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.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Korinov wrote:
IMO as I've already said the problem lies with the fluff. Because, more than anything else, it's inconsistent as hell. Amidst that general inconsistency, and as far as the current rules go, for me it's easier to stick to RT fluff in regards to Space Marine skills and abilities.

Easier, but wrong. It's also simple to form a consistent picture, unless you want to have it inconsistent.

Says who?

Citation?

Waaaaaaaard.

 Korinov wrote:

Says who?

Have you actually done a serious attempt?

Waaaaaaaard.

There are some who don't.

That is no evidence that most don't.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

Says who?

Have you actually done a serious attempt?

I'm merely asking why the Rogue Trader description of Space Marines is wrong.

You have not provided any explanation either.

 Korinov wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

Says who?

Have you actually done a serious attempt?

I'm merely asking why the Rogue Trader description of Space Marines is wrong.

You have not provided any explanation either.

Because it is outdated and retconned.

What, twenty years old? Thirty?

 Ashiraya wrote:
Because it is outdated and retconned.

What, twenty years old? Thirty?

But GW has no canon policy. The idea that new sources replace older ones is just a popular fan idea, you could just as easily argue that the first sources take priority and the newer conflicting material should be thrown out because the author clearly didn't pay any attention to the rules of the setting.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Because it is outdated and retconned.

What, twenty years old? Thirty?

But GW has no canon policy. The idea that new sources replace older ones is just a popular fan idea, you could just as easily argue that the first sources take priority and the newer conflicting material should be thrown out because the author clearly didn't pay any attention to the rules of the setting.

But do you really believe that this is the case?

 Ashiraya wrote:
But do you really believe that this is the case?

Yes. Like I said, GW does not have any canon policy, and that's not something that's really open to belief/disbelief. They simply license the IP out to a wide range of authors/game companies/etc to make stuff, and there's no real attempt to keep things consistent as long as it all fits the general theme of the 40k setting. "Newer replaces older" vs. "anything that conflicts with older material should be ignored" is something that GW has no official position on, so it's left to each individual fan to determine which material to keep. You can argue that you personally enjoy modern-era marine fluff more than RT-era marine fluff, but that's just your own preference.

I can see Peregrine's point. I do not think the game is very immersive in its ruleset, but I think a proper battlefield with armies that have been painted with effort does look very good, and it's the chief motivator I have for painting my army. I can certainly see someone considering this important enough to turn down or accept a game.

Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Go unbound and proxy them as dreadnoughts or go bonkers for IKs. Just mark facing on the bases and you have everything you need including d weapon in cc heh.

As for fixing marines. 2 wounds because two hearts. Id also make them have bolters, bolt pistols and chainswords by default with the possiblity to switch on the fly, I dont get why tacs carry only knives anyway. It's power armour after all and able to carry some additional weight I guess. Then Id make sm bolters special snowflakes and give them rending also to chainswords.

I don't think hearts are most important for amount of wounds especially that they are probably better protected than other body parts. Imperial guard company commanders are more common than space marines and don't have two hearts and the insane training that the marines go through but still get 3 wounds and 3 attacks.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Because it is outdated and retconned.

What, twenty years old? Thirty?

What peregrine said.

Concepts as "outdated" or "retconned" simply can't be applied to GW universes. Specially when their original, older material, with some exceptions, tends to be miles better than anything they've spit out after 2002-2003.

For me, as I've already explained, it's a matter of convenience. If the current rules, regarding Space Marines, actually stick closer to RT-era fluff than to current-day fluff, then the choice is obvious.

 Korinov wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Because it is outdated and retconned.

What, twenty years old? Thirty?

What peregrine said.

Concepts as "outdated" or "retconned" simply can't be applied to GW universes. Specially when their original, older material, with some exceptions, tends to be miles better than anything they've spit out after 2002-2003.

For me, as I've already explained, it's a matter of convenience. If the current rules, regarding Space Marines, actually stick closer to RT-era fluff than to current-day fluff, then the choice is obvious.

With the exception of WHFB End Times.

Everyone you knew and cared about in all of FB is now dead. Bwahahahahahahahaha (breaks down sobbing)

 Korinov wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Because it is outdated and retconned.

What, twenty years old? Thirty?

What peregrine said.

Concepts as "outdated" or "retconned" simply can't be applied to GW universes. Specially when their original, older material, with some exceptions, tends to be miles better than anything they've spit out after 2002-2003.

For me, as I've already explained, it's a matter of convenience. If the current rules, regarding Space Marines, actually stick closer to RT-era fluff than to current-day fluff, then the choice is obvious.

But it means abandoning 95% of the total fluff because it is impossible to reconcile with fluff from that era. Half-eldar librarian, anyone, and his shuriken catapult-wielding Ultramarine bros?

Oops, looks like every single piece about the Imperium being xenophobic is now null and void. That it outnumbers the above a hundredfold or more is irrelevant, I guess?

To me, the choice is obvious in the other direction, and I am not sure if 'your interpretation is wrong, use mine instead' is going to work as a justification for the absurd game rules.

 Kain wrote:
With the exception of WHFB End Times.

Everyone you knew and cared about in all of FB is now dead. Bwahahahahahahahaha (breaks down sobbing)

You know, when the Nagash book came out, it had some sillyness and Wardiness among its pages, but it was mostly ok (at least for the standards I have for these kind of fantasy products). It looked like they could at least get something decent out of the whole thing.

Then Glottkin came out, and then Khaine, and... oh dear

 Korinov wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Because it is outdated and retconned.

What, twenty years old? Thirty?

What peregrine said.

Concepts as "outdated" or "retconned" simply can't be applied to GW universes. Specially when their original, older material, with some exceptions, tends to be miles better than anything they've spit out after 2002-2003.

For me, as I've already explained, it's a matter of convenience. If the current rules, regarding Space Marines, actually stick closer to RT-era fluff than to current-day fluff, then the choice is obvious.

So, what.. Russ is alive and well and is the space marine commander of the Space Wolves? Rainbow Warriors exists officially? Ultra Marines are a second founding chapter? Of course there are things like "retconned". You, selectively disregarding them doesn't mean that they don't exist.

 Ashiraya wrote:
But it means abandoning 95% of the total fluff because it is impossible to reconcile with fluff from that era. Half-eldar librarian, anyone?

To me, the choice is obvious in the other direction, and I am not sure if 'your interpretation is wrong, use mine instead' is going to work here.

I've never said other interpretations are wrong, you were actually the one who did it, because "outdated".

If anyone wants to believe their Space Marines are those unkillable demigods from more recent fluff, feel free to do it. They will still be elite human soldiers on power armor in the tabletop rules, and anything with AP3 (or no AP but high volume of fire) will kill them en masse.

 Zewrath wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Because it is outdated and retconned.

What, twenty years old? Thirty?

What peregrine said.

Concepts as "outdated" or "retconned" simply can't be applied to GW universes. Specially when their original, older material, with some exceptions, tends to be miles better than anything they've spit out after 2002-2003.

For me, as I've already explained, it's a matter of convenience. If the current rules, regarding Space Marines, actually stick closer to RT-era fluff than to current-day fluff, then the choice is obvious.

So, what.. Russ is alive and well and is the space marine commander of the Space Wolves? Rainbow Warriors exists officially? Ultra Marines are a second founding chapter? Of course there are things like "retconned". You, selectively disregarding them doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Indeed. And if you say that the above things have been retconned but Marines have not, then it is extremely selective and baseless cherrypicking that I have no interest in taking as a solid argument for anything.

Hey. Rainbow Warriors are cool.

 Korinov wrote:
If anyone wants to believe their Space Marines are those unkillable demigods from more recent fluff, feel free to do it. They will still be elite human soldiers on power armor in the tabletop rules, and anything with AP3 (or no AP but high volume of fire) will kill them en masse.

I know, it's absurd. Many do want it changed, hence this thread.

And the false dilemma meme between unkillable and cannon fodder gets a bit old.

 Zewrath wrote:
So, what.. Russ is alive and well and is the space marine commander of the Space Wolves? Rainbow Warriors exists officially? Ultra Marines are a second founding chapter? Of course there are things like "retconned". You, selectively disregarding them doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Retcons only "exist" as far as you are willing to accept them. I'm as entitled to disregard new fluff as you are to accept it and disregard the older fluff as "outdated" or "retconned".

Actually I have no issues with some of the fluff updates regarding SM post-RT. The primarchs, what happened to the legions, etc. I don't mind it. In this thread I've been talking simply about the characteristics, skills and abilities of the average Space Marine, and the correlation between fluff and tabletop rules. In that regard, the current fluff clearly doesn't match what the tabletop rules portray, while the RT-era fluff does.

What's the issue with Rainbow Warriors anyway?

So... What is your point?

It seems a bit like the old RAW argument back in earlier editions, where Wraithguard couldn't fire because you always have to draw line of sight from the eyes, and Wraithguard had no eyes.

Technically correct, but not anything I'm going to take very seriously anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Korinov wrote:
In this thread I've been talking simply about the characteristics

Ie, what fits your belief is the canon one, no matter how extreme cherrypicking that involves?

I am not new to that, I should know with my nine-foot Marines, but I do not argue that anyone else should do the same.

 Korinov wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
So, what.. Russ is alive and well and is the space marine commander of the Space Wolves? Rainbow Warriors exists officially? Ultra Marines are a second founding chapter? Of course there are things like "retconned". You, selectively disregarding them doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Retcons only "exist" as far as you are willing to accept them. I'm as entitled to disregard new fluff as you are to accept it and disregard the older fluff as "outdated" or "retconned".

Actually I have no issues with some of the fluff updates regarding SM post-RT. The primarchs, what happened to the legions, etc. I don't mind it. In this thread I've been talking simply about the characteristics, skills and abilities of the average Space Marine, and the correlation between fluff and tabletop rules. In that regard, the current fluff clearly doesn't match what the tabletop rules portray, while the RT-era fluff does.

What's the issue with Rainbow Warriors anyway?

There's no issue with them, I think they are hillarious.

I just wanted to point out that there's a difference between saying retcons doesn't exist because you deny them and saying that they don't exists at all. Kindda' like having Windows 2000 and refute every other update made since then: Sure, you're totally allowed to not acknowledge the newer Windows versions because you don't like them but you can't really go on saying that they don't exist.

 Zewrath wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
So, what.. Russ is alive and well and is the space marine commander of the Space Wolves? Rainbow Warriors exists officially? Ultra Marines are a second founding chapter? Of course there are things like "retconned". You, selectively disregarding them doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Retcons only "exist" as far as you are willing to accept them. I'm as entitled to disregard new fluff as you are to accept it and disregard the older fluff as "outdated" or "retconned".

Actually I have no issues with some of the fluff updates regarding SM post-RT. The primarchs, what happened to the legions, etc. I don't mind it. In this thread I've been talking simply about the characteristics, skills and abilities of the average Space Marine, and the correlation between fluff and tabletop rules. In that regard, the current fluff clearly doesn't match what the tabletop rules portray, while the RT-era fluff does.

What's the issue with Rainbow Warriors anyway?

There's no issue with them, I think they are hillarious.

I just wanted to point out that there's a difference between saying retcons doesn't exist because you deny them and saying that they don't exists at all. Kindda' like having Windows 2000 and refute every other update made since then: Sure, you're totally allowed to not acknowledge the newer Windows versions because you don't like them but you can't really go on saying that they don't exist.

Yeah, that is perhaps a better way to put it.

There is clearly a demand for this, judging from the thread, so I'd argue it should at least be an option.

 Kain wrote:
With the exception of WHFB End Times.

Everyone you knew and cared about in all of FB is now dead. Bwahahahahahahahaha (breaks down sobbing)

Well, my namesake went with the others to fly into space, am I right? She will be fine and live glorious adventures!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Kain wrote:
With the exception of WHFB End Times.

Everyone you knew and cared about in all of FB is now dead. Bwahahahahahahahaha (breaks down sobbing)

Well, my namesake went with the others to fly into space, am I right? She will be fine and live glorious adventures!

Sadly the same cannot be said of my namesake

I get it actually yes, the whole "forge the narrative" thing is what GW says to doin these cases

Although if there is no official cannon in 40k, then why stop with nerfing space Marines into imperial propaganda? Who's to say that literally everything that you believe to be true about the 40k universe isn't just the lies of the inquisition and the high lords of terra?

Chaos? Just a way of (literally) demonizing traitors to the imperium.

Necrons? Just a bunch of Dark Age of Technology metal men reactivated by the mechanicum.

Tyranids? A cover up for secret genetic experiments that went horribly wrong. Numbering in the thousands at most.

Eldar Dark eldar and orks? Just old ship tales and legends talked about by space traveling merchants for xenos they don't understand.

Tau? Perhaps they are the only true rival to the imperium and the high lords just present them as a miniscule threw in order to stay the defection of the people

There is no Imperium, actually. There's only humans left on Terra. Everything else is lies told by the government to distract humanity.

 Ashiraya wrote:
So... What is your point?

My point is that your preference for modern-era marine fluff isn't any more objectively accurate than someone else's preference for RT-era marine fluff. GW has never established any kind of policy for determining what is or isn't canon, or under what conditions a source replaces a conflicting source. You can pick and choose what you want to use to establish your Ashiraya-40k canon and try to make it as consistent as possible, but there's nothing inherently better about Ashiraya-40k than about my Peregrine-40k that chooses different sources and interpretations. In this case you prefer modern-era written fluff for defining the power level of marines in Ashiraya-40k, while I happen to prefer the general performance of the army on the tabletop for defining the power level of marines in Peregrine-40k. And until GW gives us a canon policy for resolving these conflicting sources there's no way to say that either version of space marine power is the "correct" one.

 Ashiraya wrote:
There is no Imperium, actually. There's only humans left on Terra. Everything else is lies told by the government to distract humanity.

So I see you're going with the "extreme reality" version of the fluff, where the truth is we're all real people in 2015 and the 40k setting is just GW's attempt to distract us while they take our money.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Although if there is no official cannon in 40k, then why stop with nerfing space Marines into imperial propaganda? Who's to say that literally everything that you believe to be true about the 40k universe isn't just the lies of the inquisition and the high lords of terra?

Two reasons:

1) Other armies don't have that role in the story. Space marines are larger-than-life heroes and martyrs, much like the heroes of other myths. We know as a reader that the "real" Achilles (if he in fact existed) wasn't invulnerable everywhere but his foot, and the tales of his invulnerability exist because that's just how myths work. Same thing with space marines. Everything about them is deliberately heroic, in ways that the background characters (guardsmen, the anonymous hordes of orks that only exist to be killed by the heroes, etc) aren't.

2) Those other things you listed don't have conflicting sources to resolve. The reason for using "marines are Imperial propaganda" to explain their fluff is that there are fundamental conflicts between the various descriptions of marines. One story has a marine being stabbed to death by a baby with a plastic knife, another story has a titan firing shot after shot at a marine with its main guns and only succeeding in annoying the marine a bit by burning his purity seals. The two examples obviously can't both be true, but "throw out one source entirely" isn't a very satisfying alternative and should (IMO) be used as a last resort. One alternative way to resolve the conflict is to set the "real" power level of marines somewhere around tabletop level and explain the extreme examples as heroic myths that are exaggerated in their details but still generally true (the titan shot didn't happen, but the battle did). But you don't need to do that unless there's a conflict that needs to be resolved. There's no disagreement over the fact that Tyranids are invaders from outside the galaxy and have unimaginably huge numbers, so there's no reason to claim that "real" Tyranids number in the thousands at most.

 Korinov wrote:
IMO as I've already said the problem lies with the fluff. Because, more than anything else, it's inconsistent as hell. Most of the time, new writers don't check nor even care about what the previous writers may have stablished. Amidst that general inconsistency, and as far as the current rules go, for me it's easier to stick to RT fluff in regards to Space Marine skills and abilities.

These marines existed only between the release of RT and White Dwarf 98 when they described the creation of marines.

 Korinov wrote:
As for training, well, newest Stormtroopers (sorry, Tempestus Scions Magnificus) fluff depicts their training and conditioning as an extremely silly Psycho Murderous Hogwarts School. Tabletop stats? T3, 1 wound, 4+ armor save.

They could get T3, 2 wound for example and their sergeant 3 wounds to show that it's a whole unit of larger-than-life heroes who survived extremely brutal training. T4 would encroach on the Marine Modification territory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
So... What is your point?

My point is that your preference for modern-era marine fluff isn't any more objectively accurate than someone else's preference for RT-era marine fluff. GW has never established any kind of policy for determining what is or isn't canon, or under what conditions a source replaces a conflicting source. You can pick and choose what you want to use to establish your Ashiraya-40k canon and try to make it as consistent as possible, but there's nothing inherently better about Ashiraya-40k than about my Peregrine-40k that chooses different sources and interpretations. In this case you prefer modern-era written fluff for defining the power level of marines in Ashiraya-40k, while I happen to prefer the general performance of the army on the tabletop for defining the power level of marines in Peregrine-40k. And until GW gives us a canon policy for resolving these conflicting sources there's no way to say that either version of space marine power is the "correct" one.

What was the last time when you saw Imperial Guard Land Raiders with dual Power Fields?

I want to add something constructive to the topic. I'll ask a question - why is it not okay to make marines actually function as elites on the table top? How does it hurt the game? Why does it so offend you?

 Xenomancers wrote:
I want to add something constructive to the topic. I'll ask a question - why is it not okay to make marines actually function as elites on the table top? How does it hurt the game? Why does it so offend you?

Marines already function as elites on the tabletop, and the only reason they seem like they aren't is that they're the most common army. Some people seem to want a version of marines where a 1500 point army is a 5-man tactical squad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
What was the last time when you saw Imperial Guard Land Raiders with dual Power Fields?

What's your point? GW doesn't have any policy on what is or isn't canon, or when things become "too old" and no longer exist. So "those things are no longer part of the fluff" is no more valid as an explanation than "modern sources that ignore dual powerfield IG Land Raiders shouldn't be canon because they're obviously incomplete".