No primarchs ...

[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.

[Scribe]

25 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

You keep saying previous editions were better.

 

Yes, 5th.

[Cpt_Reaper]

12 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Yes, 5th.

 

You and I remember 5th very differently then. Which I think is the crux of the whole thread. I started in 4th, and had a great time, then in 5th up until 7th I had a lousy time. Partly because the people I could play against were the types of people to abuse mechanics like scatter dice and vehicle facings. A potentially good mechanic that can be abused is worse than an average or poor mechanic that cannot, and that's a lesson I learned the hard way.

 

I'm going to say this and leave the thread. I disagree that older editions were better than what we have now. I disagree that titanic units changed anything for the worse. I disagree that named characters of any stature aren't a good thing.

[The Unseen]

46 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

 

 

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.

You don't need to have Apocalypse come back, because that's just baseline 40k now.

Old 40k is basically gone, and now it's the same named characters smashing into each other all the time, somehow participating in every skirmish taking place over a supposedly galactic wide war.

[Scribe]

46 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

 

You and I remember 5th very differently then. Which I think is the crux of the whole thread. I started in 4th, and had a great time, then in 5th up until 7th I had a lousy time. Partly because the people I could play against were the types of people to abuse mechanics like scatter dice and vehicle facings. A potentially good mechanic that can be abused is worse than an average or poor mechanic that cannot, and that's a lesson I learned the hard way.

 

I'm going to say this and leave the thread. I disagree that older editions were better than what we have now. I disagree that titanic units changed anything for the worse. I disagree that named characters of any stature aren't a good thing.

 

Every edition can be, has been, and will be, broken. GW is rewarded by this being true.

 

There is a reason the base points have increased. There is a reason the FoC is gone. There is a reason bespoke character kits are pushed.

 

It's not to make a better game.

[MegaVolt87]

16 hours ago, ZeroWolf said:

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?

 

A big fix for CSM and firstborn would be a return to form for 250 point land raiders and 35 point rhinos. Just as the Emperor/ Hours intended. Primaris transportation should get fly back and be able to deepstrike to justify their points. 

[TheArtilleryman]

9 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

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.

 

Yeah I get this. As I said, that’s why they are toned down to fit in a standard game. In the writing, I actually think they have done a good job of pointing out these characters’ flaws, and there are times when they are incapacitated and nearly die (or even actually die, in at least three cases). Part of the problem is that with decades of other publications and knowing who survives and who doesn’t, most of these characters have thick plot armour on top of their natural resilience.

[Domhnall]

I will caveat this post by saying that I have not read every post in the thread, and I do not play the game anymore, just paint and collect.

 

Main point of post:

I like having the Primarch figures because they are centrepiece display models (I have 2 that's I'm working on), but then I think that GW should have a line of Display only figures, much like Forge World did back in the early 00's with their statues and busts.

 

Secondary points:

As far as the lore is concerned, I'm mixed, as I love the HH series, but bringing them back... not sure. Does the story need moving on? Probably. Is the Primarch returning the way to do it? Maybe, but where do you go after that? Well, that's a problem for future GW I suppose. 

Game-wise, the Primarchs should be able to stomp most opponents single handedly, but then a squad of Marines should be able to stand against a force 10x their size going by the lore, so yeah, game balance and all that...

[Orange Knight]

13 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

Yes, 5th.

 

Now hold on there, just a bit.

 

I have extremely fond memories of 5th edition - and some things were indeed better - but overall it wasn't as good of a game.

 

One aspect that was better and more thematic was the mission design. In fact, I would confidently say that the missions in 9th and 10th are the worst and least conducive aspect to a fun game in a casual or thematic setting.

 

The best edition, hands down, is actually 8th edition. That ruleset, in combinations with the fun and asymmetrical mission design that came from GW created an extremely fun game that ushered a renaissance of tabletop gaming. 8th edition captured lightning in a bottle for myself and many others. I used to play and travel a lot during that time, and the hobby hype was simply infectious and that could openly be seen.

 

A lot of that excitement and fun has been eroded by 9th and 10th. I think the game is far too dry now.

 

 

Edited April 18 by Orange Knight

[Magos Takatus]

I can't say I agree with the sentiment of the OP entirely.  When I started the hobby the Primarchs were pretty much just a list of names in the 40k rulebook with no character, motivations, appearance... nothing. If you were lucky you'd find a quote attributed to Leman Russ and that was your lot. There were so few plot hooks for each character that it was hard to get any inspiration regarding them. Nowadays the Primarchs have motivations for fighting each other and different factions in settings, now you don't have to pull a fanfic-grade Lion El'johnson out of your backside if you want to use him in a campaign. Granted, we don't need to know what he eats for breakfast, not everything needs to be documented about the Primarchs but the artwork of say, The Khan or Sanguinius is far more detailed and inspiring that anything I could envisage in my mind.

 

As for their influence game-wise I don't think they or titanic units have made as much of an impact as some claim. Before they were introduced Chaos and Tyranids hoarded all of the monstrous creatures and the other armies didn't have anything of the same power level (You might be able to argue the Avatar of Khaine fits here but if my memory serves from 3rd edition onwards it was a bit of a damp squib compared to greater daemons). It was depressing having your tank fail to kill the opposing winged daemon, only for it to fly into combat, one-shot your tank and then follow up into the rest of your army game after game. At least in some of the later editions of 40k more armies could take Knights as allies, allowing other armies to reach some level of parity with the large centrepiece monsters (comparing monstrous creatures to vehicles was like comparing apples and oranges for the longest time, with vehicles having numerous weaknesses that monsters didn't). The loyalist Primarchs have given a couple more armies more options in this regard. I don't feel the need to bring a Stompa to every game though, so while I think Primarchs and Titanic units aren't inherently a problem I don't think they need to be in every game by any means. I think they need to be handled carefully and that is not currently happening but I don't think either are obstacles that can't be overcome.

 

 

 

 

 

[Timberley]

I'm going to disagree with the first part of your post @Magos Takatus - I found the lack of detail around the Primarchs and such to be great, because it created a sense of mystery and an air of mythology about such characters. My thread on losing a sense of 'my guys' kind of touches on this.  TL;DR - I liked earlier editions for the genericness of the troops and so on. 

 

The second part I can see where you're coming from, but could it be argued that the inability of (say) a Leman Russ squadron to take out ye olde Bloodthirster was down to the rules at the time?  My memories of daemons in early editions are (admittedly) hazy, as only one of my school friends used them, and he was a very capable player (mixed with a touch of 'that guy').  I remember he had a Lord of Change and a Bloodthirster, and they were annoying, but cost a lot. I remember he fielded a Bloodthirster once, and not a lot else, especially compared to the amount of Guard I had by comparison. There was a lot of rolling for Chaos Gifts as I recall. 

 

I like units that can deal with such things, but I'm not sure they needed to be the Primarchs. However, that genie is out of the bottle, and GW loves a centrepiece kit for each army. 

[Magos Takatus]

38 minutes ago, Timberley said:

I'm going to disagree with the first part of your post @Magos Takatus - I found the lack of detail around the Primarchs and such to be great, because it created a sense of mystery and an air of mythology about such characters. My thread on losing a sense of 'my guys' kind of touches on this.  TL;DR - I liked earlier editions for the genericness of the troops and so on. 

 

The second part I can see where you're coming from, but could it be argued that the inability of (say) a Leman Russ squadron to take out ye olde Bloodthirster was down to the rules at the time?  My memories of daemons in early editions are (admittedly) hazy, as only one of my school friends used them, and he was a very capable player (mixed with a touch of 'that guy').  I remember he had a Lord of Change and a Bloodthirster, and they were annoying, but cost a lot. I remember he fielded a Bloodthirster once, and not a lot else, especially compared to the amount of Guard I had by comparison. There was a lot of rolling for Chaos Gifts as I recall. 

 

I like units that can deal with such things, but I'm not sure they needed to be the Primarchs. However, that genie is out of the bottle, and GW loves a centrepiece kit for each army. 

That's a curious take and your "my guys" is a very interesting thread and I think I supported you in there but I find sometimes rather than an air of mystery it just feels like a void to me. I just can't get excited about a blank slate like 2nd edition Ferrus Manus. I think the Index Astartes series from 3rd Edition (?) were fantastic as they fleshed out the legions and gave them and their Primarchs some degree of depth.

 

I must admit it would be kinda cool if we had loads of info on some of the Primarchs... but it was all conflicting information from several different sources. There's been almost ten thousand years for the formation of rumours, legends, supressed or doctored knowledge and full on purging of data. If what we knew about some Primarchs was actually horribly inaccurate it could be fun. There would be more branching off points and plot hooks to inspire campaigns because there could be wild conspiracy theories to follow. 

 

Regardless, hopefully there is still room for people to have fun with the background and that there is still enough mystery and intrigue left to keep discussion going. 

[jaxom]

15 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

The best edition, hands down, is actually 8th edition. That ruleset, in combinations with the fun and asymmetrical mission design that came from GW created an extremely fun game that ushered a renaissance of tabletop gaming. 8th edition captured lightning in a bottle for myself and many others. I used to play and travel a lot during that time, and the hobby hype was simply infectious and that could openly be seen.

 

A lot of that excitement and fun has been eroded by 9th and 10th. I think the game is far too dry now.

Huh, now I'd love to see the 8th edition rules and Indexes as the starting point for Codexes using the current detachment system (rename the 8th detachment back to Force Organization; so you have your army's Force Organization and Detachment). It would really help keep down the Stratagem bloat (can only have one Detachment regardless of Force Organisation), and one could then have some interesting "natural allies" detachments (kind of like the new Talons of the Emperor detachment). However, this would require a holistic approach to faction design, and GW is really bad at that. Though I would still want to see auras and rerolls toned down.

[Scribe]

15 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

The best edition, hands down, is actually 8th edition.

 

I'm sorry, but no.

 

The best version cannot contain detachments, or formations.

 

An ideal edition exists in some designers twinkling eye, but it's closer to 5th, than 8th.

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

Off topic but I do really miss the FoC.

 

 

[SvenIronhand]

You gotta have a good analysis of both the past and present to be able to grasp the future.

[Wormwoods]

The best edition of 40K was the one that was out when I didn't have a home loan or bad knees.

[TheArtilleryman]

47 minutes ago, Wormwoods said:

The best edition of 40K was the one that was out when I didn't have a home loan or bad knees.

I feel your pain

[Karhedron]

7 hours ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

Off topic but I do really miss the FoC.

 

I understand the sentiment but the FoC was a hangover from 40Ks origins as a skirmish-sized game focussing on infantry. If factions like Knights can field entire armies of heavy vehicles, there really is no point in preventing other factions from doing the same.

[DemonGSides]

16 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

I understand the sentiment but the FoC was a hangover from 40Ks origins as a skirmish-sized game focussing on infantry. If factions like Knights can field entire armies of heavy vehicles, there really is no point in preventing other factions from doing the same.

 

I'm totally down with removing Knights as a faction. Make it so they are evergreen Imperial allies. Not ideal but a solid compromise.

[Kallas]

56 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

I understand the sentiment but the FoC was a hangover from 40Ks origins as a skirmish-sized game focussing on infantry. If factions like Knights can field entire armies of heavy vehicles, there really is no point in preventing other factions from doing the same.

 

You could say that some factions like Knights have warped the way 40k plays now... 

[Special Officer Doofy]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

I understand the sentiment but the FoC was a hangover from 40Ks origins as a skirmish-sized game focussing on infantry. If factions like Knights can field entire armies of heavy vehicles, there really is no point in preventing other factions from doing the same.

 

To echo some others, that's the problem with knights as a faction. They changed the game quite a bit and rules were made around them as a faction.

 

I do want to point out though, as much as I don't think primarchs or knights should be in the game, I don't want them taken out now. We all paid a pretty penny for our overpriced toys, we might as well get to enjoy them.

[jaxom]

13 hours ago, Scribe said:

The best version cannot contain detachments, or formations.

As in no bonuses associated with force organization?

 

1 hour ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

To echo some others, that's the problem with knights as a faction. They changed the game quite a bit and rules were made around them as a faction.

 

I do want to point out though, as much as I don't think primarchs or knights should be in the game, I don't want them taken out now. We all paid a pretty penny for our overpriced toys, we might as well get to enjoy them.

Agreed. My perfect world solution would be something like the original Daemonhunters codex. It acknowledged the skew nature of the faction and gave players the tools to play games specifically with that in mind. A Knights codex should have some asymmetric missions that are different from what's in the core mission set.

Edited April 19 by jaxom
Added second quotation