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.

Yeah, using Codex fluff to rule how a soldier/whatnot performs makes no sense. The Tyranid Codex calls Carnfexen unstoppable but they're actually not that difficult to take down. Gargoyles, according to the BRB, walk when not using their wings . . . but they don't have legs. SM Codex-faithfulness is worlds better in that story.

 60mm wrote:
Yeah, using Codex fluff to rule how a soldier/whatnot performs makes no sense. The Tyranid Codex calls Carnfexen unstoppable but they're actually not that difficult to take down. Gargoyles, according to the BRB, walk when not using their wings . . . but they don't have legs. SM Codex-faithfulness is worlds better in that story.

Codex fluff is the closest thing to canon we have; since it is what GW releases as their description for their own creations. If the next IG codex says Guardsmen all throw pies and drink blended rocks; don't care how silly it is; it's the fluff.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 60mm wrote:
Yeah, using Codex fluff to rule how a soldier/whatnot performs makes no sense. The Tyranid Codex calls Carnfexen unstoppable but they're actually not that difficult to take down. Gargoyles, according to the BRB, walk when not using their wings . . . but they don't have legs. SM Codex-faithfulness is worlds better in that story.

Codex fluff is the closest thing to canon we have; since it is what GW releases as their description for their own creations. If the next IG codex says Guardsmen all throw pies and drink blended rocks; don't care how silly it is; it's the fluff.

Except for the fact that at times alot of the fluff is shown as propaganda, many things will change, and viewpoints often differ.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 60mm wrote:
Yeah, using Codex fluff to rule how a soldier/whatnot performs makes no sense. The Tyranid Codex calls Carnfexen unstoppable but they're actually not that difficult to take down. Gargoyles, according to the BRB, walk when not using their wings . . . but they don't have legs. SM Codex-faithfulness is worlds better in that story.

Codex fluff is the closest thing to canon we have; since it is what GW releases as their description for their own creations. If the next IG codex says Guardsmen all throw pies and drink blended rocks; don't care how silly it is; it's the fluff.

Except for the fact that at times alot of the fluff is shown as propaganda, many things will change, and viewpoints often differ.

Where is that clarified; AFAIK the codices are to be taken at face value. Sure; if there's a sentence in the dex saying "Space Marines are the bestest and can't lose evar!" It's probably hyperbole; but parts of the dex that say SM train for years and have daily training routines, that doesn't seem like hyperbole, just statements.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 60mm wrote:
Yeah, using Codex fluff to rule how a soldier/whatnot performs makes no sense. The Tyranid Codex calls Carnfexen unstoppable but they're actually not that difficult to take down. Gargoyles, according to the BRB, walk when not using their wings . . . but they don't have legs. SM Codex-faithfulness is worlds better in that story.

Codex fluff is the closest thing to canon we have; since it is what GW releases as their description for their own creations. If the next IG codex says Guardsmen all throw pies and drink blended rocks; don't care how silly it is; it's the fluff.

Except for the fact that at times alot of the fluff is shown as propaganda, many things will change, and viewpoints often differ.

Where is that clarified; AFAIK the codices are to be taken at face value. Sure; if there's a sentence in the dex saying "Space Marines are the bestest and can't lose evar!" It's probably hyperbole; but parts of the dex that say SM train for years and have daily training routines, that doesn't seem like hyperbole, just statements.

I think what he meant was that a lot of the fluff really seems blown out of proportion. Most of the codices are filled with stories of how awesome that said army is. It doesn't really seem to be 100% truth all of the time since the canon is constantly in flux if you look at it. When I read the Blood Angels fluff it reads like propaganda that is sent out to Hive Worlds telling them about the great and powerful deeds of said SM chapter.

 Noisy_Marine wrote:
... are you sure an Abrams can be taken down by an RPG? I was under the impression that those tanks are nigh impossible to kill. Not that I have a military background or anything.

Modern-day RPG-7V2 can probably penetrate an Abrams side/rear armor at a relatively close range. In the IDF you learn that even basic RPG's can put dents in the most modern MBT's....

The Challenger 2's were penetrated by RPG-29's, really nasty/sophisticated weapons that are in an entirely different ballpark from RPG-7. Hell surprising the Challenger's survived that.


That being said, there's a key difference between IRL realities and what is entertaining fluff. I agree that making Marines only marginally/slightly better then humans makes for poor stories and defeats the purpose of their representation in fluff. Space Marines are meant to be the ultimate warriors, and the best fluff always reflects this over "watch them get punched out by a human". Now obviously omg-mega Marines that can kill 100 guardsmen by themselves effortlessly with their bare hands is another bad thing. The key is to not take extremes, it's to find the middle ground. I think the best GW depictions of Marines (Night Lords trilogy and what not) achieve this.

This is an entire different world from tabletop, where "Marines are a bit better then humans" makes more sense for gameplay reasons.

I think it works fairly well for the tabletop, if you keep the abstract nature in mind. A Marine whose mini gets "killed" on the TT does not necessarily have to be dead, he's just out of action. Could be lying around on the ground, trying to crawl to a nearby weapon with a chunk of his torso blown to bits. This has zero effect on the ongoing game, but he could be "made whole again" from a fluff perspective. This is where their increased toughness comes into play also.

In my opinion, any and all weapons that get deployed in these games can "neutralise" a Space Marine, and even lasguns are not the "flashlights" they are commonly regarded as. The problem that I see with the tabletop is not the stats, but that the Space Marines are rarely deployed in a style befitting their nature (meaning: high mobility shock-and-awe insertion). What we have in the TT amounts to two sides charging at each other headfirst (which is a tactic Space Marines rightfully suck at, compared to how they'd do it in the fluff). This is more of a problem with the general ruleset and not the armies, though.

 Lynata wrote:
I think it works fairly well for the tabletop, if you keep the abstract nature in mind. A Marine whose mini gets "killed" on the TT does not necessarily have to be dead, he's just out of action. Could be lying around on the ground, trying to crawl to a nearby weapon with a chunk of his torso blown to bits. This has zero effect on the ongoing game, but he could be "made whole again" from a fluff perspective. This is where their increased toughness comes into play also.

In my opinion, any and all weapons that get deployed in these games can "neutralise" a Space Marine, and even lasguns are not the "flashlights" they are commonly regarded as. The problem that I see with the tabletop is not the stats, but that the Space Marines are rarely deployed in a style befitting their nature (meaning: high mobility shock-and-awe insertion). What we have in the TT amounts to two sides charging at each other headfirst (which is a tactic Space Marines rightfully suck at, compared to how they'd do it in the fluff). This is more of a problem with the general ruleset and not the armies, though.

Epic was (is) played at a much larger scale. The analogy was often thrown around that a single assault move in Epic, represented an entire game of 40K: that is to say, two forces battling it out until there is a clear winner and lose.

Now, playing as Space Marines, if you wanted to win an assault in Epic, you needed to plan ahead and stack the deck. You'd teleport in Terminators, deploy via Thunderhawk, and overwhelm the enemy position. In 40k terms, you'd be playing every game with three times as many points as your opponent, complete with orbital and super-heavy assets.

As you rightly observe though, this isn't how regular games of 40K are played though. It's not so much a disparity between the abilities of the models on the table-top versus the fluff, but the types of engagements the Marines are thrown in to. On the table-top they are evenly matched against their enemies, but in the background there strength comes from being able to pick and choose their fights.

Well said.

And I have to say it again, GW needs to reinvigorate Epic! My only experience - if you can call it that - with this system was the Final Liberation computer game, but I certainly had a blast.

This is one of the first time I've agreed with Kaldor...

Cosmic...

Anyway, despite your protestations, what the marines have essentially done is overwatch. They decided to take pot-shots at Cultists who were charging them, with less time to aim and prepare (hence less accuracy), didn't brace for the charge and paid the price.

 TheCaptain wrote:
-Snip!-

I actually really liked the short piece in there. One space marine was taken out by a lucky shot through his optics. Space marines miss, big deal. The cultists obviously dove to the floor to avoid the plascannon, the marine that was tackled could well have been tripped. The principle of leverage is a method of force multiplication.

The space marines also still won the skirmish.

I like these space marines that are tough but have mortality. Thus far, I don't have a problem with the writing they were included in either.

 TheCaptain wrote:

If you think it makes sense, there's no discussing anything with you.

"I know its your opinion but your opinion is wrong! Only I am right!
Most of your arguments have pretty much just been:
No. You are wrong. I am right. Go away.

 -Loki- wrote:
Putting Halo and Superman in there with Norse mythology as 'tales Mankind finds fascinating' is pretty insulting to Norse mythology.

I know right?

Superman is far more relevant and better-written.

Anyway, the only aspect that really jumps out to me as especially bad is three cultists overpowering a Marine. That's stupid.

Also, the notion that a Space Marine weighs as little as 300 pounds is an amusing one.

We're talking 500 pounds bare minimum, considering the sheer girth and density of their bodies, as well as extra bits, probably close to 700.