The 2 loyalists we have a Guilliman and Lion, 2 opposite ends of the Loyalist primarch spectrum.

IMO, GW will make this a Square like with the Chaos primarchs.

As such, I predict we'll get Khan and Russ and that'll be it.

 

The pair are also opposites and were at eachothers throats in the Heresy (like Lion and Guilliman briefly were).

Khan has been a pretty popular character in the books, so for a money maker he fits the bill and Russ has always been a favourite to return.

Both went AWOL and have no confirmed or rumoured death to their name, unlike some other Loyalists.

 

They also contrast the existing loyalists.

Guilliman is the "Archetypal" Primarch, the shining example of the Imperium's view of them, Khan is the opposite, far preferring to act for the people vs the idea.

Lion and Russ Contrast in so many ways the HH books have already covered them all IIRC.

 

Beyond these 3, there's not as big a reason to bring back anyone else, since then you'd upset the balance.

 

ETA: Bringing back Khan also gives GW an opportunity to finally give the community Khan on his fancy jetbike, and that's too cool of an opportunity to dismiss.

Edited April 16 by Indy Techwisp
Khan bonus

[ZeroWolf]

13 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

I'm going to chime in here with my (probably unpopular) opinion:

Primarchs will continue to return to 40k, but not for long or at the fast pace they are now.

 

There's only one Cult Marine primarch left to arrive and if today's new index announcement is indicative of anything he's coming this edition.

Of the divergent loyalists, DA got their primarch, BA have a dead primarch, SW's primarch is AWOL, BT's Primarch would be in base Marines instead of their little codex and neither Grey Knights or Deathwatch have a primarch.

 

The 2 loyalists we have a Guilliman and Lion, 2 opposite ends of the Loyalist primarch spectrum.

IMO, GW will make this a Square like with the Chaos primarchs.

As such, I predict we'll get Khan and Russ and that'll be it.

 

The pair are also opposites and were at eachothers throats in the Heresy (like Lion and Guilliman briefly were).

Khan has been a pretty popular character in the books, so for a money maker he fits the bill and Russ has always been a favourite to return.

Both went AWOL and have no confirmed or rumoured death to their name, unlike some other Loyalists.

 

They also contrast the existing loyalists.

Guilliman is the "Archetypal" Primarch, the shining example of the Imperium's view of them, Khan is the opposite, far preferring to act for the people vs the idea.

Lion and Russ Contrast in so many ways the HH books have already covered them all IIRC.

 

Beyond these 3, there's not as big a reason to bring back anyone else, since then you'd upset the balance.

 

ETA: Bringing back Khan also gives GW an opportunity to finally give the community Khan on his fancy jetbike, and that's too cool of an opportunity to dismiss.

No love for Vulkan?

 

I think the plan (at least in GWs eyes) is to bring back all primarchs that are still in the realm of the living, and that it looks to be two primarchs every edition (one good, one bad). If this holds true, is only for those looking back at this, however, we know that Primarchs make big money for GW, and if it's one thing that they love...it's money.

 

We've seen little retcons here and there which are laying the ground for certain returns (also whatever the hell they're planning for Ferrus skull, but that might only be a Dan Abnett thing)

[Indy Techwisp]

Just now, ZeroWolf said:

No love for Vulkan?

 

I think the plan (at least in GWs eyes) is to bring back all primarchs that are still in the realm of the living, and that it looks to be two primarchs every edition (one good, one bad). If this holds true, is only for those looking back at this, however, we know that Primarchs make big money for GW, and if it's one thing that they love...it's money.

 

We've seen little retcons here and there which are laying the ground for certain returns (also whatever the hell they're planning for Ferrus skull, but that might only be a Dan Abnett thing)

 

GW, at least from what I've seen, appear to be distancing themselves from Perpetuals as of Late.

Also Vulcan would be too close to Guilliman in regards to his take on the Imperium as a whole, plus iirc he's the most recently "deceased" as he "died" during the War of the Beast.

 

[Redcomet]

I like that they are back. Has generated some really interesting stories. And the models have for the most part been stellar, and very fun hobby projects. 

[Valkyrion]

I think the Khan is the least likely of the loyalist primarchs to return, mainly because the White Scars are amongst the least popular of all the original legions, maybe even the most least popular, if you excuse the terrible English!

I honestly believe GW would sooner shoehorn in a Sanguinius reincarnation or resurrection story, alongside Russ, than give us 40k Corax, Vulkan, Khan, Dorn or Manus. 

 

I don't disagree with your reasoning, just the likelihood. 

[Indy Techwisp]

7 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

I think the Khan is the least likely of the loyalist primarchs to return, mainly because the White Scars are amongst the least popular of all the original legions, maybe even the most least popular, if you excuse the terrible English!

I honestly believe GW would sooner shoehorn in a Sanguinius reincarnation or resurrection story, alongside Russ, than give us 40k Corax, Vulkan, Khan, Dorn or Manus. 

 

I don't disagree with your reasoning, just the likelihood. 

 

The HH novels raised the popularity of the White Scars by quite a bit (since they basically had next to no lore otherwise).

I also still feel that there'd be more White Scars players if GW gave us more Bike Characters.

 

Regardless, Khan is a very unique take on a primarch compared to the others, so him returning to an Imperium which embodies everything he stood against would be a great story subject (and we know that GW knows primarch centered books sell).

 

As for rezzing Sanguinius, his death means more to his Legion than any other primarch's did.

If he actually returns it basically erases the Black Rage from existence, and with it the Death Company, so I doubt they'd do that unless absolutely necessary.

 

Least Popular Loyalists by far would be Iron Hands iirc.

They had more players for their rules than for the lore, with most of those armies being "Yeah they're painted up as the Crimson Fists but I want to use the cool Tank rules."

Also they're so closely themed to the Iron Warriors that I'd wager quite a few newer players don't realise they aren't two halves of the same Legion.

Edited April 16 by Indy Techwisp

[ZeroWolf]

29 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

GW, at least from what I've seen, appear to be distancing themselves from Perpetuals as of Late.

Also Vulcan would be too close to Guilliman in regards to his take on the Imperium as a whole, plus iirc he's the most recently "deceased" as he "died" during the War of the Beast.

 

I don't think lore reasons will factor into GW's reasonings at this stage. It'll be a case of

Model makers to lore/rules team: "here's Dorn/Khan/Crovax/Vulkan. You handle the rest"

 

Remember, models first, all the other stuff later.

 

Interesting about White Scars being the least popular legion. Where is that data from? And is there a list? I'm interested in seeing the order and how far behind a certain black Armoured successor chapter they are.

[terminator ultra]

23 hours ago, ZeroWolf said:

Model makers to lore/rules team: "here's Dorn/Khan/Crovax/Vulkan. You handle the rest"

 

yeah thats how it happens unfortunately. when Warhammer underworlds launched, the team revealed the dissent team had just given them models and thats what happened

Edited April 17 by terminator ultra