How do!

Breaking with my traditional approach of asking a question, and instead making a statement. And it’s based on the relatively humble Ork Choppa.

By all accounts, background and models? These are lumpen and, at least for us, ill-balanced weapons. Brutal by simplistic intent.

Now. I am not arguing that a human couldn’t lift one, or even swing one with malice aforethought. That would be a ridiculous and silly claim. But being able to do that, and do so effectively are quite different propositions.

My main observation here is the Ork physiology. Putting aside the muscles described in the models? Your Ork has longer arms than a human, and a squat posture. Which unless I’m mistaken gives it a very different centre of gravity, and potentially a quite different reach.

To wield a melee weapon you kinda need to treat it as an extension of your arm. Being a wuss I don’t exactly know what that means, but I do kinda get it. Essentially your swing doesn’t end at your hand, but the business part of said weapon. And in terms of a weapon and a fighter’s balance? It’s a matter of relevant weight, leverage and other physics things I’m ill equipped to properly describe.

But. Given the Orky instinctual knowledge and again their physiology? Whilst I don’t doubt a regular human could learn how to wield a Choppa? It’s going to be an uphill struggle due to their sheer weight (mass? Seriously, I’m not sure) and the balance point being different for Orks than Humans? If a standard Guardsman or Ganger was to try to wield one, they’d struggle to do so in any meaningful way.

Diggas? As an example of a Human society that kinda ish more of less mostly lives with Orks in some kind of harmony? I’m not going to count them as standard. Because as soon as they’re grown enough to start combat training? It’s probably Orky or Orky-Approximate weapons they’re practicing on. And as per my caveat above? I don’t doubt a human can learn to effectively wield a Choppa. Just that it’s gonna take quite specific training compared to your own arsenal.

Most weapons require training to use effectively. History shows quite a few weapons in widespread use they are both heavy and front-heavy. Most pole arms, two handers, big maces, etc.

I think you are right that a human using a choppa most effectively may well use it in a different way to Orks, but I’m sure some kind of “effective” combat form could be developed.

The weight and balance would definitely be off, probably mostly due to the size problem. An Ork Choppa has an absurdly large axe head compared to its handle. You'd probably need to two hand it.

What about the Armageddon Ork Hunters?

A particularly beefy human might be able to one hand it I guess. Thinking about it more generalizing is kinda silly since its not like orks are adhering to any sort of standardization in their choppas. Some are giant meat cleavers, some are hatchets/axes, others are swords, etc...

When Armageddon Ork Hunters had their own rules, they could take choppas.

But they’re not regular humans. They’re combat veterans that have presumably been trained or self-trained.

Good points above that I hadn’t considered, ref using them in different ways.

Pretty much any close combat weapon (or any weapon at all really) is going to require training to use effectively, a "regular human" is going to have as much trouble using a chainsword as a choppa, if not more.

I mean it's a motorized death-chainsaw with almost no safety features. It's arguably going to be harder to wield effectively untrained than a big crude topheavy axe

Look, it’s got an off button! What more do you want!

So basically your point is that it takes training to use choppa effectively. Which no doubt is true, but also the case with most weapons, so I don't understand why it was worth starting a thread about.

I feel like a human trying to wield a choppa - at least a proper good one that's big and full of good choppy - would be like wielding Gotrek's Axe

Jump to around 42:13 cause for some reason the time jump isn't working on auto play

 Crimson wrote:
So basically your point is that it takes training to use choppa effectively. Which no doubt is true, but also the case with most weapons, so I don't understand why it was worth starting a thread about.

Yeah...

Even the three most basic and intuitive human weapons- club, rock, and pointy stick- have enormous skill ceilings where even a modicum of training makes big differences to how effective someone is at fighting with them.

A chopper is fundamentally a sharp club in most forms, although having a blade does open up extra options (push and draw cuts), and some can hook.

Yeah, I also don't think this is that much of a debate.

It's an awkward weapon, but so is an Eviscerator, and unaugmented humans are capable of using those.

Arguably a bigger issue is that Ork craftsmanship is very crude and unreliable, and a Choppa isn't necessarily that good or useful a weapon without the benefit of the subtle Ork collective psychic field (the same one that makes red-painted vehicles move -slightly- faster, makes their engines blow up 10% of the time instead of 50% of the time as they logically should, etc).

The field isn't remotely the reality bender that memes portray it as, but it takes the very crude and crappy Choppas and makes them actually as dangerous as a weapon of more reliable make.

Without that benefit, what use would a choppa be to a human? It's just a big lump of badly balanced and smithed metal at that point. Many choppas have no motor component and if you have one of those you are dealing with sub-medieval tech -and- crappy craftsmanship...

A human could not wield a choppa with any efficacy, at least based on model proportions.

The standard 'axe' choppa is almost as long as a guardsmen is tall, and the haft is about as thick (if not thicker) than their leg. That's going to be around 6 feet tall and with a circumference approaching a small tree, and the thing's made of solid, heavy metal. It's going to weigh over 100lbs at least.

It'd be like trying to wield a gigantic standing lamp with an axe glued to the top, and it weights as much as a small adult man. Assuming you could lift the damn thing you could absolutely do damage when you hit something, but only the most basic - and relatively slow - swings are at all possible.

And that's just the axe. There are choppa chain swords which are *wider* than a guardsmen's torso. That'd be like going into combat swinging a water heater with a chainsaw taped to one end.

 morganfreeman wrote:
A human could not wield a choppa with any efficacy, at least based on model proportions.

The standard 'axe' choppa is almost as long as a guardsmen is tall, and the haft is about as thick (if not thicker) than their leg. That's going to be around 6 feet tall and with a circumference approaching a small tree, and the thing's made of solid, heavy metal. It's going to weigh over 100lbs at least.

It'd be like trying to wield a gigantic standing lamp with an axe glued to the top, and it weights as much as a small adult man. Assuming you could lift the damn thing you could absolutely do damage when you hit something, but only the most basic - and relatively slow - swings are at all possible.

And that's just the axe. There are choppa chain swords which are *wider* than a guardsmen's torso. That'd be like going into combat swinging a water heater with a chainsaw taped to one end.

I'm not sure if the models are a particularly helpful yardstick here. You also have standard humans wielding things like Eviscerators, or apparently carrying massive heavy weapons without significant impediment.

I once converted a Cadian lascannon team (the 3rd edition plastic kit) to be carrying the lasannon dismantled. It looks stupid, because the lascannon alone is far bigger than the Guardsman, and then the other crewman is expected to carry a huge tripod as tall as he is, and two powerpacks each the size of his torso!? Yet they can move just as quickly as a Guard trooper carrying a lasgun, and now can even move and shoot...

Weapon depictions have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Even an Ork boy is going to struggle to swing a 50kg+ lump of metal with most of the weight at the end- just from a simple physics perspective that much weight starts to move the wielder too through its momentum and inertia. A basic boy isn't _that_ much heavier than a burly human, they are going to be unbalanced and swung round by a 50kg lump of metal. I doubt choppers are actually that substantial compared to the heroically-proportioned models.

Now, Ork boyz are fairly slow, I can imagine they do use oversized weapons from a human perspective. But even a 10kg single-handed weapon would be absolutely monstrous and slow as hell to wield. If you have ever swung a sledgehammer, you'll know what I mean. Historical two-handed greatswords rarely top 3kg in actual combat examples, to give a comparison. 50kg would have a mind of its own and would probably require a creature of at least a ton in weight to manage with any usefulness.

Eviscerators are designed to be wielded by humans though. So have human sized handles, and presumably are suitably balanced for swinging in large, but controlled, arcs.

Orks? Much bigger hands than humans, that much is evident. So the hafts of their Choppas are more likely than not to be uncomfortably thick for human hands.

And going back to an initial observation I made? Orks have a lower centre of gravity due to their posture and bandy legs. They also have longer arms to humans. Which means a full swing, even with comparable muscle strength? An Ork wielded Choppa is going to hit harder. Because the arc is wider, and so the business end is moving faster than if a human had swung it. And their lower centre of gravity helps with their balance for such a swing.

Firearms? Well we’ve many examples in the background of humans wielding Orky firearms. They might be uncomfortable and unwieldy, but entirely usable if you’ve nothing better to hand.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Eviscerators are designed to be wielded by humans though. So have human sized handles, and presumably are suitably balanced for swinging in large, but controlled, arcs.

The "real" examples probably are to some degree, but the models are long bricks on a stick. I mentioned them in relation to using models and art as a guide to calculating weights etc.

Re. balance: the pommels would have to be incredibly dense to counter the heft of such weapons to truly balance them, bearing in mind the teeth are typically adamantium- a material described as dense. Given they typically had "strikes last" type rules, I reckon they are fairly unbalanced at the best of times.

Orks? Much bigger hands than humans, that much is evident. So the hafts of their Choppas are more likely than not to be uncomfortably thick for human hands.

And going back to an initial observation I made? Orks have a lower centre of gravity due to their posture and bandy legs. They also have longer arms to humans. Which means a full swing, even with comparable muscle strength? An Ork wielded Choppa is going to hit harder. Because the arc is wider, and so the business end is moving faster than if a human had swung it. And their lower centre of gravity helps with their balance for such a swing.

Firearms? Well we’ve many examples in the background of humans wielding Orky firearms. They might be uncomfortable and unwieldy, but entirely usable if you’ve nothing better to hand.

The differences in grip would make a difference, most choppas are undoubtedly going to be uncomfortable for most humans.

I'm not convinced the lower centre of gravity is that significant if actually present, orks are hunched in posture but not much shorter than a human despite that, and the long arms and large heads moves weight upwards. Orks seem to favour overhead strikes and the like too. Plus no minor posture shifts would make a 50+kg weapon manageable for even a 500kg creature, and I doubt the average boy reaches 500kg given Guard troopers can move the corpses without too much trouble. So I doubt typical Ork weapons are that far beyond human ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dug up the actual reference to Armageddon Ork hunters using Ork weapons:

So choppers can be used by "the strongest hunters", but even they do suffer a bit for doing so, dropping to initiative 2. So choppers are wieldable, but not great.

Likewise, using shooters drops accuracy to BS 2, presumably due to the recoil and crude design.

Incidentally, flavour was the only real reason to do this. Feral Orks, the chief enemy of the Ork hunters, couldn't even get better than a 4+ sv, so in a typical lore match-up you got no benefit for taking choppers, but dropped to I2 in penalty... for 2pts a model. Even if your Ork hunters mostly hunted Space Marines... taking them on in melee probably wasn't a winning proposition.

 Haighus wrote:
Now, Ork boyz are fairly slow, I can imagine they do use oversized weapons from a human perspective. But even a 10kg single-handed weapon would be absolutely monstrous and slow as hell to wield. If you have ever swung a sledgehammer, you'll know what I mean. Historical two-handed greatswords rarely top 3kg in actual combat examples, to give a comparison. 50kg would have a mind of its own and would probably require a creature of at least a ton in weight to manage with any usefulness.

It depends on how "fantasy" 40k wants to be with this, I suppose.

I remember a historian's blog examining the maths of the Lord of the Rings movies for fun. They calculated that, as depicted on-screen, a Mordor Troll's iron sledgehammer would probably weigh ~334 kilograms just based on its size (and just the iron part, not counting the wooden haft). On the other hand, if the Mordor Troll had been a real creature and existed in real physics, then based on its size and muscle mass relative to a human, a Troll's sledgehammer would weigh ~81kg, and a Troll warhammer (since sledgehammers are too unwieldy to use as weapons of war) would weigh somewhere between 6 and 14 kg.

Where do 40k Orks fall on this scale? Beats me. We already know 40k flagrantly and cheerfully violates the square-cube law (as is pretty much expected of any even remotely fantasy-based setting) so I'd not expect weapons to be any different.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Now, Ork boyz are fairly slow, I can imagine they do use oversized weapons from a human perspective. But even a 10kg single-handed weapon would be absolutely monstrous and slow as hell to wield. If you have ever swung a sledgehammer, you'll know what I mean. Historical two-handed greatswords rarely top 3kg in actual combat examples, to give a comparison. 50kg would have a mind of its own and would probably require a creature of at least a ton in weight to manage with any usefulness.

It depends on how "fantasy" 40k wants to be with this, I suppose.

I remember a historian's blog examining the maths of the Lord of the Rings movies for fun. They calculated that, as depicted on-screen, a Mordor Troll's iron sledgehammer would probably weigh ~334 kilograms just based on its size (and just the iron part, not counting the wooden haft). On the other hand, if the Mordor Troll had been a real creature and existed in real physics, then based on its size and muscle mass relative to a human, a Troll's sledgehammer would weigh ~81kg, and a Troll warhammer (since sledgehammers are too unwieldy to use as weapons of war) would weigh somewhere between 6 and 14 kg.

Where do 40k Orks fall on this scale? Beats me. We already know 40k flagrantly and cheerfully violates the square-cube law (as is pretty much expected of any even remotely fantasy-based setting) so I'd not expect weapons to be any different.

Yeah, that's fair.

Pop culture thinks weapons are larger and heavier than they are nearly universally, so people come to expect it, so we get more big weapons in pop culture.

LotR is actually one of the more grounded depictions, on the whole. Probably because most of the weapons in the films were actually built and wielded by real human actors.

 Haighus wrote:

Spoiler:

 morganfreeman wrote:
A human could not wield a choppa with any efficacy, at least based on model proportions.

The standard 'axe' choppa is almost as long as a guardsmen is tall, and the haft is about as thick (if not thicker) than their leg. That's going to be around 6 feet tall and with a circumference approaching a small tree, and the thing's made of solid, heavy metal. It's going to weigh over 100lbs at least.

It'd be like trying to wield a gigantic standing lamp with an axe glued to the top, and it weights as much as a small adult man. Assuming you could lift the damn thing you could absolutely do damage when you hit something, but only the most basic - and relatively slow - swings are at all possible.

And that's just the axe. There are choppa chain swords which are *wider* than a guardsmen's torso. That'd be like going into combat swinging a water heater with a chainsaw taped to one end.

I'm not sure if the models are a particularly helpful yardstick here. You also have standard humans wielding things like Eviscerators, or apparently carrying massive heavy weapons without significant impediment.

I once converted a Cadian lascannon team (the 3rd edition plastic kit) to be carrying the lasannon dismantled. It looks stupid, because the lascannon alone is far bigger than the Guardsman, and then the other crewman is expected to carry a huge tripod as tall as he is, and two powerpacks each the size of his torso!? Yet they can move just as quickly as a Guard trooper carrying a lasgun, and now can even move and shoot...

Weapon depictions have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Even an Ork boy is going to struggle to swing a 50kg+ lump of metal with most of the weight at the end- just from a simple physics perspective that much weight starts to move the wielder too through its momentum and inertia. A basic boy isn't _that_ much heavier than a burly human, they are going to be unbalanced and swung round by a 50kg lump of metal. I doubt choppers are actually that substantial compared to the heroically-proportioned models.

Snip

Now, Ork boyz are fairly slow, I can imagine they do use oversized weapons from a human perspective. But even a 10kg single-handed weapon would be absolutely monstrous and slow as hell to wield. If you have ever swung a sledgehammer, you'll know what I mean. Historical two-handed greatswords rarely top 3kg in actual combat examples, to give a comparison. 50kg would have a mind of its own and would probably require a creature of at least a ton in weight to manage with any usefulness.

IIRC it's mentioned that nobz can approach a ton, or maybe that's warbosses, when fully armored. The average ork also possessive *significantly* more mass than a human, with arms nearly as thick, if not thicker, than most human torsos. At least according to model scale.

Now I will concede that models have a degree of artistic license; they have to be distinct at a distance and also not so fiddly that they break. So I acknowledge that. Even still, if you were to cut the 'axe' choppa's size by about 50%, it'd still probably be easily over 100lbs; as it'd be significantly thicker than the bar used in a bench press, approaching the length, and definitely no consideration given to keeping it 'light'. Not something which a Catachan couldn't lift or even swing, but something which wouldn't let them move fast.

Which works well with the bit about initiative.

Keep in mind that initiative 5, what Eldar have, is so fast that their movements basically blur to the naked human eye. SM, at I4, don't blur but move faster than people can basically comprehend. I3 is regular humans, and I2 is pretty damn slow.

So at the end of the day I think it all basically boils down to 'fantasy' math and logistics. Bigger weapons because bigger and models, but still inhumanly heavy and ungainly. Usable by the absolute madlads who have 6 packs so strong they count as flak armor, at a cost, but well beyond what an 'ordinary' human could wield with any sort of efficacy.

Ork boy strength has crept up over the editions.

They used to be within the ballpark of human strength (S3), although probably at the upper end of that along with the like of Catachans.

Then they went up to S3.5 (S3 with S4 on the charge).

Eventually all Orks became skarboy S4- on a par with the Marine strength bracket (my headcanon is that the modern lists focus on warbands from major Waaaghs like Ghazghkulls, which are full of skarboyz only).

Obviously game stats represent broad categories, as you mentioned with the initiative stat, but Orks used to be closer to human than Marine.

I think you are making assumptions about the weapons- such as having solid hafts. Most of the newer models appear to be metal tubes rather than solid, which would make sense. The choppas on the Kommando kit for example. As pointed out upthread, they are definitely oversized (and heroically scaled), but 50kg seems like it is probably too much, even if an Ork boy weighs 250kg-500kg.

I do recall encountering the "over a ton" metric, but not where it was. A quick search has yielded no results. That said, even a nob is typically noticeably chunkier than a boy, and I would not be surprised if they commonly weigh double the boyz they lead.

 Haighus wrote:
Eventually all Orks became skarboy S4- on a par with the Marine strength bracket (my headcanon is that the modern lists focus on warbands from major Waaaghs like Ghazghkulls, which are full of skarboyz only).

I think it's just stat creep tbh. Compared to 4e, Ork Boyz have gained a point of strength, a point of toughness, a point of save, a point of AP on their weapons, and have greatly benefitted from the removal of initiative (considering their awful i2 they had prior).

Compare to their in-lore most common opponent, the guardsman, who has gained... nothing at all.

I think it's more that Orks originally were not so muscular, and when Nelson sculpted his muscular gorilla orks (which I love) it started to look silly that they were only S3, so you had different ways to make them stronger creeping in.

I believe Orks also used to be WS/BS 3 (4+ in new money), and it was changed specifically to WS4/BS2 (3+/2+ in new money) for the Rork's Drift scenario they did (to encourage the Orks to actually charge in rather than sit back and firefight) and has just stuck ever since.

Certainly the RT era Space Orks look far more like green Guardsmen than they do Orks of today.
I prefer the current Ork characterisation tbh, it strikes as a more distinctive identity. But certain things from old lore don't really make much sense anymore (like Armageddon Ork Hunters) as the size difference makes it a bit obscene for a Guardsman to ever pick up an Ork weapon now

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Eventually all Orks became skarboy S4- on a par with the Marine strength bracket (my headcanon is that the modern lists focus on warbands from major Waaaghs like Ghazghkulls, which are full of skarboyz only).

I think it's just stat creep tbh. Compared to 4e, Ork Boyz have gained a point of strength, a point of toughness, a point of save, a point of AP on their weapons, and have greatly benefitted from the removal of initiative (considering their awful i2 they had prior).

Compare to their in-lore most common opponent, the guardsman, who has gained... nothing at all.

The problem is their most common opponent on the table is the SM which has become the standard against which all armies have to function against.

The same issue happened with Eldar Guardians. When the human guardsman was the standard, Eldar Guardians were +1 Initiative and +1 Ld and in better armor, meant to show the Eldar as Elves in Space were as good as trained human soldiers despite Guardians being basically like IG Conscripts (which were BS2/WS2). However that began to look strange when matched up against SM and the dying race Eldar Guardians started looking more like cannon fodder, which wasn't very thematic so eventually GW upped their WS and BS.

Iracundus wrote:
The problem is their most common opponent on the table is the SM which has become the standard against which all armies have to function against.

Sure, but that doesn't make it any better for the guardsman who also has that as the most common tabletop opponent, does it?

I really don't think it's more complicated than stat creep. It's like how Primaris got 2W because they're big guys with reinforced armour and improved implants (ok, sure), then extended to all Space Marines because +1W was probably too drastic a difference just for Primaris (also fine, sure), then we got Bladeguard Veterans who have an iron halo for 4++ and a storm shield which normally also gives 4++ but gives +1W instead if you already have 4++ (that's consistent with how hammernators work with 3++ removed from the game, so checks out), and then Marine elites like Chosen and Sword Brethren started getting 3W in general since GW seemed to forget why Bladeguard had it to begin with and just assumed it's because they're elite (huh??), and then the newest Marine elites like Company Heroes and Victrix started getting 4W just for the speshulz (huh????????????).

+1 Wound elites has been applied to Heresy as well, with Terminator and Veteran units all getting 2W base.

"Space Marines need to feel more like the super special elite boys on the tabletop" has been a constant complaint since like the 2000s.
Guardsmen are allowed to still be gak because "cannon fodder" is what the community meme lore and latterly GW has decided their role is.

Orks they're supposed to be tough bruisers so their stats had to inflate to keep pace with marines.

Necrons have really been left behind as well. They used to be tougher than Marines, now they're little better than fodder themselves.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
+1 Wound elites has been applied to Heresy as well, with Terminator and Veteran units all getting 2W base.

I could forgive Terminators moving to 2W since especially heavy suits of armour giving bonus wounds has been a thing for a long time now in various places, but Veterans going to 2W definitely was unexpected and probably uncalled for.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
+1 Wound elites has been applied to Heresy as well, with Terminator and Veteran units all getting 2W base.

I could forgive Terminators moving to 2W since especially heavy suits of armour giving bonus wounds has been a thing for a long time now in various places, but Veterans going to 2W definitely was unexpected and probably uncalled for.

Terminators I could agree with, kinda
But yeah it really skewed the game and has made any weapons short of like a thunderhammer just really weak into anything tougher than a Tactical marine

Power swords do still kill veterans, albeit less effectively than more expensive/slower weapons.

I'd say a bigger offender is the command squad, who are preposterously spammable and basically elite Terminators without having to actually be saddled with any of the problems of being Terminators.

...But I digress. I do still think 30k isn't as bad into stat creep. A tactical is still a tactical, a statline essentially untouched. They have done weird things with weapon statlines, but the main thing they have done is raise the ceiling rather than move the centre, since tactical squads remain with their original profile and are consistently taken in large numbers due to their scoring power.

I agree that stat creep is the underlying mechanism. Things have continued to get bigger and stronger over the years.

It is a bit of a shame really. I preferred it when boyz were a bit above a baseline human, but still chaff in a horde that needed mass to be scary, and only the more elite orks went above that.

Bear in mind that S3 to S4 represented a huge difference in strength in the past. It jumped from human, to being able to punch through and damage armoured vehicles like APCs.

Ork boyz are probably fairly analogous to gorillas, and gorillas are certainly notably stronger than humans. No human would want to fight a gorilla in melee, but if they were armed it would not be a foregone conclusion. However, if I was riding in an M113 I'd feel pretty safe from an angry gorilla. Equally, no guardsman would want to fight an Ork boy in melee, they'd lose much more often than they'd win. But boyz couldn't hack their way into a Chimera (or only could with the momentum of a charge). A Space Marine punching into a Chimera? That feels appropriate.

That is all a bit moot now a lasgun can damage a titan, but I felt the strength made sense then.

I certainly would not imagine a space marine being significantly stronger than a gorilla, especially a large silverback. I'd imagine them to be pretty comparable.

I've never fought a gorilla so I can't say I have a lot of experience with their strength, but it seems decently comparable out of armour, with the armour's artificial muscles adding a substantial difference.

It's hard to say though because the gorilla is heavily constrained by being real, whereas the Space Marine is boosted by technobabble space organs and technobabble super-suits we have no consistent reference for.

In general, "how strong is a Space Marine" feels like the kind of question you're most prone to frustrate yourself by trying to answer, since it's not like GW themselves care much to run a consistent number...

 Crimson wrote:
I certainly would not imagine a space marine being significantly stronger than a gorilla, especially a large silverback. I'd imagine them to be pretty comparable.

Really? I'd expect a Marine to be able to comfortably overpower a gorilla in strength, especially in power armour. They've routinely outmatched basic boyz in strength in lore too (although some of this is the durability afforded by power armour).

Space Marines and Nobz both being S4 in 4th edition always felt right to me.

The Nobz are absolutely massive, but the Space Marine has the benefit of the armour. In a contest of strength, either could feasibly win.

I actually really enjoyed how this was depicted in Space Marine 1. When you stunned a Nob, you couldn't just rip them apart on the spot like you could with regular Boyz, they're too strong and experienced. They'd try to grapple you when you do it and you had to physically overpower them (with a button mash sequence) before you could force them down and finish them off.

Incidentally, Chaos Space Marines were treated the same way, though I was less happy with them as their AI was far more passive than the Ork AI, which broke my immersion quite a lot.

 Haighus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I certainly would not imagine a space marine being significantly stronger than a gorilla, especially a large silverback. I'd imagine them to be pretty comparable.

Really? I'd expect a Marine to be able to comfortably overpower a gorilla in strength, especially in power armour. They've routinely outmatched basic boyz in strength in lore too (although some of this is the durability afforded by power armour).

Yeah, really. Marine of course is far more resilient due the armour and is a lot better fighter and has weapons, so they probably would win a fight quite comfortably, but I don't think they'd be significantly stronger, at least not to put them into another category. But I have pretty grounded view of the setting. I do not imagine marines being superhero strong. They're just meat, and about as much meat than a big gorilla.

It probably goes without saying after all the clashes in the last week or two alone, but I definitely am okay with 40k being deliberately absurd.

In addition to previous examples of that I've mentioned (like the contentious macrocannon case), we also have Mechanicus tech adepts who "though often perceived as cold and inhumanly detached, are nonetheless capable leaders. They are able to calculate complex tactical algorithms to overcome battlefield challenges in a matter of nanoseconds, allowing them to claim their objective in the most efficient manner possible." per the 8e Admech codex (lmao, nanoseconds, sure).

Only, of course, to be outshone by none other than... "Guilliman devises blueprints of probability with every waking thought, his tactical acumen working more moves ahead than even the canniest enemies might imagine. Logistics which would confound the largest banks of Adeptus Mechanicus cogitators come naturally to Guilliman." per the 8e Space Marines codex (a quote which I feel is put in perspective by the one prior).

I don't think there's ultimately much point in trying to take 40k more seriously than it takes itself. But that is just my view.

It’s all best viewed as myth and propaganda.

The purpose of the background in a Codex is different to the purpose of the background in a novel, or in art, or in a game etc.

Yes. It’s an intrinsic part of the experience. But a Codexes’ purpose is to make that specific army as cool as possible. To hype it up. To make it The Best at some things.

Outside of that book? It’s about selling the setting and hopefully the underlying game and models as a whole. And that of course creates clashes.

I mean, who are the best motorised cavalry? Ravenwing? White Scars? Saim Hann? Speed Freeks? All have some claim to the title.

There are players out there who don’t give a fig for the background. Which is fine. I think they’re a bit odd, but to each their own.

Absolutely. I just specifically chose codex lore because Crimson doesn't hold non-codex lore such as BL novels and FFG RPGs in high regard, so I wanted to pre-empt any attacks on the source.

This is right from the horse's mouth. It's insane all the way down here too.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s all best viewed as myth and propaganda.

The purpose of the background in a Codex is different to the purpose of the background in a novel, or in art, or in a game etc.

Yes. It’s an intrinsic part of the experience. But a Codexes’ purpose is to make that specific army as cool as possible. To hype it up. To make it The Best at some things.

Outside of that book? It’s about selling the setting and hopefully the underlying game and models as a whole. And that of course creates clashes.

I mean, who are the best motorised cavalry? Ravenwing? White Scars? Saim Hann? Speed Freeks? All have some claim to the title.

There are players out there who don’t give a fig for the background. Which is fine. I think they’re a bit odd, but to each their own.

Yes, definitely. And this is sort what I mean when I say I have"more grounded" view of the setting. By this I mean looking past the hyperbole, and assuming there is some sort of vaguely verisimilitudous reality beyond it.
That reality of course is imaginary too. It is just that were I to say run a RPG set in 40K, where I had as a GM adjudicate what is and isn't possible, this is the perspective I'd assume.

And I get that some other people like things to be more superheroic, and the overall tone of the fluff certainly trends into that direction these days; unfortunately from my perspective.

 Overread wrote:
I feel like a human trying to wield a choppa - at least a proper good one that's big and full of good choppy - would be like wielding Gotrek's Axe

I think that's an unfair comparison because even other Dwarfs have issues wielding Gotrek's axe. That's brought up multiple times in the novels and Felix even points out that he can barely lift the thing two handed much less wield it.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I feel like a human trying to wield a choppa - at least a proper good one that's big and full of good choppy - would be like wielding Gotrek's Axe

I think that's an unfair comparison because even other Dwarfs have issues wielding Gotrek's axe. That's brought up multiple times in the novels and Felix even points out that he can barely lift the thing two handed much less wield it.

True, however I'm not aware of a smith who's made a choppa and then nearly tried to take their leg off with it

 Crimson wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I certainly would not imagine a space marine being significantly stronger than a gorilla, especially a large silverback. I'd imagine them to be pretty comparable.

Really? I'd expect a Marine to be able to comfortably overpower a gorilla in strength, especially in power armour. They've routinely outmatched basic boyz in strength in lore too (although some of this is the durability afforded by power armour).

Yeah, really. Marine of course is far more resilient due the armour and is a lot better fighter and has weapons, so they probably would win a fight quite comfortably, but I don't think they'd be significantly stronger, at least not to put them into another category. But I have pretty grounded view of the setting. I do not imagine marines being superhero strong. They're just meat, and about as much meat than a big gorilla.

But Marines are not just meat. They are quite literally described as superhuman, and have been genetically modified into an "improved" form (for war).

In addition, power armour is supposed to be a boost, not merely passive. Even at the most basic level, the extra momentum imparted by the extra weight of the armour would make impacts from a Marine far stronger than the speed of blows alone would suggest. The game has long been consistent that power armour alone has not been enough to add a point of strength, but it is described as enhancing strength.

Again, Marines have the ability to significantly damage light-armoured vehicles like APCs and destroy them, albeit with considerable difficulty. Gorillas do not.

I looked up the upper estimate for punching force of a gorilla, 12000 newtons, and it was about the same as 7.62mm NATO (although obviously not concentrated into the surface area of a bullet so much less likely to penetrate or damage metal). More-or-less the minimum standard for a vehicle to be considered armoured is stopping full-powered rifle cartridges like 7.62mm NATO, going all the way back to the earliest armoured vehicles in WW1 through the modern day.

To top it off, 7.62mm NATO rifles would probably be considered S3 based off militia rifles in the HH list, and known calibres for autoguns.

This doesn't feel like Marines are not grounded to me. They are supposed to be technological monsters cramming a huge amount of different force multipliers into a compact killing machine.

On Marines and their abilities in combat? Take any known human limit, and then exceed it.

Have you seen Ip Man, when he takes on a whole load of Japanese fighters and pummels them? A Marine can do that, only faster and stronger. When he’s doing the old jazz fist solo on the poor sod’s chest? A marine can strike that fast, and with sufficient force to not just crack, but shatter the bone underneath.

Most terrifyingly for an opponent? They can do it for hours at a time.

They’re not human. They’re post-human.

Could a Marine punch through a steel door? No. Not in a oner. But I’m confident they could batter it down given sufficient time. Like the Dark Troopers in Mando S2, when trying to get on the bridge.

Their Combat Knives have a monomolecular edge. So they’re beyond ludicrously sharp. Again it would take time, but I see no reason why they couldn’t hack open your more vulnerable hatches for a grenade to be posted, addressed to “To Whom It May Concern”.

It doesn’t matter if people want them to be more grounded. They’re not grounded. At all.

 Haighus wrote:

But Marines are not just meat. They are quite literally described as superhuman, and have been genetically modified into an "improved" form (for war).

Yes. But being as strong as a silverback gorilla, is superhuman! Humans are not normally that strong. Genemodding is not magic* it is just gives them more muscles (and probably more fast-twitch fibers) but that's just what gorillas already have.

In addition, power armour is supposed to be a boost, not merely passive. Even at the most basic level, the extra momentum imparted by the extra weight of the armour would make impacts from a Marine far stronger than the speed of blows alone would suggest. The game has long been consistent that power armour alone has not been enough to add a point of strength, but it is described as enhancing strength.

Power armour is mostly for carrying its own weight. Sure, it might be a small boost, but its main value is the protection.

Again, Marines have the ability to significantly damage light-armoured vehicles like APCs and destroy them, albeit with considerable difficulty. Gorillas do not.

I looked up the upper estimate for punching force of a gorilla, 12000 newtons, and it was about the same as 7.62mm NATO (although obviously not concentrated into the surface area of a bullet so much less likely to penetrate or damage metal). More-or-less the minimum standard for a vehicle to be considered armoured is stopping full-powered rifle cartridges like 7.62mm NATO, going all the way back to the earliest armoured vehicles in WW1 through the modern day.

To top it off, 7.62mm NATO rifles would probably be considered S3 based off militia rifles in the HH list, and known calibres for autoguns.

This doesn't feel like Marines are not grounded to me. They are supposed to be technological monsters cramming a huge amount of different force multipliers into a compact killing machine.

I'm not sure why you think marines have ability to harm APCs. Because in the game they can? In the game a gretchin can harm a land raider. And in the game marine has no better chance of harming a rhino than a gretchin or a guardsman has. Besides I don't think marines are fighting vehicles by punching them with bare hands, they use their combat knives to wedge them into weak spots etc.

* Now 40K science is of course nonsense, so if you want, you can just treat it as magic, I guess you can. But what I meant is with more "grounded view" is not doing that.

Anyway, in the game marines are and have always been S4. That's stronger than a normal human, but probably not absurdly so, as there several steps above it. So they are "roughly" as strong as orks or gorillas. They might be sligtly stronger, perhaps, but not significantly so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I snipped the fanboying.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

It doesn’t matter if people want them to be more grounded. They’re not grounded. At all.

"Give me a hundred Space Marines. Or failing that give me a thousand other troops."
-Rogal Dorn-

A marine is about as good than ten normal soldiers. They are good, they are not invincible superheroes. They can be beaten by normal humans.

 Crimson wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

But Marines are not just meat. They are quite literally described as superhuman, and have been genetically modified into an "improved" form (for war).

Yes. But being as strong as a silverback gorilla, is superhuman! Humans are not normally that strong. Genemodding is not magic* it is just gives them more muscles (and probably more fast-twitch fibers) but that's just what gorillas already have.

In addition, power armour is supposed to be a boost, not merely passive. Even at the most basic level, the extra momentum imparted by the extra weight of the armour would make impacts from a Marine far stronger than the speed of blows alone would suggest. The game has long been consistent that power armour alone has not been enough to add a point of strength, but it is described as enhancing strength.

Power armour is mostly for carrying its own weight. Sure, it might be a small boost, but its main value is the protection.

Again, Marines have the ability to significantly damage light-armoured vehicles like APCs and destroy them, albeit with considerable difficulty. Gorillas do not.

I looked up the upper estimate for punching force of a gorilla, 12000 newtons, and it was about the same as 7.62mm NATO (although obviously not concentrated into the surface area of a bullet so much less likely to penetrate or damage metal). More-or-less the minimum standard for a vehicle to be considered armoured is stopping full-powered rifle cartridges like 7.62mm NATO, going all the way back to the earliest armoured vehicles in WW1 through the modern day.

To top it off, 7.62mm NATO rifles would probably be considered S3 based off militia rifles in the HH list, and known calibres for autoguns.

This doesn't feel like Marines are not grounded to me. They are supposed to be technological monsters cramming a huge amount of different force multipliers into a compact killing machine.

I'm not sure why you think marines have ability to harm APCs. Because in the game they can? In the game a gretchin can harm a land raider. And in the game marine has no better chance of harming a rhino than a gretchin or a guardsman has. Besides I don't think marines are fighting vehicles by punching them with bare hands, they use their combat knives to wedge them into weak spots etc.

* Now 40K science is of course nonsense, so if you want, you can just treat it as magic, I guess you can. But what I meant is with more "grounded view" is not doing that.

Anyway, in the game marines are and have always been S4. That's stronger than a normal human, but probably not absurdly so, as there several steps above it. So they are "roughly" as strong as orks or gorillas. They might be sligtly stronger, perhaps, but not significantly so.

I'm talking about in editions where lasguns couldn't harm titans and there was much less abstraction in the game. 8th edition onwards has become increasingly abstract and unhelpful for contextualising the lore. Gretchin did not used to be able to harm land raiders.

When armour values were a thing, armoured vehicles had a minimum value of 10. Unarmoured vehicles were 9 (basic civilian vehicles) but these didn't routinely exist in the wargame (you could make them in the vehicle design rules in 3rd, and the 3rd edition genestealer cult list had AV9 civilian lorries).

Light vehicles were AV10 on the sides and sometimes even front, and essentially all vehicles were AV10 on the rear. Marines could damage these in melee, even without grenades. Orks could not, until they eventually got bumped up to S4 (I think that happened in 7th?), with the exception of Furious charge once that was introduced in 4th. Ordinary humans also could not.

Lasguns, autoguns, stubguns, and auxilia rifles could also not damage armoured vehicles, which essentially gives us the baseline strength, because equivalents of these weapons cannot significantly harm armoured vehicles today either.

Essentially, GW was consistent for years that Marines were significantly stronger than Ork boyz (S4 vs S3), and were strong enough to physically damage light-armoured vehicles that could stop bullets.

Assuming an Ork boy is on par with a gorilla is obviously an assumption, but it seems far more likely to be comparable than to the Marine punching tanks.

Re. the power armour- as I mentioned, even if all the power armour did was carry its own weight, it would be a noticeable strength boost in combat because of the greatly increased momentum. It is the same reason being hit by a small hatchback at 30mph is far more survivable than being hit by the latest monstrosity of a Ford pick-up truck travelling at 30mph. The velocity is the same, but the impact is far greater on the latter. Marines do weigh about a ton in power armour.

Edit: combat knives is a fair point. That said, the default assumption in 40k is that everyone is using some kind of roughly analagous close combat weapon unless otherwise stated though, so that essentially seems to be factored into the strength value. The Marine has a combat knife, but the Ork also has a chopper.

Yeah, I know how old rules worked. So what? That is outdated now, just like orks being no stronger than guardsmen. And in any case, marines were not punching tanks with bare hands. And yes, of course armoured gauntlets increase the impact of a punch, but that is not what I am talking when I compare the pure strength. And yeah, ork has weapon too, but the gorilla usually doesn't, so I don't undstand why you'd compare armed marine against unarmed gorilla. I was just talking about the base strength, not weapons.




Like look at this. The ork is a huge slab of meat. Sure he is shorter than a marine, but is actually more beefy. It seems to me obviously the right call to put him in the same s4 bracket with the marine instead of the s3 bracket with the guardsman.

A squad of marines could absolutely do something in melee to lighter vehicles in previous editions with just their fists. It wasn't as good as maybe the Sergeant with a power fist, but a bunch of extra str4 hits to the rear of a Falcon or a warwagon could do something. You'd be better off using the krak grenades all marines came with standard, but grenades didn't get the +1A charge bonus so it was a choice between 2 str4 and 1 Str6.

Getting an extra stun or maybe a weapon destroyed result on a vehicle was worth being able to roll the dice at all. Granted you couldn't KILL the vehicle with a glancing hit, unless the vehicle took multiple crew stun or shaken results and failed their "morale" check. In which case they would abandon the vehicle and insta-kill it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
A squad of marines could absolutely do something in melee to lighter vehicles in previous editions with just their fists. It wasn't as good as maybe the Sergeant with a power fist, but a bunch of extra str4 hits to the rear of a Falcon or a warwagon could do something. You'd be better off using the krak grenades all marines came with standard, but grenades didn't get the +1A charge bonus so it was a choice between 2 str4 and 1 Str6.

Getting an extra stun or maybe a weapon destroyed result on a vehicle was worth being able to roll the dice at all.

Yes, I know how the rules worked. I just do not think this represented the marines punching through the tank armour with bare hands any more than in the current edition the guardsmen being able to harm tank in melee represent that. They are using their knives, shovels, other small & improvised weaponry to jam tracks, destroy sensors, pry open hatches etc.

We can also consider what it means to damage a tank.

There’s a difference between physically ripping it into bits, and having the strength to shut off exhausts, rip out cabling, dislodge a track, shatter viewports etc.

If you can squeeze shut the exhaust? The engine is gonna have a bad time. Oh sure, it’s a fairly easy repair compared to patching and welding. But it can still cause the engine to shut off and stall. Not something you really want to happen in the middle of battle.

With enough oomph, you can jam the traversal of weapons with a rock wedged deeply. Or even shove a stone down the barrel.

Causing damage doesn’t have to mean completely obliterating.

Consider the animation for Secret Level. Okay, even I’ll confirm running through a light vehicle feels a bit silly. But on the Leman Russ? Get on top, Chainsword the hatch, drop some grenades in, job’s a good ‘un is skilful but realistic enough to be credible in-universe. Until they Melta-bomb it? Probably not a terribly intensive repair job. Pick up the fleshy bits, mop it out, check nothing is wedged where it shouldn’t be if you’re lucky.

 Grey Templar wrote:
A squad of marines could absolutely do something in melee to lighter vehicles in previous editions with just their fists. It wasn't as good as maybe the Sergeant with a power fist, but a bunch of extra str4 hits to the rear of a Falcon or a warwagon could do something. You'd be better off using the krak grenades all marines came with standard, but grenades didn't get the +1A charge bonus so it was a choice between 2 str4 and 1 Str6.

Getting an extra stun or maybe a weapon destroyed result on a vehicle was worth being able to roll the dice at all. Granted you couldn't KILL the vehicle with a glancing hit, unless the vehicle took multiple crew stun or shaken results and failed their "morale" check. In which case they would abandon the vehicle and insta-kill it.

Glances could kill in every edition where that was a mechanism. It took longest in 5th, where the vehicle essentially had to be completely mission-killed by immobilising and destroying all weapons, but in 3rd-4th glances could directly wreck a vehicle, and 6th-7th had hull points.

Not sure where you are getting the morale check mechanism from? Sounds like an optional rule or a homebrew.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
A squad of marines could absolutely do something in melee to lighter vehicles in previous editions with just their fists. It wasn't as good as maybe the Sergeant with a power fist, but a bunch of extra str4 hits to the rear of a Falcon or a warwagon could do something. You'd be better off using the krak grenades all marines came with standard, but grenades didn't get the +1A charge bonus so it was a choice between 2 str4 and 1 Str6.

Getting an extra stun or maybe a weapon destroyed result on a vehicle was worth being able to roll the dice at all.

Yes, I know how the rules worked. I just do not think this represented the marines punching through the tank armour with bare hands any more than in the current edition the guardsmen being able to harm tank in melee represent that. They are using their knives, shovels, other small & improvised weaponry to jam tracks, destroy sensors, pry open hatches etc.

As I mentioned, the weapon aspect applies to all the others too. Humans use knives, bayonets, etc. Orks use knives and choppas. Neither of them could reliably damage and destroy tanks when more simulation was in the ruleset.

Obviously newer rules are less useful for looking at this, because they are intentionally more abstract for gameplay reasons.

Also, to go back to the earlier comparison, even if a gorilla could use a knife it probably couldn't use it to destroy an armoured vehicle. They'd be able to hit about as hard as battle rifle rounds at most when focused into a point.

I know Black Library can be inconsistent, but we actually have a decent amount of novel support for Space Marines ripping up tanks in melee as well. I don't think it was a coincidence that they could punch a Leman Russ to death in 4e without actually having to resort to their kraks.

Examples:

The strength in his arms built, the strength to shatter steel and buckle the hull of an armoured vehicle. He pictured exactly where his fists would strike.

- A Thousand Sons

"We are the Gal Vorbak." Argel Tal crashed a fist into the Rhino's flank, denting the armour plating.

- The First Heretic

During a particular training exercise in ambush methods, a fledgling Disciple was crushed by his own poorly-rigged log trap. One of the four - Gabre - simply levered the half-tonne log off the dead man and Mautista saw with his own eyes the way Gabre barely strained to lift it.

- Flesh and Iron

Armoured beings stormed past him. They were terrible, golden angels, and they fell upon the Guard with bolter and chainsword. They savaged the units that had escaped the release of the gas and tore the tanks apart. They were monsters who bore the garb of beauty. They were giants in the service of war turned into art. There were only five of them. There were a hundred times as many Guardsmen, and that was far too few. The battle was even more one-sided than the attack on the rebels had been. Within seconds, hulls had been ripped open, treads yanked from wheels and used as whips, and men scythed into shrieking meat. The Chaos Space Marines stood proudly in the carnage, gods well pleased by their allotment of blood. The surviving rebels emerged from their hiding places. They began to cheer, and the cry was taken up by more and more people pouring into the streets.

- Death of Antagonis

And many, many many more examples.

(Almost feels nostalgic to dig out my old library of quotes again. I've not used them while debating on here for like a decade+ now, time flies..)

Right. BL is the propaganda where marines are invincible superheroes, the game is the reality where they get killed by lasguns.

Did I trigger the "canned anti-black library complaint" keyword in the Crimson bot, or what is going on?

This was about strength and whether they can damage tanks without their weapons or not. They can in the game. The novels agree they can. No one has said a word about lasguns, this just sounds like you have an axe to grind.

Also note the wording in the first three.

Buckle. Not breach.

Dent. Not penetrate.

Lever. Not lift.

These are all different feats of strength to the preceding extremes.

Buckling and Denting can at least partially or temporarily disable armour.

The last one? It reads with some artistic license. Those golden angels. Giants. The recollection of someone utterly awed by raw power, but still exaggerating to some degree.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Did I trigger the "canned anti-black library complaint" keyword in the Crimson bot, or what is going on?

This was about strength and whether they can damage tanks without their weapons or not. They can in the game. The novels agree they can. No one has said a word about lasguns, this just sounds like you have an axe to grind.

Yeah, but the text you quoted is the typical bolter porn hyperbole. No one doubts that marines can harm vehicles; any infantry can. It is just that punching tanks to death with your fists is not how it is done.

It is just this bizarre disconnect to anything that the game depicts that exists in some of these books. Like in the last quote five marines apparently effortlessly overcome five hundred soldiers and their vehicles!
Yet on the tabletop things are much closer to the foundational lore of the game: "Give me a hundred Space Marines. Or failing that give me a thousand other troops." There is at least tenfold disagreement about the power of marines.

The disconnect is just massive, these things do not in any meaningful sense depict the same world. And this is not about right or wrong. The books say what they say, and you of course can prefer that. But this is why the discussions of the lore are so pointless: the lore is so utterly all over the place that there is no any sort of coherent reality to discuss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, lifting a half tonne log was the one thing I had no issue with, and is indeed in the ball-park of gorilla strength. They can lift more, but 500kg without much straining seems pretty reasonable for a silverback.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Further, marine strength mainly is due biscopea, which increases muscle growth. There is no indication that this is anything more magical than just extra muscle. This is combined with ossmodula creating larger and sturdier bone frame, which is certainly needed for the bigger muscles to function. That's basic marines, so really nothing gorilla wouldn't already have. Primaris marines in addition have sinew coils, which strengthens the tendons, allowing the muscles to transfer power more effectively without breaking the tendons.

None of this sounds particularly superheroic to me. Marine creation process is not realistic to begin with, but if we assume it works in even at least somewhat plausible manner, I don't see this creating anything that would be in a significantly different category than any other big primate with big muscles.

Depending on the length, tank tracks can weight up to 5 tonnes, so. I guess they were wiping (thanks for reminding me this line exists, urgh) with shorter segments.

 Crimson wrote:
The disconnect is just massive, these things do not in any meaningful sense depict the same world. And this is not about right or wrong. The books say what they say, and you of course can prefer that. But this is why the discussions of the lore are so pointless: the lore is so utterly all over the place that there is no any sort of coherent reality to discuss.

Sure, the numbers of 40k are all over the place. This ranges from both quotes like the ones I shared to all other kinds of numbers. For example, Ryza was invaded by hundreds of billions of Orks in the Cult Mechanicus Codex, against which twenty Guard regiments (lol) was considered an appropriate supporting force.

For once, the numbers are not the point. I just saw it be brought up that the game rules depict Space Marines attacking and destroying tanks without needing weapons. I pointed out that the novel material supports that level of strength. If they can buckle tank armour with their fist, they can certainly rip off all manner of things that don't want to be ripped off.

That's all. Not interested in any vendettas beyond that, be they against particular sources, particular factions, or the lore as a whole. I don't enjoy the Imperial Guard as a faction, but I am not going to rant about the faction being childish or dumb or whatever. I find that sort of attitude tiring.

 Haighus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
A squad of marines could absolutely do something in melee to lighter vehicles in previous editions with just their fists. It wasn't as good as maybe the Sergeant with a power fist, but a bunch of extra str4 hits to the rear of a Falcon or a warwagon could do something. You'd be better off using the krak grenades all marines came with standard, but grenades didn't get the +1A charge bonus so it was a choice between 2 str4 and 1 Str6.

Getting an extra stun or maybe a weapon destroyed result on a vehicle was worth being able to roll the dice at all. Granted you couldn't KILL the vehicle with a glancing hit, unless the vehicle took multiple crew stun or shaken results and failed their "morale" check. In which case they would abandon the vehicle and insta-kill it.

Glances could kill in every edition where that was a mechanism. It took longest in 5th, where the vehicle essentially had to be completely mission-killed by immobilising and destroying all weapons, but in 3rd-4th glances could directly wreck a vehicle, and 6th-7th had hull points.

Not sure where you are getting the morale check mechanism from? Sounds like an optional rule or a homebrew.

IIRC it was 4th edition. As I recall, the only difference between a Glance and a Penetrating hit was that Glances had a -2 penalty on the damage chart(which made the destroyed or explodes result impossible without another bonus). The lowest two results on the vehicle chart were Crew Stunned and Crew Shaken. Stunned was basically you became BS1 for a round but could act normally. Shaken was BS1 and couldn't move, and if a vehicle that was Shaken suffered another Shaken(and maybe stunned as well) result in the same turn had to roll a D6 and on a 5 or a 6 the vehicle was considered destroyed as the crew bailed out. POTMS might have made you immune to this as well.

Sorry to say you misremember. I went digging!





This is all it says about shaken/stunned.

Hmmm, I could swear I remember multiple results giving a chance for the crew to panic and destroy the vehicle. Maybe 3rd edition?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hmmm, I could swear I remember multiple results giving a chance for the crew to panic and destroy the vehicle. Maybe 3rd edition?

Maybe in 2nd?

The very concept of crew disappears halfway through 3rd edition, and early 3rd only had them matter if you had a crew escape mechanism upgrade... The 1st IG codex of 3rd had the escape mechanism in the armoury, but the 2nd codex (3.5th) did not. The main rules did not mention crew. It is conceivable it was an optional rule in Chapter Approved or Citadel Journal like the Advanced Night Fighting rules, but if so I've never seen it.

4th had a mechanism where a penetrating hit on a transport forced occupants to disembark as an overcorrection to 3rd ed Rhino rush. This did not require a morale test, but it would have been a better rule if it did. I wouldn't be surprised if that was houseruled in places. Crew had gone though.

The glancing hit table in 4e destroyed the vehicle on a 6 (which I remember well because I played Orks back then and often relied on an unlikely hit and then an unlikely glance and finally an unlikely destroyed result.

5e is where there was one table and glancing was -2 and you couldn't destroy on a glance. I believe 6e was where they introduced hull points where you could stack glances to kill a vehicle like a worse version of wounds.

 Da Boss wrote:
The glancing hit table in 4e destroyed the vehicle on a 6 (which I remember well because I played Orks back then and often relied on an unlikely hit and then an unlikely glance and finally an unlikely destroyed result.

5e is where there was one table and glancing was -2 and you couldn't destroy on a glance. I believe 6e was where they introduced hull points where you could stack glances to kill a vehicle like a worse version of wounds.

Glances could also wreck a vehicle directly in 3rd.

5th edition was the only edition where that wasn't possible short of destroying all weapons on the vehicle and immobilising it, unless there were other modifiers like being AP1 or targeting an open-topped vehicle.

You could kill a vehicle with a glance in 3rd and 4th edition. Glancing had it's own chart, and a 6 was Vehicle Destroyed. Marines hitting on S4 could kill a Vehicle. . . But so could Catachan Guardsmen.

I never really thought those mechanics were any great realistic representation of what is going on in CC though. It's not like punching through steel plates or anything. More like vehicles have small, damageable bits, and anything on the 40k battlefield has some sort of weapon (or is a weapon, Tyranids), and up close there are possibilities for extra targeted attacks. Against an open topped, AV 10 Ork Vehicle you could just punch the driver. Against a Rhino, accessing the "rear" could represent being able to fire into the exhausts or prying open vents to drop grenades into, or pull wires out of, or whatever.

I'm not picturing anybody punching through armor plate. Remember a bear box at a campsite is just a steel box, but it's impenetrable by a bear. I don't think a Marine is stronger than a large bear. A marine in combat is more motivated and smarter at solving the problem though, and carries a mini grenade launcher.

. . .
Also, regarding that set of rules there are some glaring problems to begin with. Remember Guardsmen can't hurt an open-topped vehicle at AV 10. But in reality they could just shoot the exposed driver. So, yeah. Not the best yardstick to measure by.

 Insectum7 wrote:
You could kill a vehicle with a glance in 3rd and 4th edition. Glancing had it's own chart, and a 6 was Vehicle Destroyed. Marines hitting on S4 could kill a Vehicle. . . But so could Catachan Guardsmen.

I never really thought those mechanics were any great realistic representation of what is going on in CC though. It's not like punching through steel plates or anything. More like vehicles have small, damageable bits, and anything on the 40k battlefield has some sort of weapon (or is a weapon, Tyranids), and up close there are possibilities for extra targeted attacks. Against an open topped, AV 10 Ork Vehicle you could just punch the driver. Against a Rhino, accessing the "rear" could represent being able to fire into the exhausts or prying open vents to drop grenades into, or pull wires out of, or whatever.

I'm not picturing anybody punching through armor plate. Remember a bear box at a campsite is just a steel box, but it's impenetrable by a bear. I don't think a Marine is stronger than a large bear. A marine in combat is more motivated and smarter at solving the problem though, and carries a mini grenade launcher.

. . .
Also, regarding that set of rules there are some glaring problems to begin with. Remember Guardsmen can't hurt an open-topped vehicle at AV 10. But in reality they could just shoot the exposed driver. So, yeah. Not the best yardstick to measure by.

Catachans weren't S4 in 3rd/4th. That was a much later thing. Codex: Catachans made them WS4.

I get what you are saying, but grenades were genuinely separate (frags being S4 against vehicles) and generally a purchasable upgrade that wasn't standard. A Marine without grenades could still take out a vehicle. Granted, they usually had bolt weapons and the abstraction of melee does suggest some degree of point-blank shooting.

That said, the same should apply to boyz, who also had a S4 gun yet could not damage tanks in melee unless they specifically had stikkbombs (or later with furious charge by charging for the strength boost). The implication is still that a basic Marine was stronger and better able to damage stuff than a basic boy.

Again, it depends on how you define destroyed within the scope of a 40K Battle.

Marines and Catachan’s may very well have the raw strength to plug up exhausts and jam weapons.

Within the scope of a 40K game? That’s your tank knacked, even if the repair job is pretty straight forward. Clear whatever it is jamming your traversal, swap out horrifically squeezed exhaust ports, remount tracks etc.

The difference between broken for now, and completely undefethable.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Again, it depends on how you define destroyed within the scope of a 40K Battle.

Marines and Catachan’s may very well have the raw strength to plug up exhausts and jam weapons.

Within the scope of a 40K game? That’s your tank knacked, even if the repair job is pretty straight forward. Clear whatever it is jamming your traversal, swap out horrifically squeezed exhaust ports, remount tracks etc.

The difference between broken for now, and completely undefethable.

Within the scope of the rules of the time, those would be immobilised or weapon destroyed results though. I suppose conceivably a "wrecked" result on the damage table could be a total mission kill where all weapons and the mobility are knackered in one round of combat without directly harming any of the crew inside. The rules had separate provision for that by accumulating separate weapon destroyed and immobilised results until the vehicle no longer functioned though, so I'm not convinced that was the intention of glancing being able to destroy a vehicle on a single roll on the damage table.

Again, Catachans could not do this unless they had grenades or a power fist. They were S3. Where did S4 Catachan come from as an oldhammer legend? Were Catachan S4 in 2nd edition?

@Haighus: Good note about Catatchans being WS4 not S4.

I agree with everything else, grenades etc. but my overall point is really that that system was so abstracted that you can't really pull lore details from it. The overall conveyed simulation experience is Marines are big and strong and trained and have power armor and good equipment, and therefore they have a chance to do something against an armored vehicle if able to get at vulnerable locations. Orks are big and strong and mean but not as well equipped and probably less coordinated and therefore can only hurt an armored vehicle if they specifically brought more specialized equipment.

But nowhere in that am I thinking, oh yeah totally the Marines are tearing off chunks of armor punching tanks to death.

And I think the gold standard for vehicle representation would have to be 2nd ed anyways, which was far more detailed and guardsmen actually could shoot exposed crewmen. . . And Marines could typically do jack **** with their fists, but they all carried Krak grenades by default.

I was relying on a previous post re S4 Catachans

But for most 40K tanks? Knock out the engine, knock out its power. Not universally, no. But if your main guns rely on power to make go boom or pew, or to traverse their firing angles? Engine go pop, everything else switch off.

Hence, a disabled vehicle doesn’t mean it’s basically scrap.

 Insectum7 wrote:
@Haighus: Good note about Catatchans being WS4 not S4.

I agree with everything else, grenades etc. but my overall point is really that that system was so abstracted that you can't really pull lore details from it. The overall conveyed simulation experience is Marines are big and strong and trained and have power armor and good equipment, and therefore they have a chance to do something against an armored vehicle if able to get at vulnerable locations. Orks are big and strong and mean but not as well equipped and probably less coordinated and therefore can only hurt an armored vehicle if they specifically brought more specialized equipment.

But nowhere in that am I thinking, oh yeah totally the Marines are tearing off chunks of armor punching tanks to death.

And I think the gold standard for vehicle representation would have to be 2nd ed anyways, which was far more detailed and guardsmen actually could shoot exposed crewmen. . . And Marines could typically do jack **** with their fists, but they all carried Krak grenades by default.

That's fair, but I'm not familiar with 2nd and feel the 3rd-through... I think 6th (can't find some of my Ork codices to check) paradigm is helpful for giving the rough indication that Ork boyz are supposed to be closer in strength to humans than Marines. The ability to damage tanks was a side point about the impact of the strength difference between 3 and 4.

This was all in support of the original question about choppers and whether a human could wield them. Which they can if they are strong, with difficulty.

That said, choppers vary a lot in size- I've taken a handy picture demonstrating this but Dakka's image uploader is currently down so I've been skirting this a bit in the hopes it'll be fixed soon... Also a relevant photo re. Boyz and strength.

For example? Eldar Falcon chassis. Esoteric solutions and defences and that aside? Those are some lovely big and bleeding obvious engine intakes there! Same for you, Mr Tau.

Again putting high and esoteric solutions to an obvious problem aside? One could with the right opportunity plug such an intake up with mud and rocks and give it a temporarily bad time.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I was relying on a previous post re S4 Catachans

But for most 40K tanks? Knock out the engine, knock out its power. Not universally, no. But if your main guns rely on power to make go boom or pew, or to traverse their firing angles? Engine go pop, everything else switch off.

Hence, a disabled vehicle doesn’t mean it’s basically scrap.

Do we actually have any examples of that? Does taking out a Leman Russ engine stop the battle cannon or heavy bolters firing? Even the hull lascannon has its own power supply, IIRC, and turrets almost certainly have a manual back up for traversing.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't think a Marine is stronger than a large bear.

I'm eagerly awaiting a quote from a bolter porn book where a marine arm wrestles a bear with his pinky finger so hard that the bear explodes.

This is why I addressed it in broad terms. And from my original example? Multiple attacking individuals gumming up different systems.

If your engine has been knocked out, and your weapons jammed in position one way or the other? Within the scope of a 40K battle, you’re a non-entity. Your crew can be fine. The repairs can be comparatively trivial. But for the battle at hand? Yer out!

And “all” it takes is the training and sufficient strength to wedge a rock where a rock shouldn’t be, with enough force it’ll take an appropriate tool, time and leverage to pop it back out.

Let’s consider a Battle Cannon. They’re chunky lads, and I’m not going to claim or argue that outside of a Powerfist, any Astartes could deform the barrel, or slice through it within the same 40K battle time with a Chainsword.

But? Fully armoured? I do reckon an Astartes could force a suitably sized bit of rock or other debris down the barrel far enough to stop it firing, and require a crowbar or whatever to winkle it back out.

If I could take you back to childhood for a second? When you and I were wee, and had trouble undoing the lid on a jam jar. Oh, we’d get there in the end. Maybe we’d have to run it under the hot tap. But we’d get there. Here? It’s the Astartes securing that lid in the first place. Not to the point of “well I might as well just shatter the jar then hope for the best”, no. But to the point the effort expended in jamming it right on is disproportionate to the effort of getting it off.

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't think a Marine is stronger than a large bear.

I'm eagerly awaiting a quote from a bolter porn book where a marine arm wrestles a bear with his pinky finger so hard that the bear explodes.

For reals.

And that's probably just a standard trial before induction and all their implants etc.



@Haighus: Fair, fair. To the OP question I would just point out that Repentia (humans) weild Evicerators (very heavy CC weapons) and say that, sure, strong humans can wield choppas.

Actually eff it, Yarrick wields an ork power fist.

That depends. Like. Seriously.

A Bear has no combat training, only instinct. Powerful as a bear is? I’m really don’t think it could penetrate power armour.

So obvious “I don’t like Marines therefore they’re wimps, especially if I ignore all background because I’ve decided they’re wimps and anyone relying on that background I’ve random decided shouldn’t apply because my prejudiced position” tripe aside?*

Pinky wrestle a Bear? No. That’s silly. But come out on top? Let’s just say that, based on the background a certain poster won’t accept? It’s not the Bear surviving that scrap.

*Crimson. I’m referring to Crimson.

Again, it was about physical strength, not about armour. Bear is stronger.

And I like marines. A lot. That's why I find the cringe fanboyish lore that is so often written for them so frustrating. I don't like the puerile writers making the marines embarrassing.

A bear can be stronger tha a Marine. SHOULD be stronger than a Marine. It's just that a Marine is wearing a bear proof suit like that one guy built.

Maybe don’t look too deep into that’s guy’s efforts?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Maybe don’t look too deep into that’s guy’s efforts?

I have no idea what you're implying or referring to by that.

Unless you mean to tell me he didn't actually wrestle bears I guess?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Maybe don’t look too deep into that’s guy’s efforts?

I have no idea what you're implying or referring to by that.

Unless you mean to tell me he didn't actually wrestle bears I guess?

The bears wouldn't attack his suit.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Maybe don’t look too deep into that’s guy’s efforts?

I have no idea what you're implying or referring to by that.

Unless you mean to tell me he didn't actually wrestle bears I guess?

The bears wouldn't attack his suit.

So it worked perfectly then!

Haha. Perfect!

 Insectum7 wrote:
Actually eff it, Yarrick wields an ork power fist.

He also uses a storm bolter one-handed, gets back up when he dies, and generally is a man of iron (though probably not a Man of Iron).

He is like 40k Batman.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Actually eff it, Yarrick wields an ork power fist.

He also uses a storm bolter one-handed, gets back up when he dies, and generally is a man of iron (though probably not a Man of Iron).

He is like 40k Batman.

Yarrick is definitely not a standard benchmark.

Not sure if the stormbolter is helpful though. He is literally the only example of a Guard handheld stormbolter in models or artwork (not counting models converted using the Yarrick stormbolter like this guy:). We sadly never got another example before stormbolters were removed from the Guard infantry armoury in 5th edition. The weapon is listed as two handed in the armoury, but it also is in the Marine armoury and they never seem to hold them in two hands in the model range. Only the Sororitas stormbolters are actually in a two-handed grip.

I'd like to see Guard stormbolters being a thing again. And Guard combi-bolters.

To be fair, I hear a lot of characters are getting back up after they die these days . . .

I think it was more a difference in fighting style than raw strength. A tactical marine was S4 A1 I4 while a shoota boy was S3 A2 I2. That's pretty comparable but presumably space marines favor careful strikes while orks just aggressively brawl.

If upgraded to veterans the space marines would become A2 and the orks (skarboys) would become S4.

Ashiraya wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Eventually all Orks became skarboy S4- on a par with the Marine strength bracket (my headcanon is that the modern lists focus on warbands from major Waaaghs like Ghazghkulls, which are full of skarboyz only).

I think it's just stat creep tbh. Compared to 4e, Ork Boyz have gained a point of strength, a point of toughness, a point of save, a point of AP on their weapons, and have greatly benefitted from the removal of initiative (considering their awful i2 they had prior).

Compare to their in-lore most common opponent, the guardsman, who has gained... nothing at all.

Crimson wrote:Yeah, I know how old rules worked. So what? That is outdated now, just like orks being no stronger than guardsmen.

<snip>



Like look at this. The ork is a huge slab of meat. Sure he is shorter than a marine, but is actually more beefy. It seems to me obviously the right call to put him in the same s4 bracket with the marine instead of the s3 bracket with the guardsman.

Been meaning to address this and bring it back round to the original discussion.

There has been stat creep for Orks, but there has also been scale creep.

Orks were S3 in 3rd edition, when they got the first iterations of the modern Ork aesthetic (broadly speaking, technically the earliest models were released for GorkaMorka at the tail-end of 2nd edition). They went up to S4 in 8th edition in 2017.

This is how the boyz looked at the beginning of 3rd edition- these are the GorkaMorka boyz, and are pretty scrawny and work well as feral Orks. They are also very comparable to the Armageddon Ork hunters they face (based on the Catachan plastics):

We have some comparable art too:

The Ork is beefier, but not massively so.

Then the 3rd edition Ork boyz are a bit chunkier, in line with most 3rd edition models. I think it is reasonable that these are at the upper end of S3:


Aside from the 5th edition starter-set boyz, those 3rd edition models remained the current models all the way into 2021 in 9th edition, when a new box of (monopose) boys were released. I disagreed with them being upped to S4 in 8th edition, but not later as the next section makes clear.

Now, here is a size comparison for Ork boyz. From left to right you have the recent Warhammer + Kasrkin sergeant exclusive, a 3rd edition stormtrooper sergeant, a 3rd edition Steel Legion trooper, a 3rd edition Ork boy, a 5th edition Black Reach boy, and a 9th edition boy:


Notice how the 3rd and 5th edition boyz are pretty comparable, and much closer in size to the Guardsmen of the era. Meanwhile the 9th edition boy is noticeably chunkier and bigger and far, far more substantial than the contemporary Guardsman, who in contrast has become more slender than his forebears.

Essentially, the modern Ork boy is bigger, both in actual terms and comparative terms to the scaling of the time, and reasonably should be stronger than the older Ork boy. They are quite literally skarboyz to the older boyz:

Skarboyz were S4 to the boyz S3 in 3rd edition when they had rules- an intermediate between boyz and nobz.


How does this relate to humans wielding choppas, you say? Well, as a result of the huge variety of Ork models and their sizes, there is an equally huge variety of Ork choppas. See this comparison of different choppas (unfortunately I don't yet have a GorkaMorka Ork or a Warboss choppa to add to this)- I is from the 3rd edition Ork boy kit, II is from the Black Reach Ork boyz, III is from the 2021 Ork boyz, IV is from the 3rd edition metal nobz, and V is from the Black Reach nobz:

The 2021 boy choppa is effectively the same size as the nob choppa from 3rd edition! The older boy choppas are far smaller and would be much more manageable for a human to try and wield. I realise I should have included a human weapon for scale, but the 3rd edition boy choppa really isn't dramatically different to human-scaled weapons. This all fits with older boy models representing smaller, weaker, probably-younger Orks than the newer models.

Going back to the actual lore as posted upthread:

I think that stronger Ork hunters being able to wield choppas on the smaller end of the spectrum, albeit with some difficulty, is entirely reasonable.

It doesn't take much to show that the equipment on models in 40k have exaggerated proportions and therefore is an invalid point of reference.

Take space marine bolters. We have detailed descriptions across 40 years that tell us how many bolts on average their magazines carry. It's usually between 24 and 30.

But if you look at any version of a bolter with exposed bolts in its magazine, you'll see they can't carry any more than at most 10.

That's ignoring the facts that models of pistols are the same size as real world long arms, or at least things like the FNP90.

Compare a guard bolt pistol to the arm carrying it, it's about 4/5ths the length of the arm, which are around 0.75m long. So the bolt pistol is about 60cm long, or 2 feet.

The las pistol model is slightly longer because of its barrel, so it would 65-70 cm long. Shuriken pistols are also ridiculously huge, Sword blades are more than 10x thicker than a real sword would be and are blunt.

ergo, they are only good at showing you what they look like, and nothing else.

Taking miniature proportions at face value is why so many cosplayers look absolutely ridiculous carrying suit case size pistols and melee weapons that look like nerf bats.

Similarly you can't take the muscle size of an ork model as a 1:1 of what they would look like.

Unless we are all to believe that humans in the 41st millennium are also bobble heads with hulk smash fists, there are far too many incongruities to ever take the models as 1:1 depictions.

As for destroying vehicle engines stopping the rest of the vehicle, that happened in 2nd ed if you got the right result. https://beardedquail.blogspot.com/2017/06/warhammer-40000-2nd-edition-200th-blog.html

A whirlwind that is damaged on the hull and has its engine destroyed also kills all its crew, effectively stopping its guns working :p

In 2nd ed engine destruction pretty much always stopped the vehicle acting.

Haighus 818985 11825694 5cb629f12cb23 wrote:
I think that stronger Ork hunters being able to wield choppas on the smaller end of the spectrum, albeit with some difficulty, is entirely reasonable.

Its worth remembering as well, ork hunters were a catachan regiment, so on the upper end of human size and strength

 Lycannus wrote:

Haighus 818985 11825694 5cb629f12cb23 wrote:
I think that stronger Ork hunters being able to wield choppas on the smaller end of the spectrum, albeit with some difficulty, is entirely reasonable.

Its worth remembering as well, ork hunters were a catachan regiment, so on the upper end of human size and strength

I think you might be confusing the origins of the models with the lore origins. The studio models were converted from Catachans.

In the lore, however, the Armageddon Ork hunters were formed by amalgamating the survivors of several regiments sent in to the equatorial jungles of Armageddon for a series of purges targeting the feral Ork population after the Second War for Armageddon. As such, they had origins from multiple worlds, although probably most of the regiments would have been from Armageddon itself. It seems the Ork hunters still adopt survivors from other regiments sent in to support them, although I don't know if this is their only source of replacements.

This was actually acknowledged in their rules. Initially, during their introduction in the Third War global campaign event, players were advised to represent them using the Deathworld Veterans army list found in Codex: Catachans. However, they later got a dedicated list in Chapter Approved which was based on the Deathworld Veterans list but deliberately watered down the special rules to show how they were not true born-and-bred deathworlders and could never quite achieve the same level of skill in jungles, but were as close as a human from elsewhere could get.

That said, it is entirely possible that at least one of the regiments amalgamated into the Ork hunters contained Catachans, but they are probably a small proportion at most.