No primarchs ...

[Orange Knight]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

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).

 

 

 

So what are we talking about? 

 

People want the models to have absolutely insane abilities that completely shift the game?

 

GW isn't building that kind of experience - they are focusing on a tournament game with more predictable and restrained rules. There will be no vast and sweeping abilities as those become hard to balance and cost.

Edited April 17 by Orange Knight

[Dr. Clock]

I have never used a Primarch, nor have I played vs one.

 

That said, from a fluff perspective I don't have a big problem with them coming back, and the models are pretty dang cool.

 

The main barrier for us has generally just been the expense - they never seem like great value when you consider how many regular squads or tanks one can get for the price, alongside the substantial commitment to build and paint something like that. My one buddy plays DGuard and KSons, so soon enough he's going to buy a cheaper alternative from Reaper (Cthulhu!) most likely and just run it as 'max power daemon prince'. We're pretty permissive on the proxy/counts-as side, so it should be fine, and clock in at like a quarter of the price. 

 

All that's to say that I think the situation overall is... fine. Mostly I just wish that armies were designed to work well on their own merits and not assume that everyone using those factions just starts with a Primarch. KSons is possibly the worst offender there I think, but WE and DG are close by. I guess Ultra and DA players at least can just build a conventional marine list and don't absolutely need their war daddies... But for whatever reason Chaos lists are more constrained and thus can't really afford to leave out their lynchpin.

 

So I guess my main concern is that in putting out the Primarchs, GW has kind of let itself off the hook in terms of giving the Chaos factions a distinctive/effective identity beyond the Primarchs themselves.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

 

[DemonGSides]

45 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

So what are we talking about? 

 

People want the models to have absolutely insane abilities that completely shift the game?

 

GW isn't building that kind of experience - they are focusing on a tournament game with more predictable and restrained rules. There will be no vast and sweeping abilities as those become hard to balance and cost.

 

Most people who don't want the primarchs or Titanic level stuff want a REDUCTION in insanity, not an increase in it. I think you're misunderstanding something.

 

What the model looks like isn't what's being discussed here. It's the impact of the DragonBall Z style of ever increasing power levels showing up on our game tables.

 

I'm sure there are people who don't like the models too, but that's not the point of this discussion.

Edited April 17 by DemonGSides

[ZeroWolf]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Clock said:

I have never used a Primarch, nor have I played vs one.

 

That said, from a fluff perspective I don't have a big problem with them coming back, and the models are pretty dang cool.

 

The main barrier for us has generally just been the expense - they never seem like great value when you consider how many regular squads or tanks one can get for the price, alongside the substantial commitment to build and paint something like that. My one buddy plays DGuard and KSons, so soon enough he's going to buy a cheaper alternative from Reaper (Cthulhu!) most likely and just run it as 'max power daemon prince'. We're pretty permissive on the proxy/counts-as side, so it should be fine, and clock in at like a quarter of the price. 

 

All that's to say that I think the situation overall is... fine. Mostly I just wish that armies were designed to work well on their own merits and not assume that everyone using those factions just starts with a Primarch. KSons is possibly the worst offender there I think, but WE and DG are close by. I guess Ultra and DA players at least can just build a conventional marine list and don't absolutely need their war daddies... But for whatever reason Chaos lists are more constrained and thus can't really afford to leave out their lynchpin.

 

So I guess my main concern is that in putting out the Primarchs, GW has kind of let itself off the hook in terms of giving the Chaos factions a distinctive/effective identity beyond the Primarchs themselves.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

 

I think to combat that (on the Chaos side) they need to flesh out their choices. Means for DG/TS/WE that that they recieve more choice in units other than painting the generics slightly differently. Let TS have a sorcererous dread (or hellbrute), let WE have some heavy artillery to get rid of the walls the cowards hide behind...let the DG have...uhh...I don't know enough about DG to say what they need, transports?

[Karhedron]

11 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

What the model looks like isn't what's being discussed here. It's the impact of the DragonBall Z style of ever increasing power levels showing up on our game tables.

 

Broadly speaking, Primarchs aren't dominating the top tables at tournaments. Knights were very strong at the start of 10th but nerfs and point hikes have brought them into line.

 

Does it matter how powerful a unit is as long as it is balanced by its cost? Some people don't like large models in small battles but many people like to imagine their games as being pivotal engagements on a much larger front.

[jaxom]

20 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

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.

 

Huh, that reminds me of when the plastic Baneblade was released. The White Dwarf article was crowing about how the boffins had finally cracked the tech to make a model like that.

 

5 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Most people who don't want the primarchs or Titanic level stuff want a REDUCTION in insanity, not an increase in it. I think you're misunderstanding something.

 

What the model looks like isn't what's being discussed here. It's the impact of the DragonBall Z style of ever increasing power levels showing up on our game tables.

 

I'm sure there are people who don't like the models too, but that's not the point of this discussion.

I think it's an issue of standard. HH was built and the community developed around the idea of playing with Primarchs. The standard game size is 3,000 points. At that many points, there's no real reason for any army not to have the tools to deal with any opposing force. 1,000 and 2,000 point armies have to make more meaningful decisions; it's a lot easier to end up with hole where the ability to handle Primarchs and other Big Units should be.

[Timberley]

To answer the OP's question, I'm with several other Frater who aren't big fans of it. As others have said, Primarchs were (to me) mythical beings of a bygone era - the Gods walked amongst us, and now they're either gone or distorted into unrecognisable creatures. I'd prefer they'd stayed that way, at least in 40K. 

 

My opinion has been that 30K should be the setting where the Titans and God's clash, war is large scale and suitably epic. Here we have our Primarchs, super heavy tanks, Titans, etc.  However, there's enough mystery to the era that you could be playing any battle, so the big named characters could easily be there. 

 

Meanwhile, 40K is the arena of demi-Gods and normal people, facing odds as great, but without such Gods to aid them, and triumph in spite of it. Here we have our chapter masters, Land Raiders, and Knights (though they're expensive), as well as their Xenos equivalents. In 40K, if one of the legends of old (such as a Titan or Super-Heavy) needs to be deployed, it's to tip the scales in favour of the Imperium (similarly for other factions trying to ensure victory).  In game terms, they should be so costly to field that it's only in massive points battles (3000+).  

 

However, GW is going to GW, and if these set piece miniatures sell well, then why shouldn't they sell them?  After all, the setting and lore is there to facilitate the sale of the plastic crack we all know and love.  If they can also sell you 2 versions of the same character, it's a win-win (with trebles all round) from a business standpoint.  Similarly, if they can ensure that the big kits (like a Baneblade) are cheap enough (points wise) to encourage you to buy one, then it's a smart decision. 

 

[DemonGSides]

37 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Broadly speaking, Primarchs aren't dominating the top tables at tournaments. Knights were very strong at the start of 10th but nerfs and point hikes have brought them into line.

 

Does it matter how powerful a unit is as long as it is balanced by its cost? Some people don't like large models in small battles but many people like to imagine their games as being pivotal engagements on a much larger front.

 

Well, if you hang your hat on any given meta moment, sure.

 

But as I've wrote for maybe the fifth time this thread, any individual datasheet isn't the problem, it's the problem that having to tool for Titanic units in your list has game warping knock on effects.

 

But people are now entering the thread and just rehashing the same things that were said in the first few pages, so this thread has probably run it's course.

[Scribe]

Straw man and goal post shifting going on in here.

[Orange Knight]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

 

 

What the model looks like isn't what's being discussed here. It's the impact of the DragonBall Z style of ever increasing power levels showing up on our game tables.

 

 

The Primarchs aren't having that sort of impact. If anything some of them are under-powered.

[Dark Legionnare]

2 hours ago, Ahzek451 said:

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. 

Completely agree, well said.

I've joked with friends since I learned Rowboat was back a couple months into 8th (when I got dragged out of my Hiatus since 5th ed) a return to style of the 4th ed-esque "You can only take this Character in games of X points or more would fit primarchs better. Say, 3-3.5k plus.

We have a "not house rule, but health of the game" agreement in our circles that no Lords of War come out in 30K games unless the force is at least 3500 total including the LoW.  It works so very, very, very well.

[TheArtilleryman]

3 hours ago, Ahzek451 said:

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.

Technically, lore-wise, they should be so strong they should win every game alone. Sanguinius beat a freaking TITAN for flip’s sake. But that would make them unusable outside of the largest of apocalypse games, so they have to be toned down a bit.

 

I love the heresy lore series and the primarchs in the 30K setting. They work here and are right at home. I haven’t had a chance to play any heresy yet so can’t judge their impact on those games. However, they are designed to be big games so I can see them fitting ok.
 

I’m not so keen on them in 40K. Gaming against them is a pain, and in small games my experience has been that you have to either ignore them and hope you can avoid them, or throw your entire army at them and take the chance that you still won’t kill them, in which case your opponent’s other units will destroy you.
 

Model-wise, I really don’t like the 40K model for Guilliman, but the others are ok. I do like most of the HH versions, with the Khan probably being my favourite. The only one I’m not that keen on is Corax, which is annoying as I’m going to be collecting Raven Guard. Typical :/

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

 

The Primarchs aren't having that sort of impact. If anything some of them are under-powered.

And if you'd go back to my original post, my complaint is aimed more at Titanic units, which absolutely have changed the power levels involved in the board game we are playing. 

 

But once again, you've ignored the entire thread to try to argue with me but have so far gotten 0 of my positions correct so, like I said before, let's just move on. 

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

And if you'd go back to my original post, my complaint is aimed more at Titanic units, which absolutely have changed the power levels involved in the board game we are playing. 

 

 

Titanic units are no more impactful in 10th edition than fielding Land Raiders in earlier editions where all-round AV14 was a very tough nut to crack. The difference is that lasguns can still wound Knights on a 6. Back in 3rd-7th edition, anything less than S8 had no chance of even scratching LRs.

 

[Special Officer Doofy]

30 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

 

Titanic units are no more impactful in 10th edition than fielding Land Raiders in earlier editions where all-round AV14 was a very tough nut to crack. The difference is that lasguns can still wound Knights on a 6. Back in 3rd-7th edition, anything less than S8 had no chance of even scratching LRs.

 

 

Couldn't you also get a lucky roll and one shot those vehicles though? Don't see that happening against a 22W knight. Also all knight lists are a faction and a thing. Never played against 1.5-2k points of purely land raiders.

Edited April 17 by Special Officer Doofy

[DemonGSides]

 

18 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

 

Titanic units are no more impactful in 10th edition than fielding Land Raiders in earlier editions where all-round AV14 was a very tough nut to crack. The difference is that lasguns can still wound Knights on a 6. Back in 3rd-7th edition, anything less than S8 had no chance of even scratching LRs.

 

 

2 hours ago, Scribe said:

Straw man and goal post shifting going on in here.

 

It'd be wonderful if people read the thread they're posting in but that's been at a serious lack around here lately. 

Edited April 17 by DemonGSides

[Scribe]

51 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

It'd be wonderful if people read the thread they're posting in but that's been at a serious lack around here lately. 

 

Just the way of the internet. A big reason I'm getting out of my hobbies.

[Kallas]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

Titanic units are no more impactful in 10th edition than fielding Land Raiders in earlier editions where all-round AV14 was a very tough nut to crack. The difference is that lasguns can still wound Knights on a 6. Back in 3rd-7th edition, anything less than S8 had no chance of even scratching LRs.

3 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

The Primarchs aren't having that sort of impact. If anything some of them are under-powered.

 

What I believe DemonGSides is saying is that the power scale of Primarchs is the problem - that is to say, not that they are over/underpowered when it comes to performance on the tabletop, but that their inclusion (and the wider inclusion of all Titanic units) brings up the power scale away from the smaller feel of 40k in the past. 40k is being moved further and further away from the skirmish/small battle scale game and more into the...hell I don't even know what to call it anymore: just the mishmash of whatever the  people want (especially with the Rule of Three based armies instead of anything resembling actual forces), and Primarchs (and other Titanic units) push that scale upwards (regardless of their balancing) because they are inherently these larger than life entities that have been previously (and continue to be) hyped up within the lore.

 

It's not that Knights or Primarchs are necessarily powerful in-game, but that they are powerful in the setting and so their inclusion on any given battlefield gives it a much grander feeling than apparently quite a few folks are happy with.

 

IMO, Primarchs (and Knights and other Titanic units) should really have gone the route of old school Special Characters: they can only be fielded in sufficiently large games as to properly represent the scale at which they'd reasonably be expected to be fighting in. Angron being present in tons of tiny little skirmishes feels off from the lore side of things, where he'd really be leading charges into the heart of enemy formations. This is where the scale feels off, because these epic figures (Primarchs and the other Titanic units as well) are involved in (or at least can be) such small scale games it distorts the sense of the world that 40k has.

 

Of course, not everyone will agree with that, which I get, but that's the problem as I see it and (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe this is where several others see the issue as well. Primarchs (and Titanic units, but Primarchs especially because of their mythic status) are a warping influence especially when they're detailed in so many stories as well as included in smaller scale games.

[DemonGSides]

Exactly; I understand that Knights aren't the go to in the competitive meta, totally grok that simple fact. That doesn't mean I think the game is good because of that.

 

If they were never included, what does 40K look like?  Imo, a better game. I don't know that that is true, but I do know I don't love the way things have gone since Titanic units became routine. 

[Orange Knight]

Big centrepiece models and characters are popular and are not going away.

 

If GW had been able to make them earlier they would have done so.

 

It's a part of the charm and identity of this particular wargame and setting. 

[DemonGSides]

38 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Big centrepiece models and characters are popular and are not going away.

 

If GW had been able to make them earlier they would have done so.

 

It's a part of the charm and identity of this particular wargame and setting. 

  

On 4/15/2024 at 9:56 PM, DemonGSides said:

(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.)

 

On 4/15/2024 at 11:31 PM, DemonGSides said:

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

 

Some day, but obviously not this day, you'll start reading the thread.

[Scribe]

39 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

It's a part of the charm and identity of this particular wargame and setting. 

No it isn't, we had multiple (better) editions without these models.

 

Apocalypse was not the preferred way to play 40k and GW has pushed it to sell large and expensive kits.

 

This is not objectively better than it was.

[ThePenitentOne]

6 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

Technically, lore-wise, they should be so strong they should win every game alone.

I want to push back on this, because I think it's this silly bolter-porn lore that needs to change, not the game.

 

A character who routinely destroys entire armies without breaking a sweat a is just a boring character, and it's hard for writing that includes such a character to be anything but bad.

 

I fully support making BL material more reflective of the game that it is supposed to be supporting. In fact, it's so bad in some cases that I don't consider BL to actually be lore- for me lore is the fiction snippets that appear in game books, because those tend to be more reflective of what the game is, and it actually support the stories we can tell on the table. I HATE reading stuff in a BL book that couldn't happen on the table- what's the point of basing a book on a game if it doesn't depict the kind of stuff that actually happens in the game?

Edited April 17 by ThePenitentOne

[Cpt_Reaper]

3 hours ago, Scribe said:

No it isn't, we had multiple (better) editions without these models.

 

Apocalypse was not the preferred way to play 40k and GW has pushed it to sell large and expensive kits.

 

This is not objectively better than it was.

 

You keep saying previous editions were better. I wholeheartedly disagree. Templates were awful and easily abused, vehicle facings were finicky and when formations came in the game had to be hard reset with 8th. The only two things I'd bring back is being unable to harm something more with toughness more than double the strength of the attack, and still winning on objective points if you got wiped out. That's it.

 

Apocalypse is a terrible idea to bring back, because just like when Imperial Armour had the "ask for permission" line most people just say no. Why play this whole other game system when 40k is enough?

 

Yay for titanic units. Yay for primarchs. Yay for 10th edition.

[Rain]

4 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

Exactly; I understand that Knights aren't the go to in the competitive meta, totally grok that simple fact. That doesn't mean I think the game is good because of that.

 

If they were never included, what does 40K look like?  Imo, a better game. I don't know that that is true, but I do know I don't love the way things have gone since Titanic units became routine. 

I don’t commonly find myself agreeing with your takes, but you are right on the money here. A unit does not have to be “meta” after the dust has settled to warp the meta. The way that it warps the game might make the unit itself quite bad in the end, but this is a direct effect of the warping effect that it had, and this same warping has knock on effects on unrelated units. This isn’t unique to Knights, but Knights are a prime example.