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.

Manchu, I'm not quite sure I understand the last part of your arguement... Is it a typo or am I going crazy.

"As of their current codex, BA are shown to have a predilection for Assault Marine formations. This is not the same thing as having a CC focus. As of their current codex, BT are shown to have a predilection for CC specifically. Assuming that the BT excel at their favored style, they are likely better at it than BT -- who do not favor it."

It's a typo. I meant to say that in comparison to the BT, the BA are not currently presented as having some special preference for CC.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
my stance is the far more reasonable one.

And I disagree. For all the reasons that were first pointed out to you by Manchu, and then by me in subsequent posts. Assuming that the most elite marines in two chapters are of comparable skill, rather than assuming that one far surpasses the other based soley on the fact that OTT fluff has been directed at one but not the other is by far the more reasonable stance.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
You missed the part where I was only comparing Death Company to Black Templar Marines.

Except that isn't the case at all:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
The Death Company have escapades in the fluff where they tear through many times their number against supposedly equal foes, to my recollection, the Sword Brethren don't have feats of the same caliber.

 Anfauglir wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
my stance is the far more reasonable one.

And I disagree. For all the reasons that were first pointed out to you by Manchu, and then by me in subsequent posts. Assuming that the most elite marines in two chapters are of comparable skill, rather than assuming that one far surpasses the other based soley on the fact that OTT fluff has been directed at one but not the other is by far the more reasonable stance.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
You missed the part where I was only comparing Death Company to Black Templar Marines.

Except that isn't the case at all:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
The Death Company have escapades in the fluff where they tear through many times their number against supposedly equal foes, to my recollection, the Sword Brethren don't have feats of the same caliber.

Look I completely buy that the average BT would kick the ass of the average BA 1v1 in CC. But the fact remains that The Death Company is unique asset in the BA's favor. Just because it's logical that the BT would have a comparable force does not mean that they do have a comparable force. Your arguement is logical. Void's is empirical. If this were real life you could go out to prove your theory. Perhaps like many great scientists in the future your theory will be readily vindicated. But the fact remains that for now empirical trumps logic. Void has the most reasonable arguement for the now.

Not really.

Let's use a comparison. Say there are two towns, A and B, and you know they are quite near to one another and are generally alike. What you know about them specifically comes from two articles. They first is about a rainy day in town A. The second is about a hurricane in Town B. Now, a reasonable person knows that he cannot conclude from these articles whether or not a hurricane has ever hit Town A. Indeed, it would be difficult to decide which town gets more precipitation.

 Manchu wrote:
Not really.

Let's use a comparison. Say there are two towns, A and B, and you know they are quite near to one another and are generally alike. What you know about them specifically comes from two articles. They first is about a rainy day in town A. The second is about a hurricane in Town B. Now, a reasonable person knows that he cannot conclude from these articles whether or not a hurricane has ever hit Town A. Indeed, it would be difficult to decide which town gets more precipitation.

Your premise is solid for the situation you presented. But we aren't being asked can we conclusively say BT never did OTT. We are being asked to compare BT to BA. You cannot claim advantages you have no evidence for. Let's take your situation and make it represenative at hand. There is a story that Town A had a rainy day. There is a story town B had a hurricane. Based on the available evidence (this is the key component) town B had worse weather than town A. You could say its possible town A had the same weather by interviewing someone in the town but they could just as easily say that they really did have better weather. The best decision that can be made on the available evidence is in Void's court.

 Anfauglir wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
my stance is the far more reasonable one.

And I disagree. For all the reasons that were first pointed out to you by Manchu, and then by me in subsequent posts. Assuming that the most elite marines in two chapters are of comparable skill, rather than assuming that one far surpasses the other based soley on the fact that OTT fluff has been directed at one but not the other is by far the more reasonable stance.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
You missed the part where I was only comparing Death Company to Black Templar Marines.

Except that isn't the case at all:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
The Death Company have escapades in the fluff where they tear through many times their number against supposedly equal foes, to my recollection, the Sword Brethren don't have feats of the same caliber.

I was only comparing the Death Company to the Black Templars in that, I was comparing no other Blood Angel Marines to them, in a pound for pound basis.

Not that I was only comparing them to generic Black Templars.

Stop pretending that the Sword Brethrens are the equivalent of the Death Company. From my recollection, no other chapter has something of a similar nature to the Death Company.

The Sword Brethrens are explicitly the Black Templar equivalent of a Codex Chapter's First Company. Which the Blood Angels also have. Any assumption of the Sword Brethren being comparable to the Death Company without sufficient evidence to substantiate such a claim is fallacious and unreasonable. Coincidentally, the Blood Angels' First Company do not have feats of a similar potency to Death Company Marines. Hmm, wonder why...

 Shlazaor wrote:
Based on the available evidence (this is the key component) town B had worse weather than town A.

My example must have been unclear because this is the opposite of what I was hoping you'd learn. To put it more simply, you cannot meaningfully compare evidence with lack of evidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Coincidentally, the Blood Angels' First Company do not have feats of a similar potency to Death Company Marines. Hmm, wonder why...

The Black Rage makes a BA stronger and angrier than a normal SM. It does not, however, make him more skilled. The DC's record gets touted for two reasons: out-of-setting, because they are supposed to be a major selling point for BA; in-setting, because they are supposed to be tragic heroes that represent the best any given BA can possibly expect for himself.

 Manchu wrote:

 Shlazaor wrote:
Based on the available evidence (this is the key component) town B had worse weather than town A.

My example must have been unclear because this is the opposite of what I was hoping you'd learn. To put it more simply, you cannot meaningfully compare evidence with lack of evidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Coincidentally, the Blood Angels' First Company do not have feats of a similar potency to Death Company Marines. Hmm, wonder why...

The Black Rage makes a BA stronger and angrier than a normal SM. It does not, however, make him more skilled. The DC's record gets touted for two reasons: out-of-setting, because they are supposed to be a major selling point for BA; in-setting, because they are supposed to be tragic heroes that represent the best any given BA can possibly expect for himself.

Wrong. Proof ALWAYS beats out conjecture. Proof always beat out logical conjecture. Proof always beats out reasonable conjecture. Of course you can compare evidence to a lack of evidence. You have the evidence, the other guy doesn't. That's about as simple as you can get lol.

But you don't have proof.

We have empirical proof that BA's have Death Company. We have zero proof that BT have something equatable. We have conjecture that it would make sense that it would. Proof beats conjecture everytime. If I am forced to compare BT vs BA it would be incredibly unfair to provide BT with assets that they have no proof of. Simple as that.

Again, you cannot meaningfully compare "BA can do X" with "we don't know whether BT can do X."

 Manchu wrote:
Again, you cannot meaningfully compare "BA can do X" with "we don't know whether BT can do X."

Again. Good premise and conclusion. Bad application.

Imagine a court case before a judge. The judge is NOT being asked to conclusively say BT have no Death Company equal.

The judge IS being asked whether BT or BA win in CC. The issue of Death Company comes up. The BA lawyer offers proof that BA have death company. BT lawyer offers reasonable conjecture that you can't say they don't. The judge is not going to take into account the BT's conjecture. It is not proof of anything. Period.

Now the judge may still rule in favor of BT but not because he is thinking they have a Death Company equal. The judge was offered no proof of that so he can't use it in his rulings.

 Shlazaor wrote:
Void has the most reasonable arguement for the now.

And again, I disagree. It appears that I and both you and Void take "reasonable" to mean different things here.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Stop pretending that the Sword Brethrens are the equivalent of the Death Company. From my recollection, no other chapter has something of a similar nature to the Death Company.

I am pretending no such thing. It was you who first drew the comparison in regards to fluff, not me. Sword Brethren aren't equivalent to DC. They are, as you said, equivalent to the Sanguinary Guard. They are first company vets with Terminator honours placed in the household/company of the Chapter officer cadre. Therefore they are superior to DC.

Coincidentally, the Blood Angels' First Company do not have feats of a similar potency to Death Company Marines. Hmm, wonder why...

Yet another assumption on your part for which you cannot possibly begin to prove.

^ It really is as simple as that. I don't know how many different ways and how clearer you want to same, simple truth of the matter spelled out to you. You cannot reasonably assert something on a lack of evidence. To do so is unreasonable. It really is that simple. At any rate this circling is all but irrelevant in the context of the topic at hand, seeing as the only thing that distingishes a Death Company marine from a normal marine is the Black Rage, an affliction that, while has its uses against other opponents, is no real advantage for close combat effectiveness against close combat specialists. It was said earlier but I'll repeat it here:

BlaxicanX wrote:
Insanity =\= combat prowess.

 Shlazaor wrote:
The judge was offered no proof of that so he can't use it in his rulings.

All we know is that BA have a DC and the BT don't have a DC. That is not enough evidence to say one way or another which chapter is better at CC. It's also not enough to say whether the BT First Company or DC are better at CC.

I believe what I am seeing here is an impasse. Therefore, it may be a good idea to stop this trail of thought and go back to something a little more... concrete, shall we say.

Regardless of the martial prowess of DC, there is simply not enough of them to make any sort of meaningful dent in the BT.

Let us assume that our average marine from both chapters are equally matched, which I do not for one moment believe. And, for argument's sake, let's say that both the 1st Co. BA are also equally matched with the Sword Brethren, (Which I might add, there is a fair chance that we have more Sword Brethren than you do 1st Co.) that still leaves AT LEAST 4,000 Black Templars for the Death Company to chew through. Now I do not doubt the martial prowess of the Death Company. What I do doubt is their capability to kill at least 40 BT per 1 of them. That dog just ain't gonna hunt.

Death Company are good, but they're not 40:1 good. And that is the best case scenario. It's more likely that the DC would have to deal with odds more akin to 45-50 to 1. That's a long time for a train that won't come.

I think we have to keep in mind that this is just about CC. You take a given BT and you pit him against a given BA. Chances are, any given BT will be better at CC than any given BA because the BT, unlike the BA, focus on it as a matter of their Chapter culture.

 Manchu wrote:

 Shlazaor wrote:
The judge was offered no proof of that so he can't use it in his rulings.

All we know is that BA have a DC and the BT don't have a DC. That is not enough evidence to say one way or another which chapter is better at CC. It's also not enough to say whether the BT First Company or DC are better at CC.

I agree. Especially to the last one. Void would need to provide evidence of DC CC and compare it to FC CC. But it's worth pointing out that agreeing to those statements doesn't contradict our earlier discussion.

 Shlazaor wrote:
We have empirical proof that BA's have Death Company. We have zero proof that BT have something equatable.

The Emperor's Champions. I'm once again assuming that I'm going to be ignored, since that seems to be how this thread works.

 Manchu wrote:


As of their current codex, BA are shown to have a predilection for Assault Marine formations. This is not the same thing as having a CC focus. As of their current codex, BT are shown to have a predilection for CC specifically. Assuming that the BT excel at their favored style, they are likely better at it than BA -- who do not favor it.

This. A thousand times this. Templars live and breathe close combat. It's their modus operandi, their schtick. Blood Angels are better at speedy hit-and-run attacks and force concentration due to their specialisation. They're better at being flexible and long-range fighting, due to following the Codex Astartes. They're NOT better at Close Combat, because they're not focused on it to the exclusion of all else. As evidenced by the Jerulas Crusade, what do the Black Templars do when faced with giant well-defended walls? Storm them. When that didn't work, they built the Land Raider Crusader to MAKE it work, rather than adopt a different fighting doctrine.

 Manchu wrote:
I think we have to keep in mind that this is just about CC. You take a given BT and you pit him against a given BA. Chances are, any given BT will be better at CC than any given BA because the BT, unlike the BA, focus on it as a matter of their Chapter culture.

This. Assuming an even number on both sides, initial engagement range would likely determine winner.

CC = BT stomps.
Range = BA wins.

The BA can ally in Necrons, so the BA win.

Jokes aside, the BT only have a single method of combat: running straight at the enemy to hit them with pointy sticks.

The BA have a slightly more advanced tactical doctrine and harder hitting shock troops, as well as elite formations and a Monstrous Creature class psyker.

The question is will BA successors pitch in to the fight?

 Anfauglir wrote:
I am pretending no such thing. It was you who first drew the comparison in regards to fluff, not me.

Actually it was Almighty Walrus who first brought up the Sword Brethren in comparison to the Death Company. I am afraid you are incorrect.

Sword Brethren aren't equivalent to DC. They are, as you said, equivalent to the Sanguinary Guard. They are first company vets with Terminator honours placed in the household/company of the Chapter officer cadre. Therefore they are superior to DC.

The Sword Brethren are the equivelant of a First Company. Not of the Sanguinary Guard, who are not first company veterans with terminator honors. So no, I am afraid you are also incorrect on this point as well.

Yet another assumption on your part for which you cannot possibly begin to prove.

Do you want me to PM you a download of the Blood Angels codex, so you can read the fluff and see that in the fluff the First Company doesn't have fluff prowess equivalent to the Death Company's?

Of course, there is this gem:

"Under the watchful eyes of the Chapter's Chaplains, the Lost Brothers of the Death Company know glory beyond even the ken of their Battle-Brothers, fighting against terrible odds in one final service to their Chapter. Many of the Blood Angels' greatest victories have followed a shattering assault by the Death Company. There are few enemies who can hope to stay the onset of such maddened warriors, let alone repel their assault. On Antax, Mel'yanneth, Hoilonan, Armageddon and other worlds too numerous to mention, the Death Company have more than lived up to their name, and legends of their ferocity have long since spread to worlds where the Blood Angels have never trod."
- Blood Angels codex, page 44

The implication of course being that their ferocity and martial prowess exceeds that of their Battle Brothers.

If the First Company were better, you'd think the text would show that.

^ It really is as simple as that. I don't know how many different ways and how clearer you want to same, simple truth of the matter spelled out to you. You cannot reasonably assert something on a lack of evidence. To do so is unreasonable. It really is that simple. At any rate this circling is all but irrelevant in the context of the topic at hand, seeing as the only thing that distingishes a Death Company marine from a normal marine is the Black Rage, an affliction that, while has its uses against other opponents, is no real advantage for close combat effectiveness against close combat specialists. It was said earlier but I'll repeat it here:

BlaxicanX wrote:
Insanity =\= combat prowess.

I'm afraid you are once more incorrect.

The Black Rage does nothing but increase the close combat prowess of the Blood Angels, via making them far more vicious and aggressive, and far harder to put down, as per the fluff, which I am moderately certain you have not read.

Only there is evidence. There is evidence of the Death Company, circled and outnumbered, tearing through an Ork Waaagh!, breaking the hordes and cutting into the heart at the Warboss himself, with only the Meganobz could stop. Many of the Death Company had long broken their weapons, and had resorted to fighting with their bare hands and fangs, against armed Orks. A Waaagh! no less. There is fluff that implies the Death Company are indeed a phenomenal close combat fighting force, inflicting grievous losses on the foe before their deaths on many times, turning the tide of many losing battles.

I'm sorry, but "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" may work as an argument for why my point is not definitely right (And it isn't, a setting like 40k could indeed release fluff that put Sword Brethren on DC's level), but at the moment, the Death Company do in fact have greater hype and feats to their name in terms of martial prowess, so they would in fact get the nod in any reasonable discussion.

It is also very ironic that you continuously talk about me making assumptions based on a "lack of evidence", but you assume the Sword Brethren superior to the Death Company man for man, a claim which has far less basis than the reverse. It would be one thing to merely say that we can't really make a comparison without a direct one in the setting, but to actually complain about others making alleged assumptions while proceeding to make a far greater one? That is something else entirely, my friend.

Come on, guys. We all know Germanic berserkers will beat out Italian vampires any day of the week.

If only.

For the love of God, can we please stop this pointless argument? It's just ended up as a who's better than who contest between everyone!

Can we please go on to a discussion with some more substance? Because this one will cycle round for eternity until someone gets bored.

P.S. Void_Dragon don't take this the wrong way, but you do sound incredibly condescending sometimes. It's not fun to read it.

I am not designed for your pleasure.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
-snip-

Except no, I'm not incorrect. This is because I know that each Chapter has a 1st Company of Veterans, and that I also know - without needing to look at the BA codex - that it's from this Company that a Chaper draws all their greatest warriors from, be it Company Captains, Vanguards, Sternguards, Honour Guards etc, etc. I also know that 1st Company marines have access to Tactical Dreadnought Armour, which requires specialist training, AKA Terminator Honours. I also know - again, without needing to look at the BA codex - that the various fluff blurbs published by GW about these warriors will invariably read along the lines of thus:

"These warriors are counted among the greatest in the Chaper, they are veterans of countless/hundreds of battlefields. Their deeds are myth/legendary amongst even their own Chapter, they embody the very fabric and nature of a true Space Marine and are the epitome of what each Battle Brother hopes to become. They fight as one with the image and spirit of <insert relevant Chapter Master/Primarch here>, and they are equipped in the very finest suits of armour and greatest weaponry from the Chapters armoury, relics that enable them to destroy the foes of the Imperium all the better..." yadda, yadda etc, etc. Conclusion? They're superior to non-1st Company marines. Period.

Now that I've clarified that, let's move on to Death Company. I know that the only thing to distinguish a Death Company marine from a regular marine is that they've succumbed to the Black Rage. I know - yet again, without having to look at the BA codex - (you may see a pattern emerging) that this isn't seen as a positive thing. Quite the contrary, in fact, as I also happen to know that the Black Rage is regarded as an extremely hazardous, volatile gene-mutation that not only threatens to destroy the Blood Angels, but their successors, too. It is an affliction that curses said marines with an incurable insanity, a blood lust which on the battlefield causes them to ignore fatal wounds and continually rage-assault anything and everything around them until they fall down dead. They are rounded up by the Angels, and then pointed towards the enemy and unleashed like a rabid, frothing attack dog. They are sent off the die, causing as much damage in the process as possible because they no longer have any other use, before the remaining marines - who still have control of their tactical wits - mop up afterwards. And last - but absolutely in no way least, I know that temporary boosts to close combat ferocity and invulnerability at the cost of one's sanity and self-control is of no real use in relation to a Chapters "overall close combat effectiveness" i.e. the context of the topic at hand. Are Death Company dangerous in CC compared to tactical and assault marines? Sure. Are they better in the initial charge and assault phase of any given situation against most type of opponents? Undoubtedly. Are they therefore more effective overall as close combatants than opponents with the same war gear and training who's lifelong specialisation and focus has been close combat? No. Sorry, but no. Why? Because when it comes to martial prowess, losing control of your emotions and wits is not a substitute for skill. Period.

Now, bearing all that I know about the above fluff in mind, I would personally, in my opinion, rank the Chapters thus in CC (from least to most skilled/effective EDIT: I should clarify on a 1-v-1 assumption):
- BA Tactical/Assault Marine
- BT Initiate/Crusader Marine
- BA Death Company Marine
- BA 1st Company Veteran
- BT Sword Brethren - effectively are 1st Company Vets +1
- BA Sanguinary Guard - effectively are Honour Guard +1
- BT Emperor's Champion - they are some of the best close combatants within the entire Astartes, let alone the galaxy as a whole
- BT Special Characters such as Helbrecht and Grimaldus
- BA Special Characters such as Dante and Mephiston - they are historically some of the Imperiums greatest warriors, let alone currently

And that ranking comes from the reasonable assumptions one can safely make, in the context of the topic at hand, about how the BA and BT compare in CC. I am not unreasonably making assertions about who can and can't do what on a lack of evidence in the fluff, like Void is. Simple.

Black Templars on both fronts IMO

 Manchu wrote:
Not really.

Let's use a comparison. Say there are two towns, A and B, and you know they are quite near to one another and are generally alike. What you know about them specifically comes from two articles. They first is about a rainy day in town A. The second is about a hurricane in Town B. Now, a reasonable person knows that he cannot conclude from these articles whether or not a hurricane has ever hit Town A. Indeed, it would be difficult to decide which town gets more precipitation.

I think a more proper comparison is this:

A = a boxer that has won say 20 professional matches in his career
B = Willie Pep.

Saying that A couldn't do what B has done isn't necessarily correct, but saying that A could "probably" do what B has done is just as wrong, if not more so. When one side has amazing feats and the other though (it is) similar, does not posses feats, the one burden of proof is clearly on the one that does not, and until new evidence is shown, the side with feats "wins" in a hypothetical situation.

That's how I see things.