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.

In another thread in this forum, people have pointed out that space marine ships aren't supposed to have lances. This comes from BFG, and has been around for a long time. The important thing is that it appeared in BFG, a game about space fleets of the different factions. It's only natural that you would read it there, instead of in a 40k codex or in a novel, but I think the context also affects the content. That is, it was in a book with rules for several different factions. I think that the reason we know about lances and marine ships is mainly a game design question, to differentiate the factions. Fair enough.

This happened in the Overfiend era, and it rather explicitly happened to Orks. Previous to second edition, orks were still ramshackle, terrifying orks, but they also had bs3 standard, and were fairly conventional as far as shooting:close combat in their army - it actually seems like shooting : close combat wasn't a dichotomy in second edition the way it has been since third. I believe the overfiend himself said that orks were given bs2 specifically to differentiate them as a cc army. Orks' very distinct character in miniatures and background seems not to have been enough.

This was very explicit. Elders' main sidearm were las guns. The cc aspect warriors carried las pistols, and were given completely new but very similar models when third edition started. Guardians defaulted to elder las guns and only some could upgrade to catapults.

There is a now deleted Reddit AMA by a studio member who reports that marine Vanguard and Sternguard were invented because at the time there was a requirement to invent new kits for every new codex (Understandable yes). So the background was invented to have two veteran kits, and this idea that the important distinction, even in the background, is swords vs guns. You'd think that people in the background wouldn't refer reference the rules of the game, but here in this case they do.

This also happened I think in the LR crusader and the Black Templars. At the time, the LR Phobos was the only land raider sold, and in the rules of the era it was sort of a chump vehicle, because it's abilities to move assault troops forward early in a six turn game and to shoot it's heavy guns impeded each other during tabletop games. Of course it would be an excellent vehicle in the background or with different rules, space marines in the background don't know about the tabletop restrictions. So the LR crusader was invented, because it took out the heavy weapon part of the rules contradiction, and it was so wildly popular the Phobos was rarely used even by the armies (chaos) that had access to no other LR models.. In the background, it seems like it would be a very niche vehicle though, since it can't engage any threats to itself at the ranges it would normally encounter them (over 36" in game terms, anyway). The Crusaders' used was getting marines across the 24" between deployment zones and into close combat before turn 3, concepts neither of which exist to factions in the background.

The same was true of marines. At the time, bolsters could only fire two shots if they managed to stay still but have an enemy inside 12". Tactical squads had even fewer teeth than today. At the same time, cc was phenomenally good and could be reached after disembarking from a moving rhino. People went crazy to get cc weapons on their troops like space wolves and chaos, because at least they could do something, unlike their single tapping tactical squads.

So we come to the black templars. Black Templars were an iconic chapter, they were on the cover of the starter game for third edition in an elaborate and eye catching painting by John Blanche, art director. In that painting, all the battle brothers are firing bolters; the couple of officers in the center have stupendous personal defense swords and axes. They also had the excellent Emperors champion games day model and codex:sm special character. When the chance came for a studio member to make rules for his personal army of black templars, he understandably made them, you know, effective, by allowing them all to have bp/cc and LRs that didn't bother with tank fighting weapons like lascannons.

It's better for me if I keep in mind that some things make background sense, and some things make game design sense, and I can pretty much cinder some of those to be effectively irrelevant, without having to be stubborn about it.

pelicaniforce wrote:
In another thread in this forum, people have pointed out that space marine ships aren't supposed to have lances. This comes from BFG, and has been around for a long time. The important thing is that it appeared in BFG, a game about space fleets of the different factions. It's only natural that you would read it there, instead of in a 40k codex or in a novel, but I think the context also affects the content. That is, it was in a book with rules for several different factions. I think that the reason we know about lances and marine ships is mainly a game design question, to differentiate the factions. Fair enough.

Actually it's a fluff thing, and one that GW has unfortunately started to abandon in their need to sell new kits. The various parts of the Imperium are all supposed to have weaknesses so that they have to depend on each other, and no single faction going traitor can succeed on its own. Space marines have few/no lances so that they can't win fleet battles against the Imperial Navy, and a space marine chapter turning traitor can be crushed by the battleships of the Navy. The Imperial Navy doesn't have ground attack forces, and must transport marine/IG units to win a ground war. Etc. It used to be all over the place, but now GW just gives space marines everything because space marines are the best.

Yep. In fact there's arguably been a bit of tension in Battlefleet Gothic between fluff and game balance (e.g. Space Marine and Ork fleets being a bit underpowered or unwieldy on the tabletop versus other ships for fluff reasons, while Necrons were very powerful because they were The New And Ultimate Villains of 3rd ed 40K). Over the years the game slowly trended toward emphasising balance, e.g. giving Marine ships more loadout options.

Here's a quote I found in an old White Dwarf that seems relevant. It's not about 40K--instead it's from a retrospective article about Warhammer Fantasy,looking back from 7th edition--but the point still applies:

Jervis Johnson: "It's interesting because in the early days the miniatures informed the game's development and background. So you would have things like the Goblin Fanatics [looney Goblins who swing huge balls-and-chains] being created, not to any brief, but by a sculptor just appearing with them one day. Nowadays [circa 7th edition Fantasy / I think 5th ed 40K], it is very much the other way round; the background is established and this informs the models we require from the sculptors."

Of course that's not the whole story. A lot of things are shoehorned into the background because 'we need a new kit to sell', or (especially from the late 2000s onward) 'we need a really big, impressive CAD-designed kit to sell'.

One amusing instance of this occurred when the reasonably proportioned 2nd ed metal Catachans were replaced by the roid-rage 3rd ed plastic ones. The new IG codex dutifully described Catachan as a high-gravity planet, and said that its people were referred to by other Guardsmen as 'baby Ogryns'.

I'm also sure that despite Jervis's words, the sculptors themselves continued to come up with crazy models they liked and the game designers accommodated them somehow. Sometimes people blame marketing when really a sculptor just wanted to let their creative side loose.

From a game design perspective, sweeping rules changes like the transition from 2nd to 3rd ed 40K also caused a bit of a snarl when models intended for one edition didn't really work in the new system (like Swooping Hawks and Warp Spiders).

There's also the hobby aspect to consider. As much as people mock the 1000-marines-to-a-chapter thing, I suspect part of the reasoning behind that ridiculously small number is miniatures collecting. A hobbyist in the 80s or 90s could *just about* imagine collecting and painting an entire chapter of 1000 marines. Some actually did. For most it was an impractical dream--but one that felt theoretically achievable. I don't think many people would have even bothered to try if the number had been 10 000 or a million or something more sensible.

One thing I really appreciate about BFG's fluff from a hobby perspective: ship numbers. Considering the sheer size of the galaxy, the number of capital ships in a typical sector fleet seem far too small. But it makes collecting a complete fleet achievable. Or at least it did back when the models were available. I was amazed when I read the description of the Damocles Gulf Crusade in the 3rd ed 40K Tau codex (one of my favourites from that era) and realised that I had nearly enough Imperial ships painted up to play out that campaign on the tabletop, battle by battle.

"informs", not "specifies completely".

All that means is that the designers are aware there's a setting and make models to fit into that - as opposed to simply making whatever they feel like with no brief whatsoever.

The number of warships per sector in BFG shows just how thinly spread humanity is. A cruiser is a phenomenal amount of firepower as well as logistics burden. The average pirate is only going to be in the equivalent of an Iconoclast class escort. Most battles between capital ships are also not likely to be fought to ship destruction or even crippling. In the BFG background, many engagements ended with ome side disengaging once it started losing. Fleet actions resulting in the crippling or destruction of ships is the exception rather than the rule.