More Space marine units going to Legends

[Doghouse]

3 hours ago, Firedrake Cordova said:

Whilst some Chapters very much do specialise in lightning assaults, it's probably inaccurate to say it is the only form of engagement employed by the Space Marines as a whole. I might be misremembering, but I seem to remember when the mixed metal and plastic Vindicator kit was introduced way back in WD 231, it was described more as an assault tank, used for dealing with hard points and urban assaults where extreme short-ranged firepower was required.

 

Here's the original from White Dwarf 118 1989.

 

        

[Rhavien]

44 minutes ago, FarFromSam said:

 I thought the floating tanks had the fly key word... what's the point of floating tanks with jet engines?   Other than to look like  children's saturday cartoon slop that is?

I wanted to ignore this, but I had to come back to reply anyway. Please, just for a moment try to forget that you know the predator for some decades, that it has grown to you and you have fond memories of it. Now look up some real world tanks like the leopard, Abrams or T90. Now look at the predator and tell me that it doesn't look more like a toy or caricature than a serious battletank.

Before you pigeonhole me into a "new is always bettah" guy, please know that I also love predators and hate that they go away into legends and I think they have a place aside the gladiator variants.

However, in my opinion it perfectly fits 40k when a mad genius with a gigantic hubris invents an massive antigrav tank where you need some yet engines to somehow push it forward. Those tanks (I'm including repulsors and repExes) are not flying sky high through the air rather than crushing the ground beneath them while being shoved forward. Why do they do it? Don't know! Does it bring any advantage over tracks? Also don't know. But it's 40k and sometimes it's ludicrousness that makes it appealing (at least to some of the fans).

[ZeroWolf]

47 minutes ago, Doghouse said:

 

Here's the original from White Dwarf 118 1989.

 

        

This takes me back. Would love to leaf through old white dwarfs again.

[lansalt]

21 minutes ago, Rhavien said:

Now look up some real world tanks like the leopard, Abrams or T90. Now look at the predator and tell me that it doesn't look more like a toy or caricature than a serious battletank.

The Predator wasn't designed to be a main battle tank, but an infantry support vehicle. The current design from 3rd edition was inspired on the british army's FV432 APC variants.
So whatever its other design flaws, it looks pretty serious if you ask me.

 

 

 

 

 

[Griefbringer]

39 minutes ago, Doghouse said:

 

Here's the original from White Dwarf 118 1989.

 

Original for WH40K, that is.

 

The respective rules and background for the Epic (Space Marine 1st edition) actually appeared whole two months earlier in WD 116 (pages 10-15), together with various other vehicles. The background description for Vindicator is rather brief, though:

 

"Like the Predator, the Vindicator is a variant on the Rhino APC chassis. It carries a single heavy weapons in a front swivel mount - normally a heavy assault gun known as the Thunderer. The Vindicator was originally designed by the Loyalist forces for fighting in built-up areas, where range was secondary to effect against buildings and enemy armour. After its decisive role in the clearance of Stahlenburg during the Scouring of Rotstern I, the forces of Horus copied the design, and within months the Vindicator was used by both sides."

 

The actual Epic metal model for the Vindicator can be first seen in the following months issue (WD 117). For some reason, within the next two years this is replaced by a revised model with a ridiculously huge gun in the front.

 

[Dezron]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

"Old good new bad"-posting will continue until the new stuff stops being bad.

 

Bad according to who?

Whatever the new models (any for any faction) are "good" or "bad" is subjective.

[Crimson Longinus]

I have to say I never liked that predator was just a rhino with a turret on top. I think a tank and APC should have different designs. And then they of course repeated that with the impulsor and the gladiators...

 

It is too bad that they're so adamant about keeping HH and 40K ranges separate. Sicaran is really nice marine battletank design, way better than either predators or gladiators. 

[lansalt]

4 hours ago, Firedrake Cordova said:

it was described more as an assault tank, used for dealing with hard points and urban assaults where extreme short-ranged firepower was required.

Yeah, the Vindicator was inspired by the WW2 german Sturmtiger, which was used exactly for that. The current kit took many details from the real thing, like the ring of holes around the barrel, or the little crane to lift the heavy rocket mortar shells (Which were basically gigantic bolt rounds!)

 

 

[FarFromSam]

caricature

30 minutes ago, Rhavien said:

I wanted to ignore this, but I had to come back to reply anyway. Please, just for a moment try to forget that you know the predator for some decades, that it has grown to you and you have fond memories of it. Now look up some real world tanks like the leopard, Abrams or T90. Now look at the predator and tell me that it doesn't look more like a toy or caricature than a serious battletank.

Before you pigeonhole me into a "new is always bettah" guy, please know that I also love predators and hate that they go away into legends and I think they have a place aside the gladiator variants.

However, in my opinion it perfectly fits 40k when a mad genius with a gigantic hubris invents an massive antigrav tank where you need some yet engines to somehow push it forward. Those tanks (I'm including repulsors and repExes) are not flying sky high through the air rather than crushing the ground beneath them while being shoved forward. Why do they do it? Don't know! Does it bring any advantage over tracks? Also don't know. But it's 40k and sometimes it's ludicrousness that makes it appealing (at least to some of the fans).

 

 

I hear ya. And give me the same grace asked of me.  I like tacticus.  I like redemptors.  I like a lot of the the scale marines.  

 

But Cawl is not representative of an imperium in decline.  He reeks of name carving into primarch hearts levels of fanfiction.    So think about what they claim Cawl has created.  Superior marines, a super primarch entire new lines of vehicles, multiple variants of each. Oh but in secret... and even though he belongs firmly mechanicum he gave it away.  Okay.  Does that sound like 40k, or a marvel super hero?

 

Thats my gripe.  A dozerblade and tracks on a valiant looks great.  Listening to Cawl slop not great.  So, you're right, but lets get classic ludacrousness back like plaid, or luda in the back of your chevrolet, and not actual ludacrous

[Crimson Longinus]

5 minutes ago, FarFromSam said:

But Cawl is not representative of an imperium in decline.  He reeks of name carving into primarch hearts levels of fanfiction.    So think about what they claim Cawl has created.  Superior marines, a super primarch entire new lines of vehicles, multiple variants of each. Oh but in secret... and even though he belongs firmly mechanicum he gave it away.  Okay.  Does that sound like 40k, or a marvel super hero.

 

Sure, the fluff is bad. But before the primaris happened they had already brought a loyalist primarch back, destroying the thematic core of the setting, so who cares any more?

The lore is ruined already, but the new minis are pretty. So buy cool models, and concoct whatever headcanon you need to cope. 

[Evil Eye]

16 minutes ago, Dezron said:

Bad according to who?

People with taste?

[Crimson Longinus]

4 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

People with taste?

 

I see. I have great taste in aesthetics, I even have an art degree. So I can tell you, that the primaris are obviously and objectively better looking than the malformed low detail chimps that preceded them. Marine range has literally never looked better than it does today. 

 

I am glad we got this settled!

[Robbienw]

7 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

 

Marine range has literally never looked better than it does today. 

The 30K marine range.

[FarFromSam]

34 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

 

Sure, the fluff is bad. But before the primaris happened they had already brought a loyalist primarch back, destroying the thematic core of the setting, so who cares any more?

The lore is ruined already, but the new minis are pretty. So buy cool models, and concoct whatever headcanon you need to cope. 

I know what youre sayin, and i agree with most it, but i cant help but feel like we'd be a lot worse off with some of the rediculousness if we hadnt pushed back against it.   Id say thats why we should care.  Lol, i forgot about roboute being resurrected in such a silly way. Lol thanks for the laugh.

Edited 2 hours ago by FarFromSam

[Dezron]

31 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

People with taste?

 

And those are?

Because I could find someone with taste that would call old Marine models garbage.

 

 

[lansalt]

The pros and cons of the changes since 8th edition have been discussed to death. But I'd say that the important thing is that until now it was still possible to play the game with old marines.

Maybe they were not good enough for tournaments, but the rules gave players a way to do it in friendly games. Which if you ask me, should be the actual goal for most people.

But you could still choose your own way to play.

 

Not anymore. With Rhinos variants, Tacticals and Devastators gone without getting updated versions like other old units, the people who like their old armies are screwed without options. They are forced to quit, play old editions or homebrew. And that's a legitimate reason to be upset as a customer.

[Firedrake Cordova]

=][= Blanket bashing of either the first-born or Primaris range, or criticising those who like a particular one is not conducive to constructive and civil discussion =][=

[Griefbringer]

1 hour ago, lansalt said:

The Predator wasn't designed to be a main battle tank, but an infantry support vehicle. 

 

In the original rules, it even had a transport capacity of five models, making it a sort of infantry fighting vehicle. This capacity was however dropped from the rules after a while, though the Razorback was introduced instead to fulfill a similar role.

[MoriyaSchism]

8 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

I would argue that a Siege Tank like the Vindicator has no place in a Marine Chapter, and belongs more in a Marine Legion.

A Siege Tank camping outside the walls doesn't play to the shock and awe, lightning assault that the Chapters are built around, although I don't feel so strongly about it that I see it as a real negative.

I'm pretty sure levelling entire city blocks, cracking castles in half and demolishing bunkers is part of a lightning assault. Good luck having successful rapid assault operations without a way to destroy fortifications or rocket artillery to destroy gun emplacements. What is a Primaris Chapter anyway? I remember when I read Dark Imperium it was utter nonsense. A tank falls through the atmosphere without any support or assistance, then a bunch of Inceptors deploy and not even half-way through the fight they run out of ammo and are forced to beat the chaos cultists with their fists and empty guns. Then a bunch of Intercessors show up and almost get tabled by a plague marine squad. 

The new Codex is so good. From now on I'm going to start calling the returned Guilliman "The Abomination" because he's clearly some sort of Eldar made freak or a remotely controlled corpse when you consider what he's done to our beloved Space Marine Chapters. 

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, FarFromSam said:

 i cant help but feel like we'd be a lot worse off with some of the rediculousness if we hadnt pushed back against it.

 

Do you really think that GW cares about what a minority of disgruntled vets like us complain about online? Sorry but the idea that our grumbling has somehow translated into improved lore is just absurd. 

[Captain Idaho]

=][= A mod has said to stop the back and forth with Primaris and Firstborn, which includes personal attacks. I've removed a post that does just that, no more ignoring Mod directive will be tolerated guys =][=

[Kallas]

9 hours ago, nodnol88 said:

This needed to happen though

 

None of it ever needed to happen, and especially not in the manner GW pursued.

 

About the Predator not being battletank-y - that actually tracks with it being based off the Rhino chassis, which is not a main battle tank; it's an STC for a multi-purpose chassis, the primary function (ie, the Rhino) being a transport. The Predator is an off-shoot of the design, not a wholesale design, so it not being quite battletank-y fits IMO.

[LittlePlasticHomies]

I think one thing most of us can probably agree on is that the datasheet bloat isn’t great for gameplay and that the SKU bloat was probably untenable from an ops perspective.

 

I’m mostly a collector/painter so I can’t pretend to know how it feels to have a game option taken away - though I can certainly empathize.

 

What I’m taking away is that if there’s an old kit I like (across any faction) now’s probably a good time to purchase it.

Edited 36 minutes ago by LittlePlasticHomies
Spelling

[No Foes Remain]

1 hour ago, lansalt said:

The pros and cons of the changes since 8th edition have been discussed to death. But I'd say that the important thing is that until now it was still possible to play the game with old marines.

Maybe they were not good enough for tournaments, but the rules gave players a way to do it in friendly games. Which if you ask me, should be the actual goal for most people.

But you could still choose your own way to play.

 

Not anymore. With Rhinos variants, Tacticals and Devastators gone without getting updated versions like other old units, the people who like their old armies are screwed without options. They are forced to quit, play old editions or homebrew. And that's a legitimate reason to be upset as a customer.

That is the main kicker, I wouldn't be against Tacticals and Devastators going to legends because then we still have the choice to use them and the other old firstborn (and analogous characters) over primaris units if we want.

 

It's easy to say use Tacticals as Intercessors but what of the special and heavy weapons? Devastators as Desolators are just the same, the only weapons that would be similar would be the missile launches and even then the rules aren't 1:1 on form and function on them.

 

I suppose the only thing we can do is email our displeasure at GW for this, I plan to. Worst case, nothing happens. Best case they add Tacticals and Devastators to Legends and still permit the proxy thing.

[FarFromSam]

32 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Do you really think that GW cares about what a minority of disgruntled vets like us complain about online? Sorry but the idea that our grumbling has somehow translated into improved lore is just 

Maybe, maybe not.  But I like to think GW wants to make its customers happy.  Ian salt said it better, but I do think public opinion shifts the needle.  And losing models

 

 

Btw iansalt i had no idea about that vindicator origin.  Thanks for sharing.  WW2 was wild. Very cool.

 

 

Edited 28 minutes ago by FarFromSam