No primarchs ...

[DemonGSides]

I like White Scars, I just don't love painting white and they are a pretty limited range.  I've got some bikes set aside that I keep telling myself I'll make white....

[Doghouse]

I think they should have been left as legendary figures of old, surrounded in mystery and long since forgotten to the majority of the Imperium along with the Heresy. Perhaps only known through ancient statues or busts whose names have long since been forgotten, lost to time amongst the tens of thousand of popular figures that have come and gone since their time. I don't thing their presence or passing should be significant to any but a handful of learned historical scholars or Inquisitors. 

 

I think they fall foul of the double edged sword of nostalgia where something is fondly remembered so therefore is potentially profitable as a model which at the end of the day is why GW are here. I don't blame for GW bringing them back as larger than life centrepiece models from a business part of view as to be fair it makes sense but from a previous fan of the lore of the game a little part of me grimaces and smiles politely when a new one is returned.

 

Chaos Primarchs oddly enough I am fine with existing within the Eye of Terror ruling over blighted and twisted realities of their own creation but when they keep bringing the Loyalists back there is no tragic sacrifice of finality to them. My personal take is that the story of their rise and fall from grace should be kept as a mythical hard learnt lesson of the past in my mind. Revealing their flaws as living creatures takes away from that and feel if they are going to release them as models it should be kept confined to the Heresy setting as right now it just blurs the lines between the two. The Heresy shone a spotlight on them to such a meticulous degree, for me personally speaking, that the mythology became more akin to fact and therefore stripped them of interest and intrigue.

 

I have no doubt that moving forwards each Loyalist will return from the dead or otherwise as a centrepiece release for each future edition of 40k.  

[Karhedron]

7 hours ago, Valkyrion said:

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.

 

It's not like they make a secret out of it. GW say up front that their business is selling models. The fluff and rules are just tools to encourage people to buy those models by providing a setting for them to exist in and way to play games with them. Pretty much every company's business model is to make and sell more of their product.

[SvenIronhand]

In my humble opinion, it doesn't make as big an impact on how things proceed as people make it out, with the biggest being Primaris Marines. Guilliman's not going to make Necromunda not a hellhole anytime soon. 

[Helias_Tancred]

15 hours ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Counterpoint: Titanic units and Primarchs should not go away.

 

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 understand your concern, it doesn't sit well with me taking someone else's things away from the game. GW could have released them with no rules (breaking one of their pledges lol) but then had rules you can access if YOU and your opponent wanted to use them in the game? IDK? But this isn't a tit-for-tat thing, its for the overall impact, aka big picture, affect they've had on the game, which my point is hasn't done anything to make the game better. Looking back the mystique of them that is now solidly gone, was not worth what they brought to the game. You're gonna hate me, but I'm also of the belief that Knights and big war machines were a mistake for 40k too ;) ... but ultimately they have little to no effect on me because I don't use them and neither do any of my good friends I play 40k with ... and for that matter the same applies to the primarchs lol. ;)

 

 

[Helias_Tancred]

58 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

It's not like they make a secret out of it. GW say up front that their business is selling models. The fluff and rules are just tools to encourage people to buy those models by providing a setting for them to exist in and way to play games with them. Pretty much every company's business model is to make and sell more of their product.

 

You have provided the epiphany I have sought now for years! lol ;) ... I'm now getting back into Magic The Gathering and selling everything I own for 40k. ;)

 

On a serious level you are right, but how come the same views about GW's business practices are not shared with some of the other big gaming hobby companies too? I don't mean to derail my own post but that is a valid question .... and I'm going to answer it, it's because of the business practices GW decides to use in selling their product, whereas other hobby and gaming companies demonstrate more respect and appreciation for their serious customers, and for them such practices are not an option or rubicon they're willing to cross.

 

Now I'm going to move away from the bed of roses ... ;)

 

 

edit: For the record I never even played Magic The Gathering. The only money I've given WOTC has been for their D&D products, and for most of my 52 years I played a version of D&D that was long out of print and support (AD&D 1st edition lol)

 

Edited April 16 by Helias_Tancred

[DemonGSides]

4 minutes ago, Helias_Tancred said:

 

You have provided the epiphany I have sought now for years! lol ;) ... I'm now getting back into Magic The Gathering and selling everything I own for 40k. ;)

 

On a serious level you are right, but how come the same views about GW's business practices are not shared with some of the other big gaming hobby companies too? I don't mean to derail my own post but that is a valid question .... and I'm going to answer it, it's because of the business practices GW decides to use in selling their product, whereas other hobby and gaming companies demonstrate more respect and appreciation for their serious customers, and for them such practices are not an option or rubicon they're willing to cross.

 

Now I'm going to move away from the bed of roses ... ;)

 

edit: For the record I never even played Magic The Gathering. The only money I've given WOTC has been for their D&D products, and for most of my 52 years I played a version of D&D that was long out of print and support (AD&D 1st edition lol)

 

 

GW's business practices aren't different than the others.  Wizards/Hasbro literally only keeps making magic cards because they make money; they don't actually CARE about the game, they care about keeping the game healthy enough to keep people overpaying for cardboard.  Same as GW.

The people who care about the games are the players, and maybe a few people IN the company.  But the company itself doesn't worry about the game; much like how we extol that rules are ephemeral and plastic is forever, for a company, the game is ephemeral, products making money are forever (Until they stop making money.  Then they are ephemeral).

And I'd like you to show me a company on the scale of GW that "demonstrates more respect and appreciation for their serious customers."  Capitalism doesn't allow for that.  You're asking for a company to continue to get bigger while also remain a mom and pop outfit, but that's just not how these things work.

 

[Helias_Tancred]

No, just to keep a moral boundary based on their company values. That still exists, just not with GW in this example. 

 

 ... but we're getting dangerously off topic and teasing the Lock Club.

 

 

Edited April 16 by Helias_Tancred

[ZeroWolf]

16 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

GW's business practices aren't different than the others.  Wizards/Hasbro literally only keeps making magic cards because they make money; they don't actually CARE about the game, they care about keeping the game healthy enough to keep people overpaying for cardboard.  Same as GW.

The people who care about the games are the players, and maybe a few people IN the company.  But the company itself doesn't worry about the game; much like how we extol that rules are ephemeral and plastic is forever, for a company, the game is ephemeral, products making money are forever (Until they stop making money.  Then they are ephemeral).

And I'd like you to show me a company on the scale of GW that "demonstrates more respect and appreciation for their serious customers."  Capitalism doesn't allow for that.  You're asking for a company to continue to get bigger while also remain a mom and pop outfit, but that's just not how these things work.

 

In addendum to this, it's easier to find people who care about the game at the lower levels of the company. People get rarer the higher up you go. What GW could do with is a CEO who also has vast experience with the game and players but i feel it's easier asking for flying pigs.

[ThePenitentOne]

10 minutes ago, Helias_Tancred said:

On a serious level you are right, but how come the same views about GW's business practices are not shared with some of the other big gaming hobby companies too? I don't mean to derail my own post but that is a valid question .... and I'm going to answer it, it's because of the business practices GW decides to use in selling their product, whereas other hobby and gaming companies demonstrate more respect and appreciation for their serious customers, and for them such practices are not an option or rubicon they're willing to cross.

 

That may be true, but I think it's also worth considering that GW doesn't actually have any competition that is their equal. Most other game companies don't have the capacity to produce and maintain such an expansive collection of miniatures. Battletech, the only non-historical miniatures game I'm aware of that goes back as far as GW, currently relies on Kickstarter to get models made.

 

My argument here is essentially that GW and GW alone makes gigantic centerpiece models like aircraft, Knights, and Primarchs because they have the capacity to do so and they are the only company that does, so doing it helps keeps their game unique.

 

If you want huge chunks of mystery and mystique that never see the table, there are plenty of companies that don't have the resources to create any and all of the things that appear in their lore... GW just isn't one of them.

[bloodhound23]

54 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

GW's business practices aren't different than the others.  Wizards/Hasbro literally only keeps making magic cards because they make money; they don't actually CARE about the game, they care about keeping the game healthy enough to keep people overpaying for cardboard.  Same as GW.

The people who care about the games are the players, and maybe a few people IN the company.  But the company itself doesn't worry about the game; much like how we extol that rules are ephemeral and plastic is forever, for a company, the game is ephemeral, products making money are forever (Until they stop making money.  Then they are ephemeral).

And I'd like you to show me a company on the scale of GW that "demonstrates more respect and appreciation for their serious customers."  Capitalism doesn't allow for that.  You're asking for a company to continue to get bigger while also remain a mom and pop outfit, but that's just not how these things work.

 

I actually think they would be a lot bigger and would sell a lot more model long term if they would be a little more careful about how the models interface with the rest of their IP.

[Marshal Reinhard]

Neither the Primarch-genie nor the titanic-unit-genie weill go back in their respective bottle.

[Indy Techwisp]

Neither will, but I think at least the Primarch bottle will be empty soon.

[Scribe]

2 hours ago, Helias_Tancred said:

 

You have provided the epiphany I have sought now for years! lol ;) ... I'm now getting back into Magic The Gathering and selling everything I own for 40k. ;)

 

On a serious level you are right, but how come the same views about GW's business practices are not shared with some of the other big gaming hobby companies too? I don't mean to derail my own post but that is a valid question .... and I'm going to answer it, it's because of the business practices GW decides to use in selling their product, whereas other hobby and gaming companies demonstrate more respect and appreciation for their serious customers, and for them such practices are not an option or rubicon they're willing to cross.

 

Now I'm going to move away from the bed of roses ... ;)

 

 

edit: For the record I never even played Magic The Gathering. The only money I've given WOTC has been for their D&D products, and for most of my 52 years I played a version of D&D that was long out of print and support (AD&D 1st edition lol)

 

 

I'm selling off my remaining 40K AND MTG tomorrow, because of changes in how both companies have approached their respective games in the last 6 or so years.

 

You want to see a game that sacrificed its integrity for money, look no further than MtG lol

[Wormwoods]

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

You want to see a game that sacrificed its integrity for money, look no further than MtG lol

Yeah, for all the complaining people do about 40K at least there's no Codex: Stranger Things. IP slurry. 

[DemonGSides]

Yeah I've divested of most of my MTG stuff as well. Ironically enough, one of the few things I kept was the 40K commander decks. The rest got transferred into plastic. 

[Helias_Tancred]

4 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

Neither will, but I think at least the Primarch bottle will be empty soon.

 

IDK? GW is legendary in their slow-walk ability.

 

 

[MegaVolt87]

13 hours ago, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

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.

 

Everyone has largely echoed my thoughts, but on this instance with Ferrus- Tainted millita horde, overrun other battle lines, Ferrus arrives to the frontline to smash the millita vanguard and lead the counter offensive. A primarch on the frontline literally stalls an entire enemy army's advance. Thats what your game is, that turning point in a wider war. This is from a narrative/ lore point of course. 

[gideon stargreave]

I watched a historical documentary the other day, and it had a tidbit that is relevant towards this thread.

 

in historical battles we basically have two types of leader

type 1. - the Alexander type. This type led by example, spurred on his troops by personal valor, by being in the center of the action, first over the wall and so on. This fits promarchs like sanguinius, angron, the khan, etc.

type 2. The napoleon type. This type led by communications. He spurred on his troops by sound tactical knowledge, by logistics and by force of will before the battle. This fits dorn, ferrus etc.

 

of course, most of the primarchs sit somewhere between the two (as did most historical leaders before the age of instant communication). 
 

what we have in game terms then, is the transfer between type 2 to type 1 attitudes, the times when the presence of a primarch would inspire the troops to act valliantly, to turn the tide, to be some fulcrum between defeat and victory by virtue of their own deeds.

 

grimaldus at helsreach seems to fit this trope too. 
 

excise typos I’m on a broken phone 

[Orange Knight]

The Primarchs on the tabletop are just gaming pieces.

 

They aren't making the game better OR worse. It's just more units with unique abilities and models.

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

The Primarchs on the tabletop are just gaming pieces.

 

They aren't making the game better OR worse. It's just more units with unique abilities and models.

That's abstraction to the point of uselessness.  Obviously we are speaking of the impact that those unique abilities have on the game.

 

Literally no one is complaining about the physical models.  Most of them are pretty dope (Tho honestly Gulliman looks like trash compare to everyone else).

 

 

[Special Officer Doofy]

9 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

Literally no one is complaining about the physical models.  Most of them are pretty dope (Tho honestly Gulliman looks like trash compare to everyone else).

 

The much, much better looking primarch won model of the year 2017! 

[Karhedron]

The game has always had rules, units or factions that distort the meta. I lot of people look nostalgically at older editions but I disagree. My 4th edition Eldar were undefeated in my LGS because I could null-deploy, move 24" and use unkillable Falcons. I have learned not to play like that anymore but anyone thinking that aircraft or titanic units spoiled a perfectly balanced game is definitely looking back through rose-tinted glasses. 

 

The biggest difference is that back then, people had to wait for new editions for anything to improve. Now GW regularly adjusts points and abilities to try and balance the game. It may not be perfect but I think it is a definite improvement over past performance. 

[Ahzek451]

My friends and I used to joke back in the day that GW had a "in case of emergency, break glass and use primarch return procedure".

Speaking for myself and my friends, some of the awe and energy surrounding the lore was that deep mystery of what would happen in the future, specifically concerning the primarchs, the ones lost, in statis, daemonhood, etc. It was inevitable that in one form or another they would return. But the situation requires a heavy dose of nuance. Split between the game and the lore. 

Lore: I think GW is losing this battle hard, and when it comes to primarchs, the timing is unfortunate.  As GW has grown, hired new people and shifted more corporate, it is easy to see a "shift" in its lore as some of the love that birthed this universe has moved on, and new talent has made their mark with heavy corporate influence. We could talk all day that the lore is their to support selling models, this is true, but one could argue that the difference is that the on the front half, at least there was more heart, as to where now, it is more corporatized.

That being said, and as mentioned earlier, the timing is unfortunate. My personal opinion, I do not think the guys writing the lore now are not up to the task. And writing the return of the primarchs is by far, lore on HARD mode. Bringing these guys back without breaking/boring/upsetting the universe requires delicate precision and I will totally submit that it is extremely daunting. That being said, so far, IMHO GW has handled the return sloppily. I say this because when I think back on the return of MAGNUS, I thought...EXCITING! But after his story arc was finished, that excitement was diminished. Guilliman's return, exciting but also being so-so. When I think of Mortarion I think "oh yeah, I geuss hes back". And with Angron and the LION, its just....forgettable. I often forget Vashtoor is a thing, This is all due to the lackluster way GW has written their return. It's all frankly...very meh. Much like how I feel about age of sigmar. I very much want to get into that game, but I can't force myself to play a game unless I love the lore. And Sigmar's lore is also very meh. 

Long story short, I think GW did a huge disservice to the primarchs concerning the lore. 

As to the game, I will be clear that I absolutely love that the models were made. I would have purchased them even if they were not playable. But, to beat a dead horse, I don't know how you write rules for something so amazing in a 2000pt game or less. I get it, GW wants to sell the models. I also get that the battle could just be a snapshot of a larger one. But I still think they have written themselves into a corner. Damned if you do, damned if you dont. Write the rules good and they are either too powerful or we see a primarch showing up for every battle. Write them too poorly and people complain. Put them where their epic scale makes sense in special events/2000+ games and people complain.  Personally I wouldn't mind this, as I frankly get sick of a primarch showing up to every battle. 

[DemonGSides]

21 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

The game has always had rules, units or factions that distort the meta. I lot of people look nostalgically at older editions but I disagree. My 4th edition Eldar were undefeated in my LGS because I could null-deploy, move 24" and use unkillable Falcons. I have learned not to play like that anymore but anyone thinking that aircraft or titanic units spoiled a perfectly balanced game is definitely looking back through rose-tinted glasses. 

 

I don't think anyone has ever accused Warhammer of having perfect balance LOL

 

I just think the game would be better off without such large units. And I don't care about old editions, I just think we'd be better off with a game that topped out at large tank.