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.

Something's occurred to me. Space Marines are often touted as a shock-and-awe weapon, intended to strike fear in the heart of the Imperium's enemies with their overt warfare tactics (with some exceptions like the Raven Guard, but in their case, the stealth itself is likely part of how they make an impression: "How'd they kill a roomfull of officers without alerting any sentries?!").

Anyway... does this mean Marines are somewhat wasted on fearless enemies such as Tyranids, Necrons and daemons?

I mean, I'm sure they still do a very good job of killing those enemies, but it's likely a suboptimal use of the Imperium's precious few Marines.

.

-Guardsman- wrote:
Something's occurred to me. Space Marines are often touted as a shock-and-awe weapon, intended to strike fear in the heart of the Imperium's enemies with their overt warfare tactics (with some exceptions like the Raven Guard, but in their case, the stealth itself is likely part of how they make an impression: "How'd they kill a roomfull of officers without alerting any sentries?!").

Anyway... does this mean Marines are somewhat wasted on fearless enemies such as Tyranids, Necrons and daemons?

I mean, I'm sure they still do a very good job of killing those enemies, but it's likely a suboptimal use of the Imperium's precious few Marines.

.

It probably is suboptimal, but Marines also have a positive morale effect on allied forces (generally, there are some exceptions like Flesh Tearers...). So for major battles against particularly horrific foes, some Marines probably help steel the line for the theatre.

Also, if you have a tool, the production cost has already been sunk. So even if it isn't the most efficient tool in the long run, it will get used if it is an effective tool now and you need a problem solving. Like a huge hive fleet...

I’d say partially.

Because it’s more the how of Astartes shock and awe, especially post-Second Founding.

Whilst an assembled Chapter, deploying in a single theatre, let alone single battle is a staggeringly powerful force? They can’t do it alone. They’re just too few.

Where Astartes are at their best is going after whatever leadership the foe might have.

Warboss, Farseer, Phaeron, Patriarch, Hive Tyrant, Renegade General, Renegade Chapter Master. Pretty much any mover and shaker in 40K can be disputed by kicking it in its operational brains.

But typically, overall victory relies upon the Guard, and if available the other various Imperial armed forces to take proper advantage of the Marine’s bloody work, and keep the pressure on until a severe blow to the enemy force’s cohesion becomes a rout.

This applies even in less overall decisive actions. Marines are the most competent troops you could hope for. And they’re ridiculously flexible as a single force, despite Chapter/Legion specialisation. If their Scouts have been up to nonsense behind enemy lines? The other Imperial assets need to be in a position to capitalise on those efforts.

If a couple of Assault Squads have just gutted the centre of the enemy line? You need to be able to force that gap and keep it all horribly gappy.

And so on and so forth. Marines are the force multiplier. The element of the wider Imperial War Machine that can turn its hand to pretty much anything with a decent chance of success. But it can’t do it alone. They don’t have the numbers (and that’s entirely by design) for that.

-Guardsman- wrote:
Something's occurred to me. Space Marines are often touted as a shock-and-awe weapon, intended to strike fear in the heart of the Imperium's enemies with their overt warfare tactics (with some exceptions like the Raven Guard, but in their case, the stealth itself is likely part of how they make an impression: "How'd they kill a roomfull of officers without alerting any sentries?!").

Anyway... does this mean Marines are somewhat wasted on fearless enemies such as Tyranids, Necrons and daemons?

I mean, I'm sure they still do a very good job of killing those enemies, but it's likely a suboptimal use of the Imperium's precious few Marines.

Is it better to kill a person with a brick or a fully automatic grenade launcher?

The benefit of marines against those foes who don't really get afraid, is that the Marines themselves also don't feel fear.

 Gert wrote:

Is it better to kill a person with a brick or a fully automatic grenade launcher?

I'm guessing in most circumstances a brick is cheaper and easier to acquire, and if a brick will work one could easily substitute a rock, which is even cheaper and easier to come by.

I feel the urge to insert the "Rocks aren't free citizen!" post

 Grey Templar wrote:
I feel the urge to insert the "Rocks aren't free citizen!" post

I think of that post at least a couple times a year.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm guessing in most circumstances a brick is cheaper and easier to acquire, and if a brick will work one could easily substitute a rock, which is even cheaper and easier to come by.

The chances of killing with the brick are lower than with the grenade launcher. You could also dig a tunnel with a spoon but a spade would be the better choice. The question was why use Astartes against enemies that don't feel fear and the answer is "because they kill real good".

And kill the most important things real good.

Synapse Beasts, Phaerons, Greater Daemons, Daemonic Heralds.

Not necessarily as a Delete Button solution, but they can get the job done, and quicker than others.

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm guessing in most circumstances a brick is cheaper and easier to acquire, and if a brick will work one could easily substitute a rock, which is even cheaper and easier to come by.

The chances of killing with the brick are lower than with the grenade launcher. You could also dig a tunnel with a spoon but a spade would be the better choice. The question was why use Astartes against enemies that don't feel fear and the answer is "because they kill real good".

Whilst I appreciate that Astartes are obviously very good at killing things, the poster was talking about cost efficiency. If bricks were more cost-effective than grenade launchers, militaries would still use them. As it is, the lack of efficacy outweighs the cheap cost.

However, as also pointed out, the Imperium is a nutty society so efficiency is often laid by the wayside in favour of tradition and superstition.

Also, where the enemy commander can be found, you’ll usually find a decent chunk of whatever passes for their Command Staff.

Same principle as the Eversor Temple. Total annilihation of the enemy high command.

The difference between losing your General, and losing all your Chiefs of Staff.

Root and stem. That’s what Marines do well.

 Haighus wrote:
Whilst I appreciate that Astartes are obviously very good at killing things, the poster was talking about cost efficiency. If bricks were more cost-effective than grenade launchers, militaries would still use them. As it is, the lack of efficacy outweighs the cheap cost.

However, as also pointed out, the Imperium is a nutty society so efficiency is often laid by the wayside in favour of tradition and superstition.

Even if we ignore the more out-there stories set in the 40k universe where 10 Ultramarines destroy an entire Tomb World single-handedly, the idea that it isn't efficient to use Astartes to deal with the likes of the Necrons or Tyranids is still a poor one.

The Imperium could deploy twenty Regiments of infantry, armour, artillery, and specialists or they could call upon a strike force of Astartes. There is less muster time required and the troops requested have a much better chance of defeating the enemy and actually living through it as well.

Yes, the Astartes are a limited resource but awakening Tomb Worlds, Hive Fleet tendrils, Daemonic incursions, or Traitor Astartes raids are exactly what Astartes are supposed to be there to stop. The issue is the Imperium often wastes Astartes on what are essentially political or policing actions because the Arbites have guffed it and the Guard often don't want to shoot random civilians.

I think there’s more to it for the Guard there.

Even the most decorated Guard commander is unavoidably part of the wider political game. The ends usually justify the means, but you still have a web of intrigue and politicking which you’re by no means well suited to.

Marines? Far less so. If the commanding officer a strike force takes a course of action allies consider distasteful? There’s not a huge amount they can do about it. Check and balances do of course exist (Inqusition, peers within the Chapter, other Chapters), but they’re in a position to do far more, up to and including Exterminatus, with far less oversight, bickering, politicking and other assorted bureaucratic shenigans than a Guard Commander.

 Gert wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Whilst I appreciate that Astartes are obviously very good at killing things, the poster was talking about cost efficiency. If bricks were more cost-effective than grenade launchers, militaries would still use them. As it is, the lack of efficacy outweighs the cheap cost.

However, as also pointed out, the Imperium is a nutty society so efficiency is often laid by the wayside in favour of tradition and superstition.

Even if we ignore the more out-there stories set in the 40k universe where 10 Ultramarines destroy an entire Tomb World single-handedly, the idea that it isn't efficient to use Astartes to deal with the likes of the Necrons or Tyranids is still a poor one.

The Imperium could deploy twenty Regiments of infantry, armour, artillery, and specialists or they could call upon a strike force of Astartes. There is less muster time required and the troops requested have a much better chance of defeating the enemy and actually living through it as well.

Yes, the Astartes are a limited resource but awakening Tomb Worlds, Hive Fleet tendrils, Daemonic incursions, or Traitor Astartes raids are exactly what Astartes are supposed to be there to stop. The issue is the Imperium often wastes Astartes on what are essentially political or policing actions because the Arbites have guffed it and the Guard often don't want to shoot random civilians.

I'm not saying I agree that Marines are cost-inefficient, but it is a valid lense to look at them through. To use your example- if 20 regiments can do the same job as a single strikeforce of Astartes, but the resources invested in said strikeforce could have been used to raise a hundred regiments, then the Marines are less cost-effective*. Now, I don't think this is true because Marines have capabilities not found in other Imperial forces to the same degree and mix- strategic and tactical autonomy paired with a generally unmatched capability for precision orbital assaults and strikes. Pretty much only Custodes can do the same things as well and they are even rarer with most of their number guarding one location. So the strikeforce can do things the 20 regiments cannot (and vice versa).

When it comes to specific foes, I think it is very fair to say Marines are less effective than against others. A Marine strikeforce can and frequently does end a planetary revolt by merely turning up in orbit or launching minimal strikes taking out the rebel governor or what not. They can often end wars that could be very costly for the Guard before the Guard has even started mobilising through reputation alone. Obviously that does not work on Tyranids or Necrons, so you get a lot more efficiency out of a strike cruiser zipping around putting down rebellions than against hive fleets. I don't think that means Marines have no value against those tough foes, their specialisms are very useful for bolstering an Imperial campaign and I've already argued as much upthread. But a Marine does work better against foes vulnerable to morale.


*hugely simplified scenario for logistics, that could be its own thread. Any actual comparison would need to look at costs per unit time for upkeep and replacements, and Marines have an advantage in durable, long-lived personnel that skews logistics more in their favour. Also, I don't think Imperial logistics are "fungible" in the same way modern day logistics are, and even then it takes time to change a production line from building one thing to another thing (see Ukraine constructing T64s because they have production lines already and now isn't the time to switch that). So, for example, the Imperium probably has a bunch of Marine power armour production lines that it has, they are a sunk cost, and they cannot be changed to, say, flak armour and lasgun production lines because they are holy archeotech. So they are already producing Marine gear, may as well continue with Marines to use it.

To be blunt each of the Imperial organizations isn't particularly good on their own and the whole thing only really comes together when you have several different Imperial forces working together, covering each other weaknesses and multiplying each other's strengths.

But throwing a company of Marines unsupported against a Necrons or Tyranids is a quick way to lose a company of Marines.

Cost effectiveness is also sometimes not important. From a cost-effective standpoint, every war the US has fought since Korea has been horribly cost-inefficient. But the US is wealthy enough to throw million $ missiles at pickup trucks and not lose out.

The Imperium is wealthy enough to occasionally waste Marines on something important if it needs to die right now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Cost effectiveness is also sometimes not important. From a cost-effective standpoint, every war the US has fought since Korea has been horribly cost-inefficient. But the US is wealthy enough to throw million $ missiles at pickup trucks and not lose out.

The Imperium is wealthy enough to occasionally waste Marines on something important if it needs to die right now.

Well... that is quite a debatable point. Several of those wars could be considered a significant loss for the US where they gained little for the treasure spent. Everything has an opportunity cost, and you could make an argument those tax dollars could have been spent more productively on domestic policies or even foreign aid for the geopolitical aims. Now there is a difference between strategic and tactical cost-effectiveness, and using cost-ineffective weapons for a tactical gain might be warranted in specific circumstances. That weapon is a sunk cost. Strategic cost inefficiency means a long-term loss and opportunity cost though.

I would argue that is the point, in spite of its size and power, the IoM is a giant sunk cost. Space Marines can be tactically cost-effective, but if you zoom out to the whole galactic sized picture, nothing the IoM does is strategically cost-efficient.

It’s not The Imperium as a whole that dictates the actions and therefore application of Marines.

You can ask and petition for aid, even rely on an ancient pact or detente etc? But the decision to assist lies solely with the command of that Chapter.

Whilst not entirely free from consequence, they’re well within their right to refuse to render any assistance, for any reason. And even if they do? Their deployment and role in the war is open to suggestion but still remains their sole decision,

They’re simply not at the beck and call of anyone else. They can even tell the Inquisiton and High Lords to sod off. Not advisable to do like, but still able to.

 Haighus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Cost effectiveness is also sometimes not important. From a cost-effective standpoint, every war the US has fought since Korea has been horribly cost-inefficient. But the US is wealthy enough to throw million $ missiles at pickup trucks and not lose out.

The Imperium is wealthy enough to occasionally waste Marines on something important if it needs to die right now.

Well... that is quite a debatable point. Several of those wars could be considered a significant loss for the US where they gained little for the treasure spent. Everything has an opportunity cost, and you could make an argument those tax dollars could have been spent more productively on domestic policies or even foreign aid for the geopolitical aims. Now there is a difference between strategic and tactical cost-effectiveness, and using cost-ineffective weapons for a tactical gain might be warranted in specific circumstances. That weapon is a sunk cost. Strategic cost inefficiency means a long-term loss and opportunity cost though.

It just depends on what you see as important.

And at the strategic level the Imperium isn't really looking at absolute costs from the top down since it is so decentralized. Space Marines are independent agents who mostly decide where to go on their own. The Imperium's bureaucracy can ask/petition/beg chapters do certain things, but on the whole they don't control where the Marines go. This does probably minimize the waste that marines cause as they generally probably have better information than the Imperium's pencil pushers, but they could of course make mistakes which are very costly if they lack big picture info.

 Grey Templar wrote:

And at the strategic level the Imperium isn't really looking at absolute costs from the top down since it is so decentralized. Space Marines are independent agents who mostly decide where to go on their own. The Imperium's bureaucracy can ask/petition/beg chapters do certain things, but on the whole they don't control where the Marines go. This does probably minimize the waste that marines cause as they generally probably have better information than the Imperium's pencil pushers, but they could of course make mistakes which are very costly if they lack big picture info.

Also -

1.) There's only so many marines to go around, and every command authority probably wants some for his or her own conflict. Letting the marines decide where best to allocate their scarce units is one way of dealing with this problem, and also avoids the problem of the local command authority allocating marines to suicide (even for marines) missions for little or no real gain.
2.) The Imperium has a lot of corruption in its bureaucracy. Decisions on military force allocations are likely often made for less than honorable reasons (case in point the invasion of the craftworld in the Eldar trilogy). Giving the marines discretion about when and where to deploy mitigates some of the corruption. Additionally, marines suddenly pulling out of a campaign (as happens at the end of the third Eldar novel) can serve as a big red flag to the rest of the Imperial contingents that there's something fishy going on with the current campaign.

On the other hand...

It's likely that quite a few chapters are driven by concerns of martial honor or glory. And the chapter master of such a chapter might pass on a campaign that could be particularly helpful to the Imperium, but not seem "glorious" enough for the marine chapter in question.

Marines are famously immune to any form of corruption.

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm guessing in most circumstances a brick is cheaper and easier to acquire, and if a brick will work one could easily substitute a rock, which is even cheaper and easier to come by.

The chances of killing with the brick are lower than with the grenade launcher. You could also dig a tunnel with a spoon but a spade would be the better choice. The question was why use Astartes against enemies that don't feel fear and the answer is "because they kill real good".

But your question in response was "Is it better to kill a person with a brick or a fully automatic grenade launcher?" To which the response is obviously "depends on context." The brick represents fewer resources, and if it can do the job or is all that's available, then the brick is fine.

It can even be a more ideal choice. There's a big tarantula on my wall, and I could kill it with a brick or a grenade launcher. Better to kill it with a brick, because the grenade launcher will obviously bring about lots of collateral damage, such as this excerpt from the Space Marine codex, 3rd edition:

This example also illustrates the double edged sword of that "freedom of action" aspect of Space Marines. It also illustrates "It's not your war-asset, it's how you use it." If a more responsible IG commander showed up threatening counter-invasion and dropped troops directly onto leadership positions, the whole scenario coulda gone a lil better.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And kill the most important things real good.

Synapse Beasts, Phaerons, Greater Daemons, Daemonic Heralds.

Not necessarily as a Delete Button solution, but they can get the job done, and quicker than others.

Maybe so, but as one who's played ye-olde Epic (various versions), airstrikes, volcano cannons, artillery, planetary bombardments and other variations on "big friggin guns" also work great.

There's also examples like the first war of Armageddon, where (iirc) the entire first company of Grey Knights was wiped out taking on Angron and his bodyguard of 12 Bloodthirsters, and you do have to wonder at the expense of that particular loss in comparison to a batch of melta-missiles or some other big-guns solution, what the circumstances might have been to force that sort of engagement, or if it was Grey Knights just Leeeeroooy Jeeeenkins-ing it out of religious zeal.

It just goes to show that you don't always get to use the ideal tool for the job, and you make do with what you have in the scenario given.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:

Whilst I appreciate that Astartes are obviously very good at killing things, the poster was talking about cost efficiency. If bricks were more cost-effective than grenade launchers, militaries would still use them. As it is, the lack of efficacy outweighs the cheap cost.

However, as also pointed out, the Imperium is a nutty society so efficiency is often laid by the wayside in favour of tradition and superstition.

I'm not sure about bricks, but I think ye-olde pointed stick showed up in vietnam as part of pit-traps.

But yeah, I sorta intended "cost" as a catch all for not only financial expenditure but also the opportunity cost and other more abstract "costs" associated with either. Anybody who's circle strafed a Baron of Hell using a shotgun rather then expending your harder-to-come-by rockets knows the tradeoffs.

For cost effectiveness you also have to take into account reusability. If we take the 20 regiments to 1 strike-force ratio, and the regiments take 10% casualties every battle and the marines don't. Then after 10 battles it uses 40 regiments of resources or 1 marine strike-force. Or after 100 battles 220 regiments or 1 marine strike-force.

Tygre wrote:
For cost effectiveness you also have to take into account reusability. If we take the 20 regiments to 1 strike-force ratio, and the regiments take 10% casualties every battle and the marines don't. Then after 10 battles it uses 40 regiments of resources or 1 marine strike-force. Or after 100 battles 220 regiments or 1 marine strike-force.

While that's true (though I don't understand the numbers in your last sentence), the very nature of the Marine doctrine (rapid atrack, high concentration) means that a lapse in judgement or a particularly dangerous foe can reap tremendous casualties from those Marines in a very short amount of time. We've all played 40k after all, and we've seen the piles of dead. A bad drop for the Marines, or an unexpected surprise can lead to a quick end of said strike force, whereas it's barely a loss to those 20 regiments, the rest of which can react and start digging in for the long haul.

It is worth noting that the fluff is going to have extreme bias towards showing us the absolute worst case scenarios. They're going to talk about the heroic last stands, the horrific massacres, etc... They're not going to talk about the mundane missions where everything goes right and the marines kill 500 enemies each with no casualties. Yet that has to happen a lot because marines seem to average a century or two before they actually get killed. Which means they're going on a huge number of missions where nobody dies.

Then again, those mundane boring missions are against poorly equipped and trained human traitors, pirates and insurgents.

The topic went in the direction of Daemons, Necrons and Tyranids, and almost by definition those are worst case scenarios.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It is worth noting that the fluff is going to have extreme bias towards showing us the absolute worst case scenarios. They're going to talk about the heroic last stands, the horrific massacres, etc... They're not going to talk about the mundane missions where everything goes right and the marines kill 500 enemies each with no casualties. Yet that has to happen a lot because marines seem to average a century or two before they actually get killed. Which means they're going on a huge number of missions where nobody dies.

A couple questions regarding that. First, what's the source for "seem to be a century old"?

Then related, is there some sort of survivorship bias going on with that? It's possible that most marines live to a century, but it's also possible that a high proportion die during their service as Scouts and Assault units in earlier decades, and then those who make it through to more standard battleline units have a much higher survival rate. "Most" of the chapter might actually be only the 20% that made it through their early years.

I agree that much of Marine activity could be fairly mundane, rebellions, small Ork raids, or even just being part of a larger operation where the Guard are doing the heavy lifting and Marines get the luxury of being able to only do their specialized thing. But also longevity statistics can get weird, especially as expected casualty rates can vary over service.

Perhaps there is survivorship bias, but if a lot of marines did die early on in their careers then I would expect older marines would make a bigger deal of that. How the faces of their lower ranked brethren blur together as the decades pass and they die in battle.

It would also make marines being a century old or so much more unusual, and you would think they would say something about it if that was the case. Instead, the only times a marine being old is unusual is cases like Dante, and he's like 700+. Which to me seems to suggest that the century mark is not unusual.

I would think this is of course only applying to the Firstborn. The Primarus marines have not been around as long so some of them being old is less common(aside from those who got the Rubicon surgery) just because it hasn't been that long since they were a thing.

Just in terms of general military service, experience makes a huge difference and marines will have a lot of opportunity to gain experience even before they become a full marine. Their "boot camp" equivalent alone lasts 8+ years. Then however long they're in the scouts till they become full battle brothers. So by the time a marine is actually a full Marine he's going to have a decade-ish of training/light combat duty. This alone will make him way way better than the average human soldier in actual combat experience, plus whatever supplemental training the chapter gives them.

It probably also depends a lot on whats going on in the area the chapter exists in. Particularly major galactic level events will skew the data a bit.