Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mahtamori wrote:By making "fluff marines" you compare them to something. It's only natural that others will compare other armies to marines and come to the conclusion that "if space marines matches fluff so godawful, then other armies will as well".

So, that said, which archetype do you compare the "fluff marines" to?

Primarily to IG infantry and a fair few different Tyranid units.

And there are a few reasons as to why I'm only changing Marines:
1) Nobody I play with collects the armies that have been complained about the most (mainly Orks).
2) I collect IG (and collected Space Marines before that), so from amongst all my friends, I'm the one changing Imperials. As humans are pretty much the basis against which all other troops are juxtaposed, I won't be changing them. Thus, Marines for now.
3) As mentioned above, my friends are working on other armies. I've said it plenty of times throughout the thread, and yet still receive complaints about my isolated changes to Marines being biased and inconsiderate.

Mahtamori wrote:However, don't lose sight of the limitations and scale of the system. Twice the strength characteristic is several times stronger, not twice as strong, for example. What fits into the WS4 category is pretty damned vast, the step up to WS5 is huge.

Yeah, I mean, I do realise what you guys are saying, and that the transition to WS5 and BS5 might seem huge, but in my opinion those stats represent the pinnacle of (unaugmented and non-genetically-modified) human skill... thus the earlier comparison to Lord Commissars. I firmly believe that a fully-fledged Astartes, recruited from the very best stock humanity has to offer, with all the superhuman physiological and psychological advantages bestowed upon him, as well as his vast capacity (and will) to learn and ceaseless devotion to the development and practice of his own martial skills, coupled with his extensive first-hand combat experience, has reached (and has the potential to surpass) that pinnacle due to his inhuman nature.

As for strength, I mentioned earlier that it was one of the modified characteristics I was least certain about. I'll put that section in the OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chaos Lord Gir wrote:I quite like these ideas personally, perfect for custom scenarios/house rules and so on.

Also a note onto the Ork debate Melissa made, it raised some good points but I found the style of execution a tad too... Well out right hostile.

I am now tempted to do more fluff chaos stats for my marines, but Tzneetch alone knows how much rage will be thrown in my direction! THen again, I always thought veterans of over 10,000 years of combat would deserve more than marines who have only been around for 100-200 years.

You should make them more varied too... some of them are 10 millennia old veterans with incredibly advanced skills, mutations and supernatural abilities, others are mere slaves and warp-addled conscripts. Ramp it up to 11 on the insanity scale!

I'd love to see whatever you come up with...

I agree with Melissa on pretty much every point.
I think the agree of "fluff marines" without also having "fluff orks", "fluff eldar", "fluff necrons" and so on to be an absolute joke.

That said
Looks solid, taken in a very specific comparison exclusively with guardsmen and based on the right choice picks of BL fluff.

What Melissa and others are saying is that, taken out of that very narrow mentality, it falls apart rather quickly.

Games Workshop does like claiming that Space Marines are the best at everything to ever exist.
But that's not really true, is it? (Or even very interesting, but I'm not going to get into that)
They lose battles. They lose even battles. They lose battles when they have the upper hand.
Captains can and do lose against warbosses. Or even against nobs.
Captains are pulped, instantly, by rockets and artillery: Centuries of service ended in a flash.
It takes very UNIQUE captains, of truly tremendous destiny and determination, to not suffer such an ignoble end. Same as it takes a very UNIQUE commissar to not do the same.
Lysander, for instance. Or Yarrick.

Of course, feel free to use what rules you want with your friends. And while it might be a fun thought experiment to make "fluff-accurate" versions of every army, this is probably impossible due to the wild, vast inconsistencies of the fluff itself (are Space Marine bolters incredibly awesome gargantuan weapons that make human bolters used by mere sisters of battle or commissars look like jokes by comparison, or are they just larger to fit the sausage fingers of the astarte? The fluff can't even decide on this detail, let alone more important matters).

That said, I think the rules as they already stand are good for comparing marines and guardsmen.
Guardsman firing at a marine: 5% chance to cause an incapacitating injury.
The opposite: 40% chance.

What matters more is that you keep in mind that what counts as an incapacitated differs and varies: Not every casualty is a kill.

For fluff to work you'll always have to squint a little.

Blatant fanboyism won't help anyone, and saying things like "Space Marine Captains would be able to duel Yarrick into submission with contemptous ease, and normal Lord Commissars are an absolute joke compared to a Tactical Marine, and an Astarte can take on two warbosses with ease, and..." will definitely not convince anyone, because it makes the speaker sound rather like a ten year old who's utterly convinced that their army is the best ever. Or Matt Ward.

Various fluff shows various things. You'll never get a clear consensus on what happens if a Space Marine is shot with a lasgun without armor for instance. The camp that suggests that he falls into a crumpled heap and has to await medical aid is, in my opinion, probably closer than the camp going "It will bounce off like he's superman, then he will rip you in half with his bare hands, because he's a Spess Mehreen, and he's Awesome!".


All of that said... It looks alright from a gameplay standpoint. A fluff standpoint, no, I think it looks hideous from a fluff standpoint if you compare it to anything but Guardsmen from the right bits of Black Library novels, but I'd probably play against them in a friendly game without much complaint.
And ultimately that's the problem that Melissa has: If these are supposed to be fluff marines, they have to be fluff marines as compared to everything else, and that's not the case. Everyone will have their own idea of what is the right fluff to look at too, and everyone's idea of what is a proper fluffy power level always tends to skew toward the army they happen to be playing. I can't say it surprises me, but you can't be blind to your own bias when it comes to these things (I tend to skew toward anything that makes marines look a little weaker, for instance, because them being the ultimate everything of everywhere forever just makes me roll my eyes and wonder why the Eldar never seem to have a problem matching marines kill-for-kill when they butt heads).

Perhaps the point could have been made in a more civil way, but ultimately: It doesn't work as a fluffy army list because it's not taken in the full context that is required to make a fluffy army list, a context which is impossible and contradictive due to the fluff writers being as biased as anyone else.
Mechanically speaking, it looks alright, but I'm afraid that it's just not going to work, for most people, for its intended purpose.
The only way for it to happen would be to make fluff lists for every other army as well. And then we have to ask ourselves "who wins in a match between an assault marine and a banshee?", and while the gameplay answer can be found out with dice, the fluff answer always be "Who's writing the story?"


I suppose they do make good fluff marines as written by Matt Ward, though. (Please note that this final comment is facetious and should not be taken very seriously)

I'l give it a crack tonight, fingers cross my imagination works!

Good luck, GIR.

mynamelegend wrote:I think the agree of "fluff marines" without also having "fluff orks", "fluff eldar", "fluff necrons" and so on to be an absolute joke.

mynamelegend wrote:I think it looks hideous from a fluff standpoint if you compare it to anything but Guardsmen from the right bits of Black Library novels, but I'd probably play against them in a friendly game without much complaint.

mynamelegend wrote:What Melissa and others are saying is that, taken out of that very narrow mentality, it falls apart rather quickly.

mynamelegend wrote:If these are supposed to be fluff marines, they have to be fluff marines as compared to everything else, and that's not the case. Everyone will have their own idea of what is the right fluff to look at too, and everyone's idea of what is a proper fluffy power level always tends to skew toward the army they happen to be playing.

Ok, I won't say this again. It's getting ridiculous.

1) I do not know enough about Orks, Eldar or whatever to make any accurate "fluffy" rules for them.
2) I do not play against anybody who collects those armies, so it doesn't matter anyway, at least not to my group and I.
3) The guys I do play against are, as a matter of fact, doing the exact same thing I am, right now, with their own armies.
4) Anybody else who decides to try out these Marines can work out their own rules for other factions, if it bothers them so much that I haven't. The custom rules in the OP are for my own personal use ONLY, and contrary to popular belief, I do not intend to force them upon anybody else.

mynamelegend wrote:Games Workshop does like claiming that Space Marines are the best at everything to ever exist.
But that's not really true, is it? (Or even very interesting, but I'm not going to get into that)
They lose battles. They lose even battles. They lose battles when they have the upper hand.

I'm aware of that. What relevance does it have to this thread though?

mynamelegend wrote:Captains can and do lose against warbosses. Or even against nobs.
Captains are pulped, instantly, by rockets and artillery: Centuries of service ended in a flash.
It takes very UNIQUE captains, of truly tremendous destiny and determination, to not suffer such an ignoble end.

Which is why I stated earlier that I'll probably reduce their Wounds and remove Eternal Warrior, and asked for opinions.

mynamelegend wrote:What matters more is that you keep in mind that what counts as an incapacitated differs and varies: Not every casualty is a kill.

I've taken that into account. Marines, although difficult to wound, are far harder to incapacitate (ie, put out of the fight for good). That's why they have T4, W2 and FNP.

mynamelegend wrote:Blatant fanboyism won't help anyone, and saying things like "Space Marine Captains would be able to duel Yarrick into submission with contemptous ease, and normal Lord Commissars are an absolute joke compared to a Tactical Marine, and an Astarte can take on two warbosses with ease, and..." will definitely not convince anyone, because it makes the speaker sound rather like a ten year old who's utterly convinced that their army is the best ever. Or Matt Ward.

I honestly don't know where this is coming from.

- I never even mentioned Yarrick.
- I argued that fully-initiated Battle Brothers should be equally-skilled to a Lord Commissar, or at least skilled enough to fall under the same WS and BS categories.
- I pointed out that under these custom rules, Captains are the only Astartes capable of even hoping to defeat a Warboss 1 vs 1... exactly what Melissia was arguing.

mynamelegend wrote:Various fluff shows various things. You'll never get a clear consensus on what happens if a Space Marine is shot with a lasgun without armor for instance. The camp that suggests that he falls into a crumpled heap and has to await medical aid is, in my opinion, probably closer than the camp going "It will bounce off like he's superman, then he will rip you in half with his bare hands, because he's a Spess Mehreen, and he's Awesome!".

There's a good chance that such a shot would cause a severe wound... my argument isn't that Marines are impossible to hurt, but that they can fight through injuries that would kill a Guardsman, Ork, etc.

mynamelegend wrote:I can't say it surprises me, but you can't be blind to your own bias when it comes to these things (I tend to skew toward anything that makes marines look a little weaker, for instance, because them being the ultimate everything of everywhere forever just makes me roll my eyes and wonder why the Eldar never seem to have a problem matching marines kill-for-kill when they butt heads).

In a comparison between Marines and Aspect Warriors, they will never be a perfectly equal match, because both have different strengths. The situation at hand will usually suit one more than the other... unfortunately, Eldar strengths are harder to represent with a statline change alone.

mynamelegend wrote:Perhaps the point could have been made in a more civil way, but ultimately: It doesn't work as a fluffy army list because it's not taken in the full context that is required to make a fluffy army list, a context which is impossible and contradictive due to the fluff writers being as biased as anyone else.

mynamelegend wrote:The only way for it to happen would be to make fluff lists for every other army as well. And then we have to ask ourselves "who wins in a match between an assault marine and a banshee?", and while the gameplay answer can be found out with dice, the fluff answer always be "Who's writing the story?"

Yes, but you can't automatically assume that any BL and Codex authors who portray Marines in a good light are being biased. After all, they don't represent 40k fluff... they dictate it.

mynamelegend wrote:Mechanically speaking, it looks alright, but I'm afraid that it's just not going to work, for most people, for its intended purpose.

And what, other that for the benefit of my friends and I, is its "intended purpose"?

mynamelegend wrote:I suppose they do make good fluff marines as written by Matt Ward, though. (Please note that this final comment is facetious and should not be taken very seriously)

Ok.

Chaos Lord Gir wrote:I'l give it a crack tonight, fingers cross my imagination works!

You gotta believe man!

I might of course have misunderstood your intended purpose.
If your intended purpose was "I wish to make marines that are stronger than they currently are", then your suggested fan-rules are good for their intended purpose.
If your intended purpose was "I wish to make an alternate ruleset to play with my buddies", then your suggested fan-rules are good for their intended purpose.
If your intended purpose, however, was "I wish to make a ruleset that more accurately represents the background of the Warhammer 40,000 setting", then your suggested fan-rules are not suitable for their intended purpose.

If your intended purpose was not to more accurately depict the fluff of the 40k setting with your rules, then my apologies, you can feel free to disregard both my comments and probably Melissa's as well.
But if your intended purpose was to more accurately depict the fluff of the 40k setting? The fact that you find vehement opponents with good and clearly made points should, if nothing else, suggest that perhaps you need to rethink your approach.

My suggestion would be to not only consider the Space Marines when compared to Guardsmen. Because then you will not get a good full view of the Space Marines' power level by fluff. You need to take them in the context of the entire setting, not only their own allies.
If you do not believe yourself suitably prepared to make an educated guess on the fluff-relative power levels of a Space Marine and an Ork, or a Space Marine and an Eldar, or the Space Marines and bloodletters, then perhaps you need to do more research on the background of the races that oppose the Space Marines, then either look at their stats and dictate your suggested changes around that, or suggest changes to their stats that more accurately form a whole image.

Simply put: If you do not know enough about orks and eldar to make accurate fluff rules for them, then by necessity you do not know enough about Space Marines, Tyranids, Orks, Daemons, Necrons, the various human factions or Tau to make accurate fluff rules for them either.
Accurate fluff rules, to actually be accurate fluff rules, would need to be accurate when scrutinized from every viewpoint. If they only work when you look at them in this light, from this angle, and squint a little? Then they are probably not accurate fluff rules after all, merely an optical illusion of being such.

I'm trying to not be hostile. I'd appreciate it if the favor is returned.

If you do not care for the opinions of people on the forums regarding your attempts as to making alternate rules for Space Marines that better represent their fluff, then why did you ask?

mynamelegend wrote:If your intended purpose was "I wish to make an alternate ruleset to play with my buddies", then your suggested fan-rules are good for their intended purpose.
If your intended purpose, however, was "I wish to make a ruleset that more accurately represents the background of the Warhammer 40,000 setting", then your suggested fan-rules are not suitable for their intended purpose.

I intended to do both, to a degree, and don't quite see why the two are mutually exclusive.

I'd appreciate it if you'd explain, in further detail, why the rules in the OP misrepresent current Black Library and codex canon.

And I understand that you're no doubt sick of the "Marines are best" attitude, which as you said is why you tend to bias yourself against them. I feel a little like that too at times, especially towards the poster-smurfs. But as I specifically asked Melissia (to no avail), could you please tell me the reasoning behind your disapproval? Keeping in mind that the rules in the OP don't take into consideration current Eldar, Ork or many other factions' default stats, as they won't really be a factor.

Obviously troops like Aspect Warriors for example would need to be more powerful than they currently are against these Marines (not to counter these Marines specifically, but as a general improvement in individual quality that it'd be nice to see anyway). I haven't done that here, and I probably won't (as nobody in our gaming group plays as Eldar, Orks, Tau, etc). However, I'm interested to see how you'd juxtapose Eldar units with these Marines.

mynamelegend wrote:The fact that you find vehement opponents with good and clearly made points should, if nothing else, suggest that perhaps you need to rethink your approach.

I have already made several changes and am prepared to make more, if I find said changes justified.

Most of what has been posted in opposition to these rules has been personal opinion or non-factual, and has led to several debates. But I'm always prepared to listen to reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mynamelegend wrote:My suggestion would be to not only consider the Space Marines when compared to Guardsmen. Because then you will not get a good full view of the Space Marines' power level by fluff. You need to take them in the context of the entire setting, not only their own allies.
If you do not believe yourself suitably prepared to make an educated guess on the fluff-relative power levels of a Space Marine and an Ork, or a Space Marine and an Eldar, or the Space Marines and bloodletters, then perhaps you need to do more research on the background of the races that oppose the Space Marines, then either look at their stats and dictate your suggested changes around that, or suggest changes to their stats that more accurately form a whole image.

Simply put: If you do not know enough about orks and eldar to make accurate fluff rules for them, then by necessity you do not know enough about Space Marines, Tyranids, Orks, Daemons, Necrons, the various human factions or Tau to make accurate fluff rules for them either.
Accurate fluff rules, to actually be accurate fluff rules, would need to be accurate when scrutinized from every viewpoint. If they only work when you look at them in this light, from this angle, and squint a little? Then they are probably not accurate fluff rules after all, merely an optical illusion of being such.

I understand what you're saying, I really do. I have a general understanding of 40k, not encyclopaedic, but fairly thorough... all I'm saying is: I wouldn't be able to assess the capabilities of each 40k entity with enough accuracy to formulate a perfect, universal "canon codex".

I do know enough about the armies that my friends and I collect to create what I believe are Marines that represent those in the fluff, in relation to the standard Guardsman profile, which my mates and I are all using as a foundation, a "control" profile. If I were to create a codex for the Eldar, or Orks, or Tau, or whatever, I'd use the same principles and methods.

mynamelegend wrote:I'm trying to not be hostile. I'd appreciate it if the favor is returned.

Of course. Just don't take me for a 13-year-old fanboy please... I'm not.

mynamelegend wrote:If you do not care for the opinions of people on the forums regarding your attempts as to making alternate rules for Space Marines that better represent their fluff, then why did you ask?

I care. That's why I posted it.

But negativity for negativity's sake just p*sses me off. What I'm looking for is constructive criticism... I've already changed around several things based on the posts of others. But there haven't been enough factual complaints so far.

I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

mynamelegend wrote:If your intended purpose was "I wish to make an alternate ruleset to play with my buddies", then your suggested fan-rules are good for their intended purpose.
If your intended purpose, however, was "I wish to make a ruleset that more accurately represents the background of the Warhammer 40,000 setting", then your suggested fan-rules are not suitable for their intended purpose.

I intended to do both, to a degree, and don't quite see why the two are mutually exclusive.

They aren't.

But you're not succeeding at that goal.

But as I specifically asked Melissia (to no avail), could you please tell me the reasoning behind your disapproval?

I answered a ludicrous amount of times in a ludicrous amount of ways. Your response has been to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "nanana I can't hear you".

Yes, but you can't automatically assume that any BL and Codex authors who portray Marines in a good light are being biased.

By that reasoning we can assume that all commissars are like Cain and Gaunt, killing marines with contemptuous ease.

I still don't see where in your rules you list bolters as ignoring power armor and causing instant death to Marines.

Time and time again, marines, including those who'd have extra wounds like Captains and Chaplains, in the fluff are killed by one bolter round immediately.

Melissia wrote:Commissar Yarrick has the same stats as a Lord Commissar save for his increased toughness.

No, sir, a basic bog-standard tactical marine is not a better fighter than COMMISSAR YARRICK. He's not even the EQUAL of said Yarrick. In fact, I'd be pretty sure in a bet that Yarrick could slaughter a tactical one on one with contemptuous ease. Seriously, get it out of your head, Marines are tough, they're skilled, yes. But not THAT much. No. They aren't. And you will never get me to agree that they are no matter what you say.

You seem to think that the only things enhanced in their genetic engineering are strength and toughness. Really, you couldn't be more wrong. I know what you're going to say "I know everything about 40k, so of course I know" but you are either ignoring it on purpose, ignorant of their upgrades, or simply failing to take that into account. A space marine's attack would be so fast your mind would be incapable of processing it. The smallest amounts of time the humans mind can process is 3/10 of a second, and even regular humans can pass that speed, being parried only my their opponent anticipating their attacks. How can you anticipate an attack that moves so fast that you literally cannot see it coming? Once again, I know what you're going to say "that should only count for initiative" but being 2x (+) faster than any human could ever be also translates into how well you fight.

Also, as for the LC being trained from birth, so are many astartes, as some chapter have children groomed from birth to become astartes.

Also, as for training, astartes are trained at a much higher rate than normal humans to being psycho-indoctrinated and sleeping only a few hours a week. A commissar can train for a few hours a day, but will fatigue after 3-6 hours of training. An astartes can train, against brothers as skilled as he, for days at a time. astartes training would probably kill a lord commissar who is without augmentations.

ASTARTES!

@ Spoon, +1 for truth


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think there is one thing we can ALL agree on.

Neither a LC nor an Astartes should EVER piss off An'ggrath. EVER.

[edit: delete. This troll ain't worth it.]

Melissia wrote:[edit: delete. This troll ain't worth it.]

Okay so now I'M the troll?

Let's look at it: everyone had agreed on stats, everyone was alright with them, then you come out of nowhere and start complaining about EVERYTHING and giving opinions that are 100% opposite to that of EVERYONE else. That's the DEFINITION of a troll.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Melissia wrote:[edit: delete. This troll ain't worth it.]

Okay so now I'M the troll?

Let's look at it: everyone had agreed on stats, everyone was alright with them, then you come out of nowhere and start complaining about EVERYTHING and giving opinions that are 100% opposite to that of EVERYONE else. That's the DEFINITION of a troll.

No it's not. It's the definition of someone who disagrees with you.

Melissia wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Melissia wrote:[edit: delete. This troll ain't worth it.]

Okay so now I'M the troll?

Let's look at it: everyone had agreed on stats, everyone was alright with them, then you come out of nowhere and start complaining about EVERYTHING and giving opinions that are 100% opposite to that of EVERYONE else. That's the DEFINITION of a troll.

No it's not. It's the definition of someone who disagrees with you.

Do I need to html a link to a site that defines troll?

A troll is someone who posts with the intent to anger other users and has little to no intention of contributing to the discussion. In my judgment, Melissia is not acting that way.

But please everyone keep Rule Number One in mind. That includes calling each other trolls. Behaving according to Rule Number One is not only the best way to have a rewarding online discussion; it's also the best way to avoid getting your account suspended. Thanks!

Manchu wrote:A troll is someone who posts with the intent to anger other users and has little to know intention of contributing to the discussion. In my judgment, Melissia is not acting that way.

But please everyone keep Rule Number One in mind. That includes calling each other trolls. Behaving according to Rule Number One is not only the best way to have a rewarding online discussion; it's also the best way to avoid getting you account suspended. Thanks!

Please also keep Rule Number Three, thou shalt not post spam, in mind. Yes, that includes posts that consist only of orkmoticons.

Haha, well, this is getting interesting!

I think a whole lot of this argument is based around the fact that if Space Marines are buffed to more accurately represent fluff, that other races should also be taken into account. But the OP has stated already that he doesn't feel he knows enough about the other races to do so. So I think it's safe to assume that these buffed Marines would be fighting buffed orks (improved toughness/strength/whathaveyou). I don't even think this should be discussed anymore than it has.

Another thing; a debate doesn't have to be a competition. You arn't trying to make the other person conceede defeat or something. Let's all just chill out. If they are refusing your opinion, (maybe getting defensive) just stop and move on.

Also, you might think getting the last word is a small victory, but will you make the OP sad when you get his thread locked.

*WOT Warning*

This thread has been an interesting read. Obviously, we've come to the point where both parties are not going to agree to the other party's point of view, which seems to be a trend here on DD.

I've always wondered myself that, in GW fiction, the writer has the freedom to make out a particular faction to be the most badass group in the galaxy. "Should they ever truly unify, they would crush all opposition and drown the civilised races in a tide of gore," or "If the warring civilizations don't united against them, then the galaxy is doom (Nids), or "His personal power combat prowess is unmatched, (C:SM)", to name a couple. "Superhuman" in a universe where EVERYTHING that isn't a human is "superhuman" is lazy and redundant writing that contradicts itself. Obviously, writing like this doesn't do this interesting post-apocalyptic setting justice and it is pointless to argue which is the more able combatant because the source material is somewhat flawed to begin with.

But, since apparently comparisons must be done, I would advise that we throw the additional organs, superhuman muscles, and stuff like that out the window. Warhammer 40k is written more like a science fantasy than it is a science fiction setting, so these aspects are unimportant. Let's just look at battle results. These soldiers, from 10 Men to 1000 Men, are consistently battling against foes that number many many times their size. This is a aspect of the Astartes that GW has been hammering into our heads for a long time. Yet, despited being outnumbered, they are able to pull victories through. So, we can at least conclude that the Astartes are doing SOMETHING right. You usually don't (Or at least I usually don't) read about a band of 100 Orcs defeated an entire chapter by themselves, or a squad of 10 Catachans win against a hundred Marines, or an Eldar force numbering in the hundreds to defeat five whole chapters. So, despite being outmanned and outgunned, marines pull a victory over a numerically superior opponent (while losing a large number of troops and losing their commander/hero, as seems to be the trend with all this crappy writing.)

So, let's be honest, the tabletop doesn't do these marines justice. I've seen marine forces 1500pts, running 20-30 men. They battle against an IG force of maybe 100 men? or perhaps an Orc detatchment of 150 boyz? or perhaps a tyranid force of 80 gaunts? Not much for the "can battle a force numbering many times their size" crap that GW flings at us. 20-30 Men is about a fourth of a company! (And we know that even single companies are capable of stopping other entire armies at a planet, retake planets, and sometimes even systems* As noted in the C:SM Codex)

Imagine our own planet Earth, can you imagine 100 Dudes from Space seizing our planet? (Remember that we are still in the 40k world, where EVERYTHING is boom boom overpowered compared to our own reality.) Imagine the hundreds and thousands of miles each Rhino has to drive just to get to a firefight? How do you ensure each marine gets a adequate supply of ammo to win the firefight? Or how fast that does that Thunderhawk has to fly to get from the United States to China in a reasonable amount of time to battle against thousands upon thousands of enemies who are possibly supported by tanks, aircraft, and static defense systems. Yet, they do this often.

Whatever the situation, the Astartes are capable of pulling out a win. So, what are they doing right? What is the force multiplier that is allowing marines to battle "countless" enemies on a battlefield?

If you ask me, I think that all that genetherapy, steroid hormones, and all that junk just gives them a fighting chance in this universe. It is their tools, their willpower, and their teamwork that gets the job done. Have an opponent whose pretty mean in close combat? Shoot it with bolters! Have an opponent with huge guns? Punch them in the face! Nowhere to run? Evac via Thunderhawk and nuke them orbit! (It's the only way to be sure.) Space Marines are given the tools necessary to shoot as needed, and the tools to rip them a new one up close as needed. They also possess the will needed to fight to the last man if needed, or the will to fallback and regroup at a more defensible position if needed. Whatever the situation demands, Astartes are supposed to be flexible enough to adapt themselves to the battlefield and do what it takes to win.

That's not to say that they always win. They've lost many battles before, indicated in plenty of other codexes I'm sure. But they've got the tools, and the grit, and the teamwork.

Dshrike wrote:Let's just look at battle results.

You mean like battle results where a pair of orks managed to destroy a massive battleship in Deff Skwadron?

The problem with using battle results like that is that almost all fiction is written from an Astartes viewpoint. And based off of the horus heresy novels with their varying viewpoints, I'd say that Astartes have a long history of lying to make themselves look better.

And then we have other fiction where Ciaphas Cain dueled a KHORNATE BERSERKER to a standstill, easily sweeping aside his attacks and toying with him as if he were an amateur-- before stepping aside to let his assistant melta the brute to give the traitor an iglorious death. Gaunt also did much the same with another chaos marine. In more Ciaphas Cain stories, he recoiled in horror when an Ork that had already had its head cleaved in and its guts leaking out got back up and utterly wrecked a Necron warrior in close combat, before finally being killed by a different warrior's gauss weapon. In other Guard stories, a single long las shot to the head regularly kills Astartes.

So apparently Astartes aren't as tough or skilled as they would claim to be. They just have a good publicist.

edited twice for "I'm a dumbass and forgot to finish a sentence."

Melissia wrote:You mean like battle results where a pair of orks managed to destroy a massive battleship in Deff Skwadron?

Didn't read that in any of the codices, I'm guessing it's from a novel? or graphic novel? Either way, Orcs, Necrons, Nids, and Chaos are all entitled to heroes as well. I would think that the novels and graphics novels highlight various heroes from both sides (Sorry, had to shoehorn in the Star Wars reference there.) Anyway, sounds like I would rather much have GW write a set of rules of these two instead of the IMO "Blah" Orcs they've currently put in the special character roster. Orc Marbo maybe?

Melissia wrote: The problem with using battle results like that is that almost all fiction is written from an Astartes viewpoint. And based off of the horus heresy novels with their varying viewpoints, I'd say that Astartes have a long history of lying to make themselves look better.

Like I said, I'm just going straight off what GW writes in their own codices. I don't think GW intentionally their codices from a human point of view. "Eventually, the Nobz figured out what was happening. Realising they could not tackle Grotsnik face to face, they organized a little accident for him." (Ork Codex) I would argue that it is being written as objectively as it can, since it describes details that a human in the Imperium wouldn't know. I'm sure we can't just disregard their own codices as false or an exaggeration, especially when they're excerpts not written from a "in-universe" perspective. I' might to take a "imperial report on Orks" by an inquisitor with a grain of salt, but I don't think that the "Tribes and Clan" section written by Matthew Ward (Sorry, just picked one of their random writers) of the Ork Codex is lying to me.

Melissia wrote: And then we have other fiction where Ciaphas Cain dueled a KHORNATE BERSERKER to a standstill, easily sweeping aside his attacks and toying with him as if he were an amateur-- before stepping aside to let his assistant melta the brute to give the traitor an iglorious death. Gaunt also did much the same with another chaos marine. In more Ciaphas Cain stories, he recoiled in horror when an Ork that had already had its head cleaved in and its guts leaking out got back up and utterly wrecked a Necron warrior in close combat, before finally being killed by a different warrior's gauss weapon. In other Guard stories, a single long las shot to the head regularly kills Astartes.

Once again, heroes exist on in all factions who excel above and beyond the normal rank and file. I don't know who Ciaphas Cain is, and I'm sure he is an outstanding individual in the 40k universe, and I don't refute the fact that he found a Khorne Berserker an easy foe to dispatch. All these points above are valid. (If I had a lasgun, or any gun for that matter, guess where I'd be shooting a space marine. )

In the crotch.

No seriously, I'd be aiming for the head. But, with lasguns, wouldn't that be one of the few ways to punch through power armor anyway? Therefore, most of the shots that kill a marine are going to be the shot to the head, or to the elbow, or to a kneecap, and maybe a groin. But, more likely a headshot.

Melissia wrote:So apparently Astartes aren't as tough or skilled as they would claim to be. They just have a good publicist.

They are doing something right, otherwise a faction numbering around one million in a universe where battles can have "countless" enemies, they'd be squashed worse than a tomato being stomped on by a chaos marine whom is being run over by a deffrolla which is being kicked by a biotitan.

=)

... and they frequently ARE. chapters are wiped out quite frequently. Only the most successful and well supported chapters (for example, Ultramarines, whom basically have their own guard regiments under their command to support their actions) live very long.

Also, Deff Skwadron is a comic. Probably the best thing that's ever come out of 40k, and proof that they should do more Ork writing...

Edited for "I'm a dumbass AGAIN and forgot to finish a sentence."

Melissia wrote:... and they frequently ARE. chapters are wiped out quite frequently. Only the most successful and well supported chapters (for example, Ultramarines, whom basically have their own guard regiments under their command to support their actions) live very long.

See, without some sort of citation, I'm having a hard time believing that chapters are being killed off frequently. Yes, whole chapters get wiped out, but I haven't read about it happening all that often. The C:SM itself noted a handful are gone, (Astral Knights, Black Consuls, Scythes of the Emperor, etc) But it seems that I can count all the chapters lost in the last in-universe 300 years or so on my hands and maybe my feet.

Take into account that the Ultramarines took over 100 years, 745M1 to 861M1 (C:SM Codex), to recoup losses sustained during the First Tyrannic War. This suggest that it takes a long time for these chapters to recruit and train men to fighting status. Yet, the Astartes only seemed to have lost a handful of chapters of the one thousand available despite how long it takes to replenish men.

According to this list http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/List_of_Space_Marine_Chapters which itself cites all the various sources, it would look like the Astartes lose more chapters to going renegade than they do to outright being wiped out. And even then, I saw chapters who were wiped out for reason other than fighting, (being lost in the warp, defective geneseed, etc.)

I think we're coming to a standstill nonetheless. Whatever is made of these posts, I wish to say that I respect your view, and the views of everyone here on Dakka. =)

----
On a side note: It's good that GW is trying to tell stories from other mediums.

Melissia wrote: . Gaunt also did much the same with another chaos marine.

ehmm.....
Hate to ruin your idea here but Guant killed one by stabing it in the side with a high-quality Power Weapon, he then had to duck and run as another came after him and had the local Nihtgane started attacking him enmass guant would of died.
Sgt. Ceglan Varl killed another by offloading an eintire bolter clip into it's face
Sgt. Tona Criid Killed another by dropping a bag filled with tube chages in it on the CSMs head
Maj. Elim Rawne shot the final one in the head at point blank range with a long-las.
This while an eintire village burnt to the ground and several member got seriously hurt and they all nearly ha heart attacks when they realised they were still alive

I think this thread needs to take some acid and get fly.

And also

@Dshrike, the astartes conquering planets is RARELY them scouring the entire surface. That's what the IG are for. The Adeptus Astartes usually only appear for the largest battles i.e. a fight for the planetary capital.


Also, teamwork is important, but still, it means that a krak missile can kill several marines, whereas the custodes style optimizes combat efficiency.

Shoulder to shoulder phalanxes are never a good idea when there are explosives and flamers around...the custodes still fight together, but just not so much in formation. Instead of relying on each other and staying in formation, they complement each other...idk where I am going with this...

DarknessEternal wrote:I still don't see where in your rules you list bolters as ignoring power armor and causing instant death to Marines.

Time and time again, marines, including those who'd have extra wounds like Captains and Chaplains, in the fluff are killed by one bolter round immediately.

Ok, so should Bolters cause Instant Death then? From a gameplay perspective, it'd work really well for Marines.

Goddard wrote:Another thing; a debate doesn't have to be a competition. You arn't trying to make the other person conceede defeat or something. Let's all just chill out. If they are refusing your opinion, (maybe getting defensive) just stop and move on.

Agreed.

Dshrike wrote:These soldiers, from 10 Men to 1000 Men, are consistently battling against foes that number many many times their size. This is a aspect of the Astartes that GW has been hammering into our heads for a long time. Yet, despited being outnumbered, they are able to pull victories through. So, we can at least conclude that the Astartes are doing SOMETHING right.

So, let's be honest, the tabletop doesn't do these marines justice.

I agree with everything in your post, including the fact that much of what carries the Astartes through cannot be represented properly on the tabletop. So I decided to emphasise their known battlefield strengths.

The three most distinguishing Space Marine features that leapt to my mind were:
a) their incredible skills, extensive experience and martial prowess.
b) their lethal and feared weaponry (primarily Bolt weapons).
c) their superhuman physiology, and their legendary resistance to pain and injury.

That's why the three biggest changes I've made are to their WS/BS characteristics, overall health (an additional Wound, plus Feel No Pain) and weapon stats.

Riddick40k wrote:I think this thread needs to take some acid and get fly.

Perfect timing.

im2randomghgh wrote:The Adeptus Astartes usually only appear for the largest battles i.e. a fight for the planetary capital.


Also, teamwork is important, but still, it means that a krak missile can kill several marines, whereas the custodes style optimizes combat efficiency.

Shoulder to shoulder phalanxes are never a good idea when there are explosives and flamers around...the custodes still fight together, but just not so much in formation. Instead of relying on each other and staying in formation, they complement each other...idk where I am going with this...

A classic case of brainfart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Duuurrrrrr...

I actually forgot to mention... big update to the OP!

I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:I still don't see where in your rules you list bolters as ignoring power armor and causing instant death to Marines.

Time and time again, marines, including those who'd have extra wounds like Captains and Chaplains, in the fluff are killed by one bolter round immediately.

Ok, so should Bolters cause Instant Death then? From a gameplay perspective, it'd work really well for Marines.

Yes, and ignore armor, but only against Marines.

They're not shown to be any more effective than lasguns against non-Marine opponents. Bolters are also shown to less effective at penetrating Xenos and non-Imperium armor than they are at penetrating Marine power armor.

Also, I don't think the Scythes of the Emperor were completely wiped out.

____________________________________________________
Wiki quote: The Scythes of the Emperor, along with their allies, the Lamenters Chapter, were virtually destroyed during the invasion of the Imperium of Man by the Tyranids' Hive Fleet Kraken.

____________________________________________________

Plus, a few squads of them were too busy killin Tau (DGC)

DarknessEternal wrote:

I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:I still don't see where in your rules you list bolters as ignoring power armor and causing instant death to Marines.

Time and time again, marines, including those who'd have extra wounds like Captains and Chaplains, in the fluff are killed by one bolter round immediately.

Ok, so should Bolters cause Instant Death then? From a gameplay perspective, it'd work really well for Marines.

Yes, and ignore armor, but only against Marines.

They're not shown to be any more effective than lasguns against non-Marine opponents. Bolters are also shown to less effective at penetrating Xenos and non-Imperium armor than they are at penetrating Marine power armor.

Now, now, sonny Jim... can't just go throwing around claims like that...

I'm gonna need to see some proof there.