No primarchs ...

[Indy Techwisp]

2 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

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.

 

Prior to the White Scars HH novels, pretty much all the Lore we had for them was "They're Mongols in Space. They go fast on Bike."

 

Then the HH novels came along and that Lore was transferred forward into 40k proper, and with it the growing collection of White Scars fans.

 

My reasoning for why I feel Iron Hands are the least popular is twofold:

A) Their rules were the most commonly "stolen" in previous editions (I.e "I painted them as Salamander Successors but I want the Tank rules).

B) Their theming is so close to the more well known Iron Warriors that I'd say it's a safe bet that many new players don't realise they're not just one-and-the-same (I know I definitely assumed the Iron Hands were just "Loyalist Iron Warriors" when I was first entering the hobby).

[ThePenitentOne]

I don't mind Primarchs so much, but I tend to use all special characters sparingly, waiting for places in the narrative where it's appropriate to use them rather than bringing them to every game and considering them part of my roster.

 

For me, and many (though not all) of the folks I play with, named characters get cameos only.

[Valkyrion]

18 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

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.

 

I don't know if they are or not, it's just a feeling because I've never seen a White Scars player in real life, and a quick look around this forum shows only 2 pages in 2 years in 30k tactica, there's only 7 pages of topics in White Scar sub forum (and only 1 topic so far this year), no white scars overtly on the front pages of PCA, the last White Scars painting tutorial was 5 years ago - there are 23 pages of topics given over to Salamanders, White Scars and Iron Hands on this forum combined; the middle group of Imperial Fists, Ultramarines and Raven Guard have 86 pages of content, and the Dark Angels, Space Wolves and Blood Angels have 1026 between them.

Only Chaos Knights, World Eaters, and Leagues of Votann have fewer pages of content than White Scars and one of those has only been out 2 years. 

 

This isn't exactly conclusive proof of their popularity, but this website is primarily a space marine one and there is no regular White Scars content here.

[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!