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.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
And half the SM will be turn to chaos as well. weeeeeeeeeeeee equality!

It required the direct intervention of the Chaos Gods themselves to manage that feat.

And want to know something else?

Far more normal mortals turned heretic during the Horus Heresy than Space Marines.

Magnus attacked the Fang with two million of the Spireguard he whisked away from Prospero during the Heresy.

That's more than the fighting force of all the Legions combined.

Well no sh*t there was far more mortals than SM back then as well.

 Brother Captain Alexander wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
And half the SM will be turn to chaos as well. weeeeeeeeeeeee equality!

Yeah, that will be a little hard with all the prayers and Chaplain and Inquisitors... and not to mention mental protection against corruption that the average Guardsmen lacks...

The Guard can get checked up by the Inquisition, they have Priests and Commissar too!

BlaxicanX wrote:You're entitled to your opinion. The argument you've presented thus far has been pretty weak, though.

Well, same to you. Glad we cleared the air though.

Brother Captain Alexander wrote:I posted this in four Facebook Warhammer 40k groups, and these are only the most interesting answers. Point is that majority don't see Astartes as waste of resources but true might of Imperial and Mankind Military force.

The most interesting answers - as per your own personal selection? Okay, that's not entirely fair. As Gav Thorpe once said, 40k "exists as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers", so all of those answers are probably entirely correct in whatever reality these players have focused on. I don't know, maybe (probably) there even is some novel that contradicts Games Workshop about how long Space Marines live before they die from natural causes, for example! As I said, we're all cherry-picking, even if we do not realise it.

Anyhow, are the Space Marines a waste of resources? Debatable. Someone else described them as a "force multiplier", and in that they certainly have value. Sometimes it's just more efficient to use small elite forces rather than huge armies. After all, would anybody think that the SEALs, the SAS, Spetsnaz are a waste of resources? Or in terms of 40k, does anyone think so of the Storm Trooper regiment? I doubt it.

At the same time, however, describing any of these forces as the "true might of the military" is just ridiculous fanwankery. Even when we discard the obvious gap between GW's vision and the various licensed products depicting a different version of Marines, there's a balance to be found between seeing something as worthless and the mind-boggling exaggeration of hero levels that is going on. That's what I'm advocating, and I am sorry to see that some fans of the various armies are apparently unable to see the bigger picture simply because they're stuck gazing at whatever they adore and read about all the time. This does not go solely for some (not all!) Marine fans but for Sisters fans as well. Not calling names. The latter are probably just less numerous because the army has fewer players in general, and because they have not been spoiled by constant attention in the form of novels, video games and even movies hyping the protagonist into the sky.

DarthMarko wrote:sorry @Lynata but let's be realistic and view the universe from a ugly consumer view....

I'm vieweing what Games Workshop presents me with.
I am not doubting that certain outsourced publications may present a very different image in the hopes of attracting more customers. After all, what does author X care if only Space Marine fans buy his book? That's the most populous segment of the fanbase! But why should I care about author X's books when he does not care about GW?
And at the end of the day, GW doesn't care about that either. They have their own playground - which caters to all the factions. Perhaps not equally in quantity, but in content compatibility. Ultimately, any universe, fictional or no, does not revolve solely around one specific group of people, and this includes Space Marines in 40k (even though for some fans that may be the case). The designers took great care to make sure that each faction has a role to play somewhere; a role beyond "supporting cast" in some Marine novel or computer game that, unlike the tabletop as a whole, focuses chiefly on how awesome and manly the Astartes are and how much better they are than anyone else, killing thousands of enemies on a single day, each, blindfolded and with one hand tied to their back.

I guess what I'm trying to say is ... would you rather have a setting that works because everything ties together as it does in real life? Or are you content with said setting just being a stage for your few heroes to dominate, like in some cliché-ridden superhero comic?

space marines exist because there the only scince fiction the IoM has. The Gaurd is just WW2 allied army on steriods. Clunky oversized tanks, rifle armed infantry & commisars...just early 20th century gear. The only slightly advanced tech is the odd cybernetic & the new vendettas.

Lynata, you have to realise that despite whatever inconsistencies are in the Black Library novels, said novels are of far superior quality when compared to GW fluff.

Void__Dragon wrote:Lynata, you have to realise that despite whatever inconsistencies are in the Black Library novels, said novels are of far superior quality when compared to GW fluff.

Because you, personally, like them more?

From how it looks to me, there is some sort of penis contest going on between some authors about who writes the most awesome Space Marines, starting with what Jes Goodwin joked about when he said that SM seem to "get bigger with every book". I just can't get behind that. To me, characters require not only strengths but flaws, and have to be vulnerable. I only ever perceive this in GW's own material. Some people like Astartes more when they're written like some sort of living god of war, striding across the battlefield and swatting enemies left and right. "More power to them", I say. To me, this sort of power fantasy just does not appear very compelling. It's Superman 10-cent-comic niveau, whereas I am simply looking for a grimdark setting with a somewhat more realistic touch to it.

What you have to realise is that the constant preaching of Space Marine fans about how this and that is superior and how their books are so much better written and how GW doesn't know gak about Astartes (lulz) just comes across as incredibly ignorant.

Have fun in your world, I'll stick to what I grew up with. Imho, we should all be able to get along just fine, as long as we do not attempt to force our personal preferences onto other people. Some just don't like Space Marines as much. And some are even pushed away from them by the behaviour of some of their fans.

 Lynata wrote:

Void__Dragon wrote:Lynata, you have to realise that despite whatever inconsistencies are in the Black Library novels, said novels are of far superior quality when compared to GW fluff.

Because you, personally, like them more?

From how it looks to me, there is some sort of penis contest going on between some authors about who writes the most awesome Space Marines, starting with what Jes Goodwin joked about when he said that SM seem to "get bigger with every book". I just can't get behind that. To me, characters require not only strengths but flaws, and have to be vulnerable. I only ever perceive this in GW's own material. Some people like Astartes more when they're written like some sort of living god of war, striding across the battlefield and swatting enemies left and right. "More power to them", I say. To me, this sort of power fantasy just does not appear very compelling. It's Superman 10-cent-comic niveau, whereas I am simply looking for a grimdark setting with a somewhat more realistic touch to it.

What you have to realise is that the constant preaching of Space Marine fans about how this and that is superior and how their books are so much better written and how GW doesn't know gak about Astartes (lulz) just comes across as incredibly ignorant.

Have fun in your world, I'll stick to what I grew up with. Imho, we should all be able to get along just fine, as long as we do not attempt to force our personal preferences onto other people. Some just don't like Space Marines as much. And some are even pushed away from them by the behaviour of some of their fans.

I do agree with you...some books are far worse then fluff. and most commented threads are " who has the biggest penis " but don't get offended , you love sob and the "I" - so that puts a little shade on your objectivity towards the SM (friendly jest).....
And I'm gonna be blunt - things are what they are and I don't see improvment in the future..We are grown ups and I tend to discard "over the top fluff " which comes mosltly from Ward (Draigo,Calgar Smurfgar+ newer BA and SW codex ) and some BL authors...

In the 40k world of fluff writing, I have found that the best, and most consistant Fluff I have read is in the FW sourcebooks and campaign descriptions, they usually show both sides at a realistic veiw, with little hyperbole, at least so far as I have read in the 7-8 volumes I have purchased.

Both sides win some and lose some, and their writing of Xenos has been the best in the setting..even letting them occasionally get the best of the glory boys

BL and the GW codexs....hmmm sometimes I feel like they were dictated by a 12year old on ridalen, a company of marines securing a sector of space..100 guys with no mention of the support personel or anything.

At any rate I do enjoy the FW books.

 Lynata wrote:
Because you, personally, like them more?

No, in an objective sense. The prose, the characters, the plotting, etc etc.

From how it looks to me, there is some sort of penis contest going on between some authors about who writes the most awesome Space Marines, starting with what Jes Goodwin joked about when he said that SM seem to "get bigger with every book".

If GW would make the height of Marines more explicit, say, maybe in their own codex, maybe there wouldn't be this much confusion?

I just can't get behind that. To me, characters require not only strengths but flaws, and have to be vulnerable. I only ever perceive this in GW's own material.

Right, guys like Sly Marbo, a Rambo among Rambos, or Marneus Calgar, who is described as the perfectly perfect Chapter Master of the perfectly perfect Ultramarines chapter.

Or Kaldor Draigo, who speaks for himself. I can really see the flaws and vulnerabilities in his character.

But of course I am only speaking of the nadirs of the official material (Well, Calgar isn't really all that bad, if only in comparison).

I am being sarcastic of course. If you want actual flawed, multi-dimensional characters, BL features more and better ones. Argel Tal (Of The First Heretic), Ahzek Ahriman and Magnus the Red's portrayal in A Thousand Sons, Horus in Horus Rising (Easily had the most sympathetic and relateable depiction of Horus), Gregor Eisenhorn (I am sure you know of him, but his struggle to maintain his puritanical outlook when faced with the realities of the galaxy until he is forced to make compromises is an excellent read), and really... Who cares if there is a Servitor Navigator (Which isn't true by the way, yet despite the fact that I have corrected you on this, you continue to cite it as an example), when the quality of the work itself is good?

Oh, and ftr, GW does contradict itself. In one edition alone (4e), in the Orks codex, Belial was said to be First Captain of the Deathwing when Ghazghkuull laid him low. In the Dark Angels codex, he was still captain of the eighth company at the time.

This isn't even bringing up huge-scale retcons like the fifth edition Necron codex. But because GW did it, a huge contradiction like that is fine, right?

Some people like Astartes more when they're written like some sort of living god of war, striding across the battlefield and swatting enemies left and right. "More power to them", I say. To me, this sort of power fantasy just does not appear very compelling. It's Superman 10-cent-comic niveau, whereas I am simply looking for a grimdark setting with a somewhat more realistic touch to it.

That's all cool I guess.

It's a bit strange though, how you seem to desire a realistic 40k, when frankly I am not sure such a thing even exists. Most editions have either been fantasy settings with a soaring operatic darkness to them, or have been so soul-crushingly grimdark (Think 3e) that it could not even be called vaguely realistic. And of course, it started as a parody.

What you have to realise is that the constant preaching of Space Marine fans about how this and that is superior and how their books are so much better written and how GW doesn't know gak about Astartes (lulz) just comes across as incredibly ignorant.

Nowhere did I mention Astartes in my posts, nor that GW doesn't know gak about them. You are once again making an assumption about someone without any evidence to support it. Either that or you are going off on an irrelevant tangent.

I didn't say Space Marine books are superior. I said Black Library is better written than official GW licensed material. And it is.

Have fun in your world, I'll stick to what I grew up with. Imho, we should all be able to get along just fine, as long as we do not attempt to force our personal preferences onto other people. Some just don't like Space Marines as much. And some are even pushed away from them by the behaviour of some of their fans.

What does that have to do with what I said though?

I was applying a fair amount of hyperbole, in that both GW fluff and BL fluff can vary in quality.

But the best of BL has the better prose, as well as more developed and interesting characters. GW lays the foundation for BL to take what is there and make it great (Fantasy Flight Games is also good for this, it can make even my least favorite additions or retcons from GW and make them good). Forge World I have admittedly read comparitively less on. Dan Abnett, Graham McNeil, Aaron Dembski-Bowden, probably the three best BL writers I can think of, are all better with the fluff than Cruddace, Kelly (Who is probably the best but still admittedly varies, ala Spehss Wolves), and, of course, Ward. Frankly, CS Goto, commonly thought of as BL's worst (Probably unfairly but hey), is a better writer than Ward. You could take issue with the inaccuracies and subject matter, sure, but as a writer? No contest.

Anyway, I've dragged this thread way more off-topic than it needed to go, but I just don't see why you both constantly bring up GW's apparent policy on canon, while at the same time disregarding and looking down upon fluff from novels.

So what if a BL book has better prose? Still doesn't make it a good book, or a reliable source of information about the galaxy.

Ciaphas Cain is very well written and has an interesting style, but it's by no means very good at capturing either hte overall feel of 40k, nor is it very good at keeping with the lore.

 Melissia wrote:
So what if a BL book has better prose?

It increases the quality of the book?

Still doesn't make it a good book,

It helps.

or a reliable source of information about the galaxy.

Ciaphas Cain is very well written and has an interesting style, but it's by no means very good at capturing either hte overall feel of 40k, nor is it very good at keeping with the lore.

Oh hey look a bunch of stuff I never claimed.

Neither is the Grey Knights codex, but hey, since it is by GW, it must be super representative of 40k, right? Same with the Space Wolves codex, huh?

Note: I know that you don't personally believe this, as I recall you stating before that codex fluff can be just as stupid and ill-fitting earlier in this very thread, but this is more for the benefit of others. And by others, I mean Lynata.

Ftr, I've never read Ciaphas Cain, so can't comment on it. I know that apparently Sisters of Battle are hard-drinking and not celibate in it (Based on some gak I've read on TV Tropes or in posts by Lynata), which is I admit goofy. But no more than say, Harker strangling a Ravener with nothing more than his biceps.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
It increases the quality of the book?

Still does not make it a good source of information. Romance of the Three Kingdoms was a great read, but it still wasn't historically accurate-- having, as it did, a heavy bias towards Liu Bei and his allies.

My point is, something can be poorly written but still a good source of information, while something can be well written but still a bad source of information. How well written it is is irrelevant to its use as a source of information unless it's written so badly you can't actually understand it, and no BL books are THAT bad (at least, not that bad all the time).

BL books are inconsistent with the rest of the lore, so I tend to pass them off as semi-truths instead of full truths. I believe a GW bigwig once stated something to the effect of BL books being like propaganda-- and I tend to agree. Imperial Guard books show the Imperial Guard as supremely competent (usually). Space Marine books show Space Marines as supremely competent (usually). And so on. It's to be expected that the protagonist is aggrandized, while any antagonists arenot.

See, but I never said that BL books are necessarily a good source of information (Though most I have read only have minor inaccuracies that aren't worth the bitching, IMHO).

Compared to, say, the newcron codex, which futures a race of metal men with feelings that can't even be recognised as the legion as implacable as death itself that they were.

Thank God for Tome of Fate. Leave it to FFG to take in aspects of both the old and the new fluff, and make them both complement eachother seamlessly, improving both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
My point is, something can be poorly written but still a good source of information, while something can be well written but still a bad source of information. How well written it is is irrelevant to its use as a source of information unless it's written so badly you can't actually understand it, and no BL books are THAT bad (at least, not that bad all the time).

BL books are inconsistent with the rest of the lore, so I tend to pass them off as semi-truths instead of full truths. I believe a GW bigwig once stated something to the effect of BL books being like propaganda.

That's a sweeping general statement that can't be proven, IMHO.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
That's a sweeping general statement that can't be proven, IMHO.

I know, but since my opinions aren't humble, so they're better

Jokes aside, you're not going to "prove" anything. Certainly your line of argument isn't really doing a good job of it.

What do you believe I am trying to prove?

At the moment, not much of anything. I'm just being ornery and arguing against an idea you posted (that BL books are somehow better canon if they're well written / if you like them), even if the idea wasn't the intent behind your post.

Also, I think it's impossible to truly objectively judge BL books, so I completely disagree with that assertion anyway

That's fair enough. I was mostly just being a jerk to compensate for my own shortcomings.

I don't really see a lot of the inaccuracies that people talk about, honestly (Well, I've also never read CS Goto or Ciaphas Cain, which to my understanding are the biggest offenders).

I would like to think that an objective comparison could be made betwee, say, Prospero Burns and the Space Wolf codex, or The Emperor's Gift and the Grey Knights codex.

 Lynata wrote:

Void__Dragon wrote:Lynata, you have to realise that despite whatever inconsistencies are in the Black Library novels, said novels are of far superior quality when compared to GW fluff.

Because you, personally, like them more?

From how it looks to me, there is some sort of penis contest going on between some authors about who writes the most awesome Space Marines, starting with what Jes Goodwin joked about when he said that SM seem to "get bigger with every book". I just can't get behind that. To me, characters require not only strengths but flaws, and have to be vulnerable. I only ever perceive this in GW's own material. Some people like Astartes more when they're written like some sort of living god of war, striding across the battlefield and swatting enemies left and right. "More power to them", I say. To me, this sort of power fantasy just does not appear very compelling. It's Superman 10-cent-comic niveau, whereas I am simply looking for a grimdark setting with a somewhat more realistic touch to it.

This is a pretty crazy statement. GW writes every Space Marine character almost flawless, particularly the Ultramarines and Grey Knights ones. BL is the first area I've seen that actually gave flaws to Grey Knights.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
That's fair enough. I was mostly just being a jerk to compensate for my own shortcomings.

I don't really see a lot of the inaccuracies that people talk about, honestly (Well, I've also never read CS Goto or Ciaphas Cain, which to my understanding are the biggest offenders).

I would like to think that an objective comparison could be made betwee, say, Prospero Burns and the Space Wolf codex

Why those two?

A better comparison would be between A Thousand Sons and Prospero Burns.

Two tellings of the same story-- from different perspectives.

 Melissia wrote:
Why those two?

A better comparison would be between A Thousand Sons and Prospero Burns.

Two tellings of the same story-- from different perspectives.

I meant in terms of a comparison of quality between a GW product and a BL product dealing with the same army.

Both A Thousand Sons and Prospero Burns are well-written and good novels, and don't really contradict eachother either.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Blobpie wrote:The space marines play a role that no ordinary human can ever be; Shock Troops. Or more specifically, incredibly reliable and swift shock troops.

Yes, because no humans have ever performed that role...

Not nearly as well; a space marine is stronger, faster, tougher, smarter and better equipped than a ordinary human ever could be.

Space marines exist for one reason, to win battles that the guard can never win. Such as Ichar IV for example.

I don't know about smarter, or even better equiped.

Yeah, there is absolutely nothing about the process of becoming a Space Marine that makes one any more intelligent than they were before, and intelligence isn't necessarily something looked for in aspirants either.

So Space Marines being "Smarter" is rather silly.

Individually they are better equipped, but the Space Marines as a whole are both incredibly small forces (and as such highly vulnerable to encirclement and destruction) and lack critical battlefield capabilities both in space and on the ground.

Their starships generally are actually rather gimped when it comes to Naval gunbattles (intentionally so following the Horus Heresy), IN ships are generally bigger/tougher with longer ranged guns and SM fleets typically lack Nova cannon and Lance weaponry altogether.

When it comes to planet-bound combat they lack a true heavy tank and make do with up-armored APC's (predators) or over-armored assault transports (Land Raiders) and suffer from a severe lack of artillery weapons (which, historically, have by far been the biggest battlefield killers) besides short ranged snub-nosed assault guns (Vindicators) and relatively mono-role and weak Whirlwind batteries to engage light infantry, to say nothing of the fact that they're almost completely hosed against an enemy with even a not-so-substantial air force as they lack large numbers of AA weapons and Thunderhawks aren't going to win battles with fighter aircraft.

 Melissia wrote:


Ciaphas Cain is very well written and has an interesting style, but it's by no means very good at capturing either hte overall feel of 40k, nor is it very good at keeping with the lore.

Not when you realize that Cain is out in the frontier - naturally, instead of an empire, the Imperium would be closer to a federation out there. Heck, even the Rogue Trader RPG rulebook even mentions that the further away from Terra the Imperial world is, the more divergent or 'loose' its culture is.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
So what if a BL book has better prose?

It increases the quality of the book?

Still doesn't make it a good book,

It helps.

or a reliable source of information about the galaxy.

Ciaphas Cain is very well written and has an interesting style, but it's by no means very good at capturing either hte overall feel of 40k, nor is it very good at keeping with the lore.

Oh hey look a bunch of stuff I never claimed.

Neither is the Grey Knights codex, but hey, since it is by GW, it must be super representative of 40k, right? Same with the Space Wolves codex, huh?

Note: I know that you don't personally believe this, as I recall you stating before that codex fluff can be just as stupid and ill-fitting earlier in this very thread, but this is more for the benefit of others. And by others, I mean Lynata.

Ftr, I've never read Ciaphas Cain, so can't comment on it. I know that apparently Sisters of Battle are hard-drinking and not celibate in it (Based on some gak I've read on TV Tropes or in posts by Lynata), which is I admit goofy. But no more than say, Harker strangling a Ravener with nothing more than his biceps.

I tend to go along with alot of Void Dragon says here in terms of the quality of the writing - the BL novels, by their very nature tend to have actual rounded characters which is not possible to do in a Codex - although frankly often they don't try. I do prefer the write ups for characters in Hordes where at least they try to blend the two things so you get more fluff and background.

re the Cain novels - as I have mentioned on many occassions - the Sisters in general are NOT described at all like this - one specific veteran on a backwater planet is described thus - the others described are exactly what you would expect in the fluff - uncomprimising, fanatical, inspiring and devout as well as being effective warriors. With regard to what Melissa said - its also worth remembering that the Cain novels are, in universe edited versions of a characters own version of events......

Now authors do either take liberties on occassion or make "Mistakes" but they are usualy far less important that those done by the parent company:

Grey Knights massive retcon
Necrons massive retcon
contradicitons in the ally matrix with current fluff

etc etc

In comparison having Marines have multilasers (which is not a big deal really), a single aberant Sister, Eldar ships having void shields etc is not a big thing.

back OT -

re the warships - nope Space marine ships are about the same size and tougher - going by both fluff and BFG stats. They do have Lance weaponary and the Navy assessments in BFG themselves state how deadily an opponent they would be for any Navy force.

Oh for the love of the Emperor!

One of these Threads? again?

 Mr Morden wrote:
...Eldar ships having void shields etc is not a big thing.

They don't?

Then how the devil do they stand up to the Imperial Navy?

 Mr Morden wrote:

re the warships - nope Space marine ships are about the same size and tougher - going by both fluff and BFG stats. They do have Lance weaponary and the Navy assessments in BFG themselves state how deadily an opponent they would be for any Navy force.

The original assertion was that the Imperial Navy has longer ranged guns. This much is true. Go through the BFG stats and the longer ranged Imperial Navy ships have guns of 60cm, and Nova Cannons. No post-Heresy standard Space Marine ships have Nova Cannons and their gun batteries are only 45cm. The only Space Marine ships with lance weaponry is the Nova class frigate, and it is rare and contentious precisely because it infringes upon the Navy's role as the frigate is not a ship designed for planetary assault.

Of all the vessels in the service of the Adeptus Astartes, the Nova class frigate is commonly the single class to which the Imperial navy take the most exception. It lacks sufficient size to really fulfil the deployment and assault roles for which Space Marine ships are primarily intended and its lance armament and speed make it a menacing gunboat in its own right. As such, the Nova remains rare in most Space Marine fleets, a trend the Imperial Navy, the Inquisition and other institutions perpetually concerned by the balance of power would dearly love to see continue.

-From BFG Armada, and reproduced at:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2350031a_BFG_Imperial_Fleets.pdf

In straight out fleet combat, Space Marine ships are at a disadvantage, as was meant to be the case after the Heresy:

In a fleet action they would be at a disadvantage in comparison to Imperial Navy vessels, due to their special adaptations for planetary assaults.

-"From the lectures of Lord Captain Morley of the Fleet Insturum of Alien Studies", p. 49, BFG: Warp Storm

The whole point of the splitting of forces after the Heresy was to divide the arms of the military so that another large full scale rebellion like the Heresy would be difficult to pull off. Apart from the Space Marine Legions being split into Chapters to reduce the numerical strength any one commander could command (in theory at least), their fleet capabilities were also in theory stripped to prevent them from being able to challenge the Imperial Navy for domination of space.

Readers shouldn't be shocked that Space Marines are not "OMG the master of everything!". Their weakness in full space combat post-Heresy was intentional. Now some of the Space Marine Chapters descended from the Legions like the Space Wolves seem to bend or break some of these rules and get away with it due to the prestige of their lineage, but the average Space Marine Chapter is meant to conform to them. Breaking the limits imposed on the Space Marines was one of the reasons the Imperium moved against Huron. Chaos Space Marines from the Heresy-era still have ships with lances and long range guns because that division of power never occurred for them.

The
history of the Heresy is well-known, it was a dark and terrible time in which civil war almost destroyed the Imperium. In its aftermath it was clear to the High Lords that too much power had been at the disposal of the traitor Primarchs. The Codex Astartes of Roboute Guilliman was the main reform. The huge Space Marine Legions were broken down into Chapters of a thousand warriors and equipped with specialist barges and strike cruisers.

...

The defeated Traitor Marines were never a part of these reforms however. When the Ultramarines were spawning numerous successor Chapters the Black Legion, the World Eaters and all the others were establishing territories in the Eye of
Terror using all the forces they had managed to salvage from the defeat on Terra. To this day Chaos fleets are subordinate to the Lords of the Chaos Space Marine Legions.

-THE TRAITOR LEGIONS CHAOS SPACE MARINE FLEETS IN BATTLEFLEET GOTHIC
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2350042a_BFG_Traitor_Fleets.pdf

 Tadashi wrote:

They don't?

Then how the devil do they stand up to the Imperial Navy?

Hit and run.

Eldar ships use holofields and mobility as their defense. Human ships do not mount weapons in their rear-arc. This is presumably due to the plasma engine exhausts being in the rear and their exhaust creating targeting difficulties. Thus Eldar ships can shelter in the rear-arcs of human ships. Eldar ships are also more adept at navigating celestial phenomena such as asteroid fields, enabling them to go through them with less chance of being damaged, so they can shelter behind such features. Finally, their holofields mean a lot of Imperial attacks will miss as in BFG holofields give a 2+ save against all forms of attacks requiring precision targeting, meaning lances, torpedoes, attack craft like bombers, and nova cannons. Eldar ships end up being weak against massed weapon batteries because the sheer weight and volume of fire means shots still hitting them, despite the increased miss rate caused by the holofields.

Eldar weapons are superior to standard Imperial Navy weapons, so Eldar hit hard. Destroying the enemy so they cannot counterattack, and then running for cover to prepare for another attack run is the Eldar method of warfare. Eldar are glass cannons.

Iracundus wrote:

Hit and run.

Eldar ships use holofields and mobility as their defense. Human ships do not mount weapons in their rear-arc. This is presumably due to the plasma engine exhausts being in the rear and their exhaust creating targeting difficulties. Thus Eldar ships can shelter in the rear-arcs of human ships. Eldar ships are also more adept at navigating celestial phenomena such as asteroid fields, enabling them to go through them with less chance of being damaged, so they can shelter behind such features. Finally, their holofields mean a lot of Imperial attacks will miss as in BFG holofields give a 2+ save against all forms of attacks requiring precision targeting, meaning lances, torpedoes, attack craft like bombers, and nova cannons. Eldar ships end up being weak against massed weapon batteries because the sheer weight and volume of fire means shots still hitting them, despite the increased miss rate caused by the holofields.

Eldar weapons are superior to standard Imperial Navy weapons, so Eldar hit hard. Destroying the enemy so they cannot counterattack, and then running for cover to prepare for another attack run is the Eldar method of warfare. Eldar are glass cannons.

That makes sense...though I seem to recall an old Star Trek tactic against cloaked ships: fire off a spread of torpedoes and lance rounds. Since Imperial ships have no rear weapons, just use Imperial numbers to the advantage - have them form a spherical, outward-facing formation. And for asteroids...a tight, thermonuclear mine field with proximity fuses ought to do the job. The resonating shock waves and rapidly expanding fireball ought to do those cowards in just right.

@ Iracundus

Yes and no - its only really the big Captial ships (Battleships) and specialised variants where the Navy outrange the Astartes warships.

Also part of your post was related to size and durability - which I feel was in error as the capital ships are Hull 6 all round rather than just at the prow. Even their smallest escorts are Hull 5 as befits their role - whilst also being faster than the Navy equivalents. So you end up with ships that can take a pounding but with somewhat shorter range guns and more faster + agile escorts versus some longer range guns.

I agree the disadvantage is meant to be there as outlined by the words of Lord Captain Morley - but I am sure there is also a longer version of this I have read?

However as you say - the fleet based Astartes Chapters in particular tend to be far more formidable in fleet combat as seen in the Armegeddon conflict and as noted on p21 of Armada:

"Inevitably the wrangling over interpretation of a ships ' primary role' leads to some chapters possessing rather more versatile fleets than the Imperial Navy is entirely comfortable with."

I think as in everything with 40K its much more varied the more you look into it - the big problem the Astartes warships have (as again noted in the Armgeddon War in Armada) is the crew size - or more specifically the Astartes element which is needed elsewhere. The Navy are better overall in a straight fight as it should be but the fleet of the Asartes is able to hold its own in naval actions and accomplise other tasks - which again goes back to the topic.

Very good sumation of the Eldar way of warfare by the way

 Tadashi wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

Hit and run.

Eldar ships use holofields and mobility as their defense. Human ships do not mount weapons in their rear-arc. This is presumably due to the plasma engine exhausts being in the rear and their exhaust creating targeting difficulties. Thus Eldar ships can shelter in the rear-arcs of human ships. Eldar ships are also more adept at navigating celestial phenomena such as asteroid fields, enabling them to go through them with less chance of being damaged, so they can shelter behind such features. Finally, their holofields mean a lot of Imperial attacks will miss as in BFG holofields give a 2+ save against all forms of attacks requiring precision targeting, meaning lances, torpedoes, attack craft like bombers, and nova cannons. Eldar ships end up being weak against massed weapon batteries because the sheer weight and volume of fire means shots still hitting them, despite the increased miss rate caused by the holofields.

Eldar weapons are superior to standard Imperial Navy weapons, so Eldar hit hard. Destroying the enemy so they cannot counterattack, and then running for cover to prepare for another attack run is the Eldar method of warfare. Eldar are glass cannons.

That makes sense...though I seem to recall an old Star Trek tactic against cloaked ships: fire off a spread of torpedoes and lance rounds. Since Imperial ships have no rear weapons, just use Imperial numbers to the advantage - have them form a spherical, outward-facing formation. And for asteroids...a tight, thermonuclear mine field with proximity fuses ought to do the job. The resonating shock waves and rapidly expanding fireball ought to do those cowards in just right.

Space is big and most engagements in the setting are fought at (tens or even hundreds of ) thousands of kilometres. Blindly pumping ammunition into space won't help at all. Laying mines is equaly foolish ( once again, space is realy big ) unless one has a very specific and narrow location which can be mined.
Space is also mostly empty, even asteroid fields. That GW thought it was necessary to add rules for flying trough asteroid fields is either a sign of their relative lack of knowledge or they simply adhere
to the quite common trope of dense asteroid fields. There are also no shockwaves in space, simply because there is no carrier medium like air.

The best way to fight Eldar ships is to get as close as possible and hope that massed broadsides in the general direction of the enemy will do the job.