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.

w1zard wrote:

I've already answered this question, it is because she was wearing power armor. Something that we all agree increases your strength and speed significantly. You seriously think a battle sister no matter how experienced is going to last long against a grey knight?

Power armor doesn't increase speed, if possible it slows people down, especially considering Sisters don,t have a Black Carapace. Their undercoat is supposed to act like a Black Carapace, but it would be surprising if it worked even better. The lore states that Sisters armor, while offering equivalent protection, don't have all the auxilary system of the Space Marines one specifically for that reason. In the engagement in question, the Canoness is accompanied by Seraphims and the Grey Knight champion by a squad of terminators. About ten Seraphim are killed in the close combat, but so do two or three Grey Knights. Apparently, the entire fight lasted less than two minutes. I would suppose the Grey Knight would have won, but he probably wouldn't have had the luxury to take it easy. Since the Grey Knights were in terminator armors, they were probably a bit slower than in power armor. but probably even stronger. Its also possible the fact that both had power weapons helped the Sister since we don't really know how force fields impact fencing.

BTW, since were talking about stuff we disliked, I really think that killing a Hive Tyrant should be a momentous task that can only be done by tanks, war walkers or an entire squad of heavily armed Space Marine at the very least. The only times I could see a lone Space Marine win against one was if he was armed with something like a thunder hammer, relic blade or power fist and equipped with a powerful force field to just survive long enough to pass under the guard of the giant monster and strike it. A bit of luck or psychic protection against its psychic powers would be necessary.

The last three pages of discussions only goes to show that the black library is not a reliable source for any information on the setting. It’s all contradictory garbage.

Andykp wrote:
The last three pages of discussions only goes to show that the black library is not a reliable source for any information on the setting. It’s all contradictory garbage.

Everyone's faction in BL stuff is always colored with a little more POV armour than even codecies.

epronovost wrote:
BTW, since were talking about stuff we disliked, I really think that killing a Hive Tyrant should be a momentous task that can only be done by tanks, war walkers or an entire squad of heavily armed Space Marine at the very least. The only times I could see a lone Space Marine win against one was if he was armed with something like a thunder hammer, relic blade or power fist and equipped with a powerful force field to just survive long enough to pass under the guard of the giant monster and strike it. A bit of luck or psychic protection against its psychic powers would be necessary.

I think this is pretty much true already. The only times I've seen hive tryants killed in the lore are when they get hit with guard vehicle ordinance or get jumped by at least a combat squad of space marines. If you wouldn't mind quoting me a passage where a bog standard marine somehow takes down a hive tyrant singlehandedly in close combat I would be more inclined to agree with you more.

The unrealistically small size of space marine chapters, I don't care about how much more super humanly strong they are in the lore, the tiny numbers just doesn't make sense.

With the Orks, space fungus... Ok. Really. That's weak. I'm sort of imagining the Uruk-hai from lord of the rings.

the small chapters are to stop legion strengths of marines turning traitor ala heresy I believe.

Dannohawk wrote:
The unrealistically small size of space marine chapters, I don't care about how much more super humanly strong they are in the lore, the tiny numbers just doesn't make sense.

With the Orks, space fungus... Ok. Really. That's weak. I'm sort of imagining the Uruk-hai from lord of the rings.

As to chapters, marines win key battles, they do decapation strikes, critical target strikes, etc. The imperial guard amd the imperial fleet win wars, marines make it possible for them. When you need a lot of marines several chapters will ally.

Orks, they were created by the slann to be a self perpetuating warrior race. Their method of reproduction was chosen and designed for speed and efficiency. In that context it makes sense.

I dislike that the Imperium is becoming better in the current lore. Corrupt High lords disposed, competent people appointed for being competent, the return of Primarch and introduction of super space marines that saves the day. I would rather had with the fall of Cadia, the current (at that time) Imperium making their stand with their current heroes.

Calgar trying to fight Mortarions invasion etc. Azrael, Dante all of the current heroes, who have grown up and fought for the current Imperium confronting the demons of the past. The traitor primarchs who are returning and the champion of chaos. That we instead have the Imperium relying on their own ancient heroes returning then on their current leaders just seems (don't know how to phrase this) worse, not as interesting time of war as it could have been.

w1zard wrote:

epronovost wrote:
BTW, since were talking about stuff we disliked, I really think that killing a Hive Tyrant should be a momentous task that can only be done by tanks, war walkers or an entire squad of heavily armed Space Marine at the very least. The only times I could see a lone Space Marine win against one was if he was armed with something like a thunder hammer, relic blade or power fist and equipped with a powerful force field to just survive long enough to pass under the guard of the giant monster and strike it. A bit of luck or psychic protection against its psychic powers would be necessary.

I think this is pretty much true already. The only times I've seen hive tryants killed in the lore are when they get hit with guard vehicle ordinance or get jumped by at least a combat squad of space marines. If you wouldn't mind quoting me a passage where a bog standard marine somehow takes down a hive tyrant singlehandedly in close combat I would be more inclined to agree with you more.

Ye, we have only seen captains and chapter masters beat hive tyrants in single combat.

I really dislike how 40K lore has become these days. It just so puerile, and not even in funny way like in RT. It has just become about inane Space Marine superheroics and childish Primarch melodrama. Space Marines have been my main army since the third edition, so I of course like them in way, but I really don't like how the lore is so much about them and how they have become. (And Space Marine fan boys are just insufferable.) I really think Rogue Trader had the right idea, marines were gritty brutal killers, they were not mighty lords, they were not revered demigods. And now we of course have reached the ultimate culmination of the Space Marine fan wankery, a giant shiny divine Space Marine is running the entire Imperium, instead of the corrupt cabal of shadowy priests and politicians. Words cannot adequately describe the lameness of that. I just prefer not to think about the lore these days, the official setting has pretty much been ruined.

 Crimson wrote:
I really dislike how 40K lore has become these days. It just so puerile, and not even in funny way like in RT. It has just become about inane Space Marine superheroics and childish Primarch melodrama. Space Marines have been my main army since the third edition, so I of course like them in way, but I really don't like how the lore is so much about them and how they have become. (And Space Marine fan boys are just insufferable.) I really think Rogue Trader had the right idea, marines were gritty brutal killers, they were not mighty lords, they were not revered demigods. And now we of course have reached the ultimate culmination of the Space Marine fan wankery, a giant shiny divine Space Marine is running the entire Imperium, instead of the corrupt cabal of shadowy priests and politicians. Words cannot adequately describe the lameness of that. I just prefer not to think about the lore these days, the official setting has pretty much been ruined.

Do you have any recommendations for earlier literature/books?


I agree with a lot of your points. and this is why I prefer the heresy model range and books. I prefer the more rough and ready description, which I think the Heresy Lore does quite well, at least for the most part. however I do like that it shows their characters, with idiosyncrasies and flaws, even on the chaos side, it shows the reluctance and confusion of a lot of the traitors, and the many reasons they fell into betrayal. I also like the chaos literature. the night lords trilogy was a perfect example of how I imagined the bands of renegades roving round the galaxy, and how Talos still has somewhat of a moral code despite being a brutal killer.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

Do you have any recommendations for earlier literature/books?

Not really. I think a lot of 40K lore works best when it is just some isolated evocative snippets in the codices and rulebooks, and will ose a lot of its impact when attempts are made to expand it. The Horus Heresy is a good example of this, worked fine as a vague myth of distant barely remembered past, became lame superheroics and childish melodrama in the novels. FW take on the HH is pretty decent though, avoids most of the worst pit falls. However, I still would have preferred if that era wouldn't have been touched at all.

Oh, another.

There only being approx. 1,000,000 Space Marines.

Just doesn't seem like those numbers, no matter how hard they are, could possibly make an ounce of difference. Especially compared to untold Billions, if not Trillions, of Imperial Guard.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh, another.

There only being approx. 1,000,000 Space Marines.

Just doesn't seem like those numbers, no matter how hard they are, could possibly make an ounce of difference. Especially compared to untold Billions, if not Trillions, of Imperial Guard.

Well, at least for once the rules accurately reflect the fluff! Space Marines are irrelevant compared to the Guard!

Oh they have their use. You need to nobble the enemy command in 3.4 seconds flat, to cause the collapse of their line as the flow of orders and organisation stops? Send in the Astartes from orbit!

But given how vast the Imperium is, there's just too few Marines to do that in enough theatres to make a blind bit of difference.

Grey Knights get a pass here, because they've got prognosticators to guide their incredibly finite resources to exactly where and when they need to be. That's fine with me.

But the general 'and this is what Astartes do' just doesn't work when there's only around 1,000,000. Not for me, at least.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh they have their use. You need to nobble the enemy command in 3.4 seconds flat, to cause the collapse of their line as the flow of orders and organisation stops? Send in the Astartes from orbit!

But given how vast the Imperium is, there's just too few Marines to do that in enough theatres to make a blind bit of difference.

Grey Knights get a pass here, because they've got prognosticators to guide their incredibly finite resources to exactly where and when they need to be. That's fine with me.

But the general 'and this is what Astartes do' just doesn't work when there's only around 1,000,000. Not for me, at least.

There are a lot more than a million marines, some chapters still don't follow the codex astartes like the black templars and the space wolves. Even if it was 1,000,000 marines, that is one marine for every planet in the Imperium. Considering that it only takes about 10 marines or so drop-podding in to completely change the course of a battle (and usually a war), it is not THAT far fetched.

Marines are usually directed towards the worst warzones at a sector and subsector level. They don't wander around aimlessly looking for trouble, they fight until the enemy's back is broken, leave the mess for the guard to clean up, and move on to the next warzone that needs their attention.

GeeDub’s SW naming conventions. Yes, they like Wolves, we get it.

Primaris. I admit they’ve grown on me a bit but I honestly hate how they do everything better and have better gear than regular marines. Cawl has tampered with the Emperor’s work and somehow managed to do better, even with 10000 years to work on it. I could accept a new mark of armour, or even a slightly faster way of making marines but this is taking it too far.

How Guilliman’s idea of stopping another heresy, which was due to the legions being too different, is to split them into even smaller, more diverse groups. I get what he means by it being less damaging if someone does decide to turn traitor you’ve lost 1000 marines instead of 10000 but it’s going to make the rate of marines going renegade increase dramatically, and I don’t see why Guilliman shouldn’t see that coming.

 Crimson wrote:
I really dislike how 40K lore has become these days. It just so puerile, and not even in funny way like in RT. It has just become about inane Space Marine superheroics and childish Primarch melodrama. Space Marines have been my main army since the third edition, so I of course like them in way, but I really don't like how the lore is so much about them and how they have become. (And Space Marine fan boys are just insufferable.) I really think Rogue Trader had the right idea, marines were gritty brutal killers, they were not mighty lords, they were not revered demigods. And now we of course have reached the ultimate culmination of the Space Marine fan wankery, a giant shiny divine Space Marine is running the entire Imperium, instead of the corrupt cabal of shadowy priests and politicians. Words cannot adequately describe the lameness of that. I just prefer not to think about the lore these days, the official setting has pretty much been ruined.

I have a feeling that Guilliman being the main man in the Imperium is only going to be temporary, given the fact that it looks like other loyalist Primarchs are going to be coming back, which could cause some conflict among them as to how the Imperium should be ruled. That being said, I do like the fact that the Imperium is starting to do something right for once, such as taking a few steps towards technological progress, as well as getting guys into office that actually know what they're doing and who want to make things better. The grim darkness will always be there, if only given the multitude of foes that the Imperium faces, but having the Imperium be this perpetually rusty and soggy thing that limps around is getting kind of old. Injecting some real hope and humanity in the series I think is a very good change of pace.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Neither of you are speculating because BL authors are basically given carte blanche to write whatever they feel like, and certain authors definitely show a bias toward "their guys". (ADB is a Chaos fan boy, Gav Thorpe is an Eldar guy etc.)

Considering Cadian Blood, I dunno about ADB bias being all that strong.

To be fair to ADB, he's decent at making the characters/factions he's writing seem awesome while having at least minor flaws from their own perspective, but it's pretty clear he has a hard on for the Nightlords and prefers Chaos to "win" 40k.

I think that impression probably stems from the fact that he seems to write more books which have Chaos (or other 'bad guys') as the main protagonists. And the book series would be very short if the characters then got wiped out half-way through the first story...

On a separate note I actually think he's probably better than anyone at conveying character and the subjective view-point of Chaos soldiers, the Night Lords series he wrote was probably one of the best in the BL stable.

Just a massive shame that he didn't write the fall of Horus..

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

I have a feeling that Guilliman being the main man in the Imperium is only going to be temporary, given the fact that it looks like other loyalist Primarchs are going to be coming back, which could cause some conflict among them as to how the Imperium should be ruled. That being said, I do like the fact that the Imperium is starting to do something right for once, such as taking a few steps towards technological progress, as well as getting guys into office that actually know what they're doing and who want to make things better. The grim darkness will always be there, if only given the multitude of foes that the Imperium faces, but having the Imperium be this perpetually rusty and soggy thing that limps around is getting kind of old. Injecting some real hope and humanity in the series I think is a very good change of pace.

Just no. The Grimdark is not having powerful enemies that the heroic heroes can fight, the grimdark requires the internal rot. The things you describe, progress, hope and competent governance destroy the grimdark.

 Crimson wrote:
Just no. The Grimdark is not having powerful enemies that the heroic heroes can fight, the grimdark requires the internal rot. The things you describe, progress, hope and competent governance destroy the grimdark.

If the history of 40K has taught us anything it's that any spark of hope or goodness will be snuffed out in future codices or the next edition. Just ask the Tau, or going further back when the arrogance of the Eldar and their contempt for the mon-keigh was re-emphasised to counter the perception of them as noble elven types.

Guilliman's attempt to govern the Imperium is a veneer of hope scraped over a monumental lie. He's probably one of the few loyalist Primarchs who could have had that conversation with the Emperor and not come away feeling profoundly betrayed and wanting to burn the whole thing down. He's a good man and an ideallist - by the standards of the setting - ruling in the name of an Emperor who is arguably more distant and dreadful now that we know what he's thinking than when we didn't. I'd say that's still plenty grimdark.

I don't want a good idealistic demigod running the Imperium. Te mere idea makes me want to vomit.

Reading the Vigilus Defiant book (which is great!), you do eventually start rolling your eyes at how many of the vignettes end with "X Imperium faction was losing but then the Space Marines arrive and save the day."

We get it already... I don't think a Marine force has lost yet in the book but Ad Mech and AM are always getting wiped out but Xenos beforehand.

Every other faction in the book (Knights, Sisters, Astra Militarum, Ad Mech, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, Chaos) is presented in a more interesting way than Space Marines imo so you start just skipping over the sections where they appear.

The idea that technology could regress at the speed it does in the IoM, without the effect snowballing. We've seen civilization regress before, societal collapse is a much easier thing than technological collapse, you just need a populace that doesn't give a gak anymore. But technology is not an isolated advancement, you lose something, and five other things start to get lost as time goes on, and then, of those five, another 5 of each, and soon, the regression snowballs. Because each new improvement in tools, production, process, and maintenance is built on top of something else, its like a wooden block tower, take one piece out, or shift it over a bit, and the weight distribution across the whole thing changes, and the tower collapses. Not to mention, technological regression is a very hard thing to achieve. As in you have to actively attempt to sabotage it to even come close. Because even if the knowledge to use something fades away with someones death, the instrument is still there to be tampered with, and with man; if there's a will, then there's a way.

If we are to truly believe that many of the technology can not be replicated anymore, it would only make sense that within 100 years, the IoM would collapse as one sovereignty, and 50 years after, half of humanity would be wiped off the face of the Milky Way.

I choose to believe as headcanon that the technology remains the same, with individuals, or systems making small improvements over time, not too big, so as to not trigger hostile reactions within the Administratum. And that the reason the IoM as a whole has not changed much over the 10,000 years is due to millions of reasons, chief of which is the Chaos and Xenos threat and the burdensome and slothful bureaucracy within.

Here's another thing I remembered. When I first saw these I thought.. Wtf is that. Stupidest weapon design ever.

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
I choose to believe as headcanon that the technology remains the same, with individuals, or systems making small improvements over time, not too big, so as to not trigger hostile reactions within the Administratum. And that the reason the IoM as a whole has not changed much over the 10,000 years is due to millions of reasons, chief of which is the Chaos and Xenos threat and the burdensome and slothful bureaucracy within.

Isn't it the official position of GW? There has been technological changes and improvement in the Imperium. Just look at Space Marine armors. The later Marks are supposed to be better then the older ones. The Razorback is supposed to be an innovation of hte mid 36th millenium. The Sister of Battle bolter is an improved version of the Space Marine one designed to be more reliable. Plasma weapons are almost abscent of the Chaos Space Marine forces because they were developped later for mass use. There is a lot of signs that while the Imperium is mostly stagnant and might even lose a piece of tech here and there, they also improve once in a while, just very slowly.

epronovost wrote:

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
I choose to believe as headcanon that the technology remains the same, with individuals, or systems making small improvements over time, not too big, so as to not trigger hostile reactions within the Administratum. And that the reason the IoM as a whole has not changed much over the 10,000 years is due to millions of reasons, chief of which is the Chaos and Xenos threat and the burdensome and slothful bureaucracy within.

Isn't it the official position of GW? There has been technological changes and improvement in the Imperium. Just look at Space Marine armors. The later Marks are supposed to be better then the older ones. The Razorback is supposed to be an innovation of hte mid 36th millenium. The Sister of Battle bolter is an improved version of the Space Marine one designed to be more reliable. Plasma weapons are almost abscent of the Chaos Space Marine forces because they were developped later for mass use. There is a lot of signs that while the Imperium is mostly stagnant and might even lose a piece of tech here and there, they also improve once in a while, just very slowly.

Agreed, technological progress is always being made, just very slowly as a result of the Imperium's and Mechanincus' culture of thinking new and revolutionary ideas are heresy. But that slight progress is still there.

It's called "stagnation" because this slight progress is nothing compared to the technological advance of humanity in ages past, and even during the great crusade. It is a comparison of "pace".

The dark ages IRL Europe were chracterized by a massive slow-down of technological progress and a general lack of interest in science. Still, some important progress was made during the dark ages, for instance the adoption of the number '0' into the European math system was a huge step forward in mathematics.

w1zard wrote:
The dark ages IRL Europe were chracterized by a massive slow-down of technological progress and a general lack of interest in science. Still, some important progress was made during the dark ages, for instance the adoption of the number '0' into the European math system was a huge step forward in mathematics.

Actually, the "Dark Ages" are largely a myth. Technological and scientifical development didn't slowed down during the medieval period in any perceivable way. The greatest center of knowledge in the Middle East moved from Alexendria to Bagdad and the ones in Europe decentralised a lot, but were no less productive. There has been massive advances in all domain of science in the Middle Ages, especially in herboristery, architecture, metallurgy, agriculture and engineering.

Yeah, the clergy was actually really supportive of scientific advancement, and a lot of scientific papers and discoveries were by monks.
And no, they didn't think the world was flat. That was a falsehood that originated in the 19th century.

epronovost wrote:

w1zard wrote:
The dark ages IRL Europe were chracterized by a massive slow-down of technological progress and a general lack of interest in science. Still, some important progress was made during the dark ages, for instance the adoption of the number '0' into the European math system was a huge step forward in mathematics.

Actually, the "Dark Ages" are largely a myth. Technological and scientifical development didn't slowed down during the medieval period in any perceivable way. The greatest center of knowledge in the Middle East moved from Alexendria to Bagdad and the ones in Europe decentralised a lot, but were no less productive. There has been massive advances in all domain of science in the Middle Ages, especially in herboristery, architecture, metallurgy, agriculture and engineering.

I wouldn't call it a myth, but more like exaggerated. Knowledge was lost due to the collapse of the western Roman Empire. There was also a decline in the progress of science during the middle ages because scientific knowledge was controlled almost solely by the Catholic Church, and most Europeans peasants were illiterate. Basically, all scientific progress from this time came from either monks/priests or an educated noble with the backing of the church.