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.

This is a poll to see what you guys think on this topic.
I sometimes get frustrated when the Warhammer 40k background doesn't match the characters in game.
For example: In W40k novels space marines often perform amazing feats like taking out huge numbers of enemies or besting powerful opponents. However in game they always seem much weaker and can be outmatched by a unit of guardsmen.
Does anyone else find this frustrating or do you think it helps to make the background of 40K more interesting?

They should be separate entities. If you struggle to match the two, you damage the game and you damage the novels.

The novels suffer from damage by the authors having to essentially 'playtest' their stories and the stories are going to start looking very similar in a big hurry. And not to be blunt, but most of the time, a game of 40k does not make for a real compelling story. Now obviously, there are times where a game does produce a good story, but on your average game, it just isn't novel material. Nobody is interested in a story where a squad of marines stays within a unit's "no rally" bubble and marches them off a battlefield.

The game suffers by having to conform to fantastic standards. I'm assuming that you want Marines to be stronger, great, now the entire game has to be rebalanced. And since there are dozens of authors with dozens of interpretations of the fluff, how exactly do you determine who is right?

No. They're fine as is.

I think they should be treated as separate universes in terms of the stats. I can't imagine it would be fun to play against Marines as capable as those who serve as protagonists in BL novels. On the other hand, I can't imagine reading a novel where characters randomly die for sometimes absurd reasons would be too fun, either (unless it was about the Imperial Guard).

Voting for Yes.

I absolutely understand the desire for epic stories - "300"-style, to name just one contemporary adaption of an ancient legend. On the other hand, it gets confusing if the "power level" of protagonists and antagonists jumps up and down, drastically twisting their perception in the fanbase. I have always supported consistency in a setting, and greater adherence to a singular clear source is obviously an efficient means to secure just this.

Won't happen, though - for good or for bad, the concept of "alternate interpretations" and artistic license for fans and writers alike is too firmly entrenched in the franchise as a whole.

Manchu wrote:On the other hand, I can't imagine reading a novel where characters randomly die for sometimes absurd reasons would be too fun, either (unless it was about the Imperial Guard).

But what about the middle ground? I don't think anybody would support characters "dying randomly for absurd reasons" - but what would be wrong about pandering to certain expectations gleaned from the abstracted stats (A stronger than B) in the tabletop? You don't have to go 1:1 on it, but I believe there is a better balance to be found, and many 40k novels have already succeeded in doing so. Read Gav Thorpe's "Know Thine Enemy" for what I consider to be a good example. Marines are actually dying in there, yet still you get away with the clear impression that they are superhuman warriors. Basically, it's the small but important difference between Superhuman and Superman.

It all comes down to considering the source material when thinking about how many antagonists to put up against the protagonists, and how obvious you want to make the casualties. This isn't a new concept, that's Basic Writing 101. I'm just under the impression that a lot of "bolter porn" shies away from it because people like to read about warrior gods rather than warrior monks.

The game, these days, is just something I do every now and then, but the background is the driving force behind my interest in the 40k setting. I've never really gotten on with the 40k tabletop game, I do rather like 6th Edition but for me it's nowhere near as enjoyable as Mordheim or Necromunda or Blood Bowl. Or Victory at Sea or Saga, etc. Making the background more uniform with the game may damage it for those of us for whom the game is not the priority - I'm going to be like the Imperium on this one. Change?! By the God-Emperor, NOOO!

Lynata wrote:On the other hand, it gets confusing if the "power level" of protagonists and antagonists jumps up and down, drastically twisting their perception in the fanbase

But often creates wonderful discussions with different viewpoints giving different ideas, examples & interpretations.

Sparks_Havelock wrote:But often creates wonderful discussions with different viewpoints giving different ideas, examples & interpretations.

Interpretations are already different enough thanks to the many gaps in the fluff, though. They don't have to be increased by conflicting multiple iterations of what we actually have.

I dunno, I just think that more of a "common ground" would make a lot of discussions easier, or at least limit them to more interesting topics. Debates about someone's "power level" are rarely constructive, anyways.

To be fair, it should also be more accurate to itself. It is wildly inconsistent and contradictory, with settings and events power levels of various characters varying highly depending on author.

Manchu wrote:I think they should be treated as separate universes in terms of the stats. I can't imagine it would be fun to play against Marines as capable as those who serve as protagonists in BL novels. On the other hand, I can't imagine reading a novel where characters randomly die for sometimes absurd reasons would be too fun, either (unless it was about the Imperial Guard).

The worst thing would be the 1+ Plot Armor save.

It all sort of depends on how the story is flowing. As long as it doesn't break the suspension of disblief I'm OK with it. So Marine duder mowing down 20+ gaunts isn't as big a deal because they're mooks, but if he does that, then blows away one carnifex with a melta while cramming a grenade down the throat of another, then there had better be some damn good writing to back that up.

Would I like it? Sure. Is it possible? No.

Nobody wants to buy 200 Guardsmen, or Tyranids, or Dark Eldar just to have them get mulched by the guy who only had to buy 20 Marines, lol. In order to keep the game feasible for both people to play, and for Games Workshop to continue to support financially (by selling enough models), the rules are adjusted to make it fun.

The rules in some of the alternate games like Dark Heresy and Inquisitor have tried to make more "realistic" depictions, but even they haven't done that great of a job. Sometimes the Marines end up being ridiculously overpowered. Which seems like it would be hard to do with 7 foot tall genetically engineered superhuman warriors encased in light tank armor, lol.

Can someone tell me which overrides "which"? I' mean who is first to look - novels or codex...

DatrhMarko wrote:Can someone tell me which overrides "which"? I' mean who is first to look - novels or codex...

There is no override. According to comments by various game developers and novel authors alike, it's all meant to co-exist as "different interpretations". It all comes down to what the individual player prefers. Some value Codex material for being the "original source", some value the outsourced products for their increase in detail.

So basically " you take which you like the most "...well.....for example- In codex Russ hit's Magnus in the aye (tactical move),knowing it's his only weaknes(pure logic) and in novel he strucks him blindly in rage (like lucky shot)....so what's the point of al these talk's when they are from different sources...

I would like the fluff/books to match the background to the game, rather than the other way around.

Most of the BL books are a tad fanboi about SM. The Guard ones are better.

I would like the table-top to match the fluff.

You'd have to pay 600 pts per marine, minimum, then..

Absolutely yes.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/12/40k-playtest-movie-marines-in-5e.html

Movie marines, very accurate to the Ultramarines movie, and points-fair. Very fun to play as, in a friendly game, but a bit obnoxiously powerful.

The Ultramarines movie had stunt doubles?

TheCaptain wrote:http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/12/40k-playtest-movie-marines-in-5e.html

Movie marines, very accurate to the Ultramarines movie, and points-fair. Very fun to play as, in a friendly game, but a bit obnoxiously powerful.

First time seeing the article, you think there would have been pictures of well you know space marines, rather then humans.

I think the fluff and tabletop should be similer, since without the table top there would be no fluff. With that said, there can be some differences since the game is pretty abstract.

Without the fluff, there would be no table-top game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ascalam wrote:You'd have to pay 600 pts per marine, minimum, then..

I'd only need 2.

I'm pretty sure the game came first to sell models. No game, no need to sell models, so no need to have cool backgrounds.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I'm pretty sure the game came first to sell models. No game, no need to sell models, so no need to have cool backgrounds.

Well, according to the GW people, both the game and its fluff form a union, as people supposedly have more fun if they can flesh out the conflict on the table with a bit of backstory. To me, this is sound logic, as I myself was drawn to the franchise by its background rather than the models alone. 40k has cool designs, but to me they mean little without all the story attached to them. If one just wanted to play "Blue vs Red", there are cheaper alternatives.

Continuity is a good thing. GW needs to bring the background and the units on table closer to being representative of each other.

By not doing so, GW risks having a stong disconnect between these two parts of their business. Such a strong disconnect can prevent those much needed cross-over sales between the readers and the players.

So this will mean that the superhuman dominance of the Space Marine will come to an end?

Psienesis wrote:Without the fluff, there would be no table-top game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ascalam wrote:You'd have to pay 600 pts per marine, minimum, then..

I'd only need 2.

Three

The awesome captain

The grizzled, and equally awesome sergeant

The utter a-hole who you wish would just die...

Got to have all three

Lynata wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I'm pretty sure the game came first to sell models. No game, no need to sell models, so no need to have cool backgrounds.

Well, according to the GW people, both the game and its fluff form a union, as people supposedly have more fun if they can flesh out the conflict on the table with a bit of backstory. To me, this is sound logic, as I myself was drawn to the franchise by its background rather than the models alone. 40k has cool designs, but to me they mean little without all the story attached to them. If one just wanted to play "Blue vs Red", there are cheaper alternatives.

Oh yeah, I got into after someone gave me the first gaunts ghosts omnibus for my birthday. So it was the story that drove me. But if its a what came first question I'm sure Rules first then Story. Which is why I want the fluff to match up with the rules.

I've always been a big fan of the Gaunt's Ghosts novels simply because they're very good books. But when you look at why I like them its probably because the stories are much more human. You have characters dying all over the place and that is often my experience in game. It makes events that do happen in the games very cinematic and fun to read but also consistent with the rules and people's idea of what guardsmen are.

The story came first. Check out Rogue Trader (the original 40k, not the current FFG RPG). That did not spring into being from a table-top game.

And I guess the OP has never read a single D&D novel either? Not too many player characters are really ever like their novel counterparts...

Psienesis wrote:The story came first. Check out Rogue Trader (the original 40k, not the current FFG RPG). That did not spring into being from a table-top game.

Actually Rogue Trader's fluff was primarily devised to fit the models Citadel were already making, thus saving them some money. Space Marines had already been sculpted for Ansell's earlier game, Laserburn, the Jokaero were put in because they had made an orangoutang model to represent mayor Dave from Judge Dredd, etc. Much the same is true of Warhammer; the original high elf miniatures were initially produced and sold as Melniboneans back when Citadel had the license to make miniatures for Chaosium's Stormbringer game, when that license lapsed, they simply rebranded them, likewise the original Imperial and Brettonnian models were reused from a variety of different sources, some fantasy, some historical.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:And I guess the OP has never read a single D&D novel either? Not too many player characters are really ever like their novel counterparts...

If the OP has never read a D&D novel, then he is indeed fortunate.