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.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Why wouldn't Necrons have no ability to learn? And they fought a war at least as long as Horus-Heresy to 40K before they even went to sleep.

In their current state, most are automatons that simply respond to commands aside from the tiniest fraction of the ultra-elite. Prior to that, they had the lifespans of gnats.

Still stupid. Some of the most dangerous World Eater Lords are the most recent converts. You'll find this outside the World Eaters too.

I was just addressing why the Age thing didn't apply the same way given different circumstances is all, not saying it's the only explanation as to why they have WS5. Zhufor is also a mighty chaos lord, obviously exceptional even amongst his own kind.

Ragnar Blackmane is noted to be a fighting prodigy going pretty much straight from Blood Claw to Wolf Lord (bypassing many Long Fangs with centuries of combat experience in the process).

He's also noted on just about every page of his books as being exceptional/special/unique.

Hell, you don't even have to go 40K.

Put two boxers in the ring.. one young, hungry and ambitious and the other with 50 years of "experience" in the ring. See who wins.

Unlike our theoretical boxers here, Space Marine's bodies do not slow down/break down with age the way normal human bodies do.

And last but not least, they didn't fight 10.000 years straight. Novels like Soul Hunter pretty much show that even Marines that were around at the Heresy and fled to the Eye, have at most a decade or two of active combat per "Millenium" of time passed. The rest is most likely "lost" in Warp-time-distortions. Even if they fought in the Heresy, they might well have quite a bit less combat experience than a regular loyalist Marine with 2 or 3 hundred years of active duty behind him.

Soul Hunter really just applies to the marines in those books, not every Legionnaire sat in the warp for most of that, and most of such survivors have lots of additional combat experience during the Great Crusade and the Horus Heresy accomplishing deeds newer space marines can only dream of.

Well. It's nice that you choose to ignore all the many examples that clearly contradict the (far fetched from the start) notion that Space Marines just get "better" with time like some Diablo III character running on a bot-programme.

Do you have one (!) example from the fluff where it actually states Traitor Marine X bested Loyalist Marine Y because he had so much more combat experience from his years in the warp?

40K fluff just doesn't fly that way. Ragnar, Zhufor, etc.. are special because they are "named", but that doesn't mean the narrative "logic" that governs them in the fictional universe of 40K is any different for the "unnamed" guys. Have a watch at the recent Ultramarines movie on how green-behind-the-ears Ultramarines-newbs fare against "Black-Legion-Veterans-storming-en-masse". But yeah, I guess that also doesn't apply because it again contradicts what you would like to have the fluff to be (instead of what it actually is).

Every way you spin it. Every 40K novel, story or quote I am aware of (though I admit I don't know them all) point towards experience measured in "years" meaning, quite simply, nothing at all.

Codex CSM, p. 36-37: "The most experienced and dedicated CSM are known as Chosen...Squads of Chosen have many centuries of combat experience to draw upon."

Additionally, even loyalist chapters value Dreadnoughts not only for their obvious combat prowess, but because of their knowledge acquired from lifetimes of war. The more experience, the better and more honored (see Bjorn).

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well. It's nice that you choose to ignore all the many examples that clearly contradict the (far fetched from the start) notion that Space Marines just get "better" with time like some Diablo III character running on a bot-programme.

I'm just explaining the thinking here, you never provided any examples for me to counter, and I'm not going to spend my time looking through books for them for you right now. However, just as a general rule, the longer you do something, the better you get at it barring equipment (or bodily) breakdown. That applies to pretty much anything a sentient being engages in.

Do you have one (!) example from the fluff where it actually states Traitor Marine X bested Loyalist Marine Y because he had so much more combat experience from his years in the warp?

Off the top of my head? The second Night Lords book had plenty of that sort of thing.

40K fluff just doesn't fly that way. Ragnar, Zhufor, etc.. are special because they are "named", but that doesn't mean the narrative "logic" that governs them in the fictional universe of 40K is any different for the "unnamed" guys.

They're named because they're exceptional and out of the ordinary, because they rise above even what would normally be considered exceptional and to the level of legendary. Otherwise there'd be no need for special rules for them.

Have a watch at the recent Ultramarines movie on how green-behind-the-ears Ultramarines-newbs fare against "Black-Legion-Veterans-storming-en-masse". But yeah, I guess that also doesn't apply because it again contradicts what you would like to have the fluff to be (instead of what it actually is).

The one where they've got black legionnaire's running like Zulu hordes into Redcoat (sorry) Ultramarine firing lanes with bolter shells passing effortlessly through power armor as if it were no protection at all? Please, the entire thing, from story to depiction to visuals and voice acting bar a couple exceptions was awful. You won't find many people that laud it as a great example of 40k fluff, much less anything else. So yeah, I am going to say it doesn't apply in this case given the numerous hilarious issue with it as a whole. If you're having to bring up the Ultramarines movie as a fluff defense, you've hit the bottom of the barrel.

Mixing stats with fluff isn't going to pan out well.

Also while they may be creatures of anger/rage now, they still have all the training and heightened reflexes of any regular space marine if not better due to their frequent close quarter fighting. Also while they may be extremely aggressive they are not idiots, berserkers send themselves flying at their enemy due to a battle lust and eagerness to shed blood, not to die like idiots, they will do whatever is necessary to make sure they continue shedding blood and collecting skulls for their awesome god.

Also while they may have succumbed to rage and hatred remember that Khorne will draw his warriors from those are well versed in battle, most if not all of khorne's servants are proven warriors.

 Vaktathi wrote:
If you're having to bring up the Ultramarines movie as a fluff defense, you've hit the bottom of the barrel.

Sure the movie was abysmal. But it's still 40K fluff. It doesn't really matter... bottom of the barrel or top. I could lay out the entirety of 40K fluff and throw some random darts at it. What I hit will support my argument. At least I DID bring examples. If you can't even find a valid reference to contradict the bottom of the barrel... your evidence is poor indeed.

Khorne grants you a substantial amount of martial prowess if you serve him (Knowingly or unknowingly).

This isn't very fething hard to understand.

Oh, and:

"Hundreds of years of
battlefield experience as Scout, Brother Marine and Captain
have taught him every facet of war, trained him in the tools
of slaughter and honed his wits to the level of instinct."
- Space Marines 5e, page 52

Experience plays a role in the ability of a Marine. I have no idea why anyone would even make a vague attempt at arguing otherwise.

 Zweischneid wrote:


Put two boxers in the ring.. one young, hungry and ambitious and the other with 50 years of "experience" in the ring. See who wins.

The notion that you "get more powerful with experience" as if combat was some stupid computer RPG where you'll just eventually "level up" if you just splatter enough opponents is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. It just doesn't work that way.

It's not about gaining 'power' with experience, it's about gaining skill with practice. A person who has put more hours into doing something will be better at it than a person who has put in less. For example, someone who does jiu-jitsu four hours straight every day will accumulate skill faster at it than someone who only does one session a week.

Also, not sure if the boxer analogy can be applied to genetically engineered supermen who don't age and for whom fighting isn't so much a job as it is their entire existence.

I' think after 200-300 years of fighting combat experience becomes a straight line or goes into stagnation, for example - new x,y wannabe heroes often wipe the floor with CSM....why is that?

Experience like all things eventually reaches a point of diminishing returns.

But to say that an experienced individual does not have an advantage over a less experienced individual is ludicrous. Yes, sometimes a fighter can win with less experience by using sheer superior skill (see Anakin vs. Dooku in RotS). Overall though, experience means an awful lot in a fight.

Anakin beat Dooku because he was physically much stronger you asstard.

 somecallmeJack wrote:


It's not about gaining 'power' with experience, it's about gaining skill with practice. A person who has put more hours into doing something will be better at it than a person who has put in less. For example, someone who does jiu-jitsu four hours straight every day will accumulate skill faster at it than someone who only does one session a week.

Also, not sure if the boxer analogy can be applied to genetically engineered supermen who don't age and for whom fighting isn't so much a job as it is their entire existence.

Even if Space Marines don't age... the strain of Battle will wear down any body... even a supernatural one and especially one living in the Eye of Terror and not even cleaning his armour of old blood.

And as you said, the distinction is as much rigorous, disciplined training (which Loyalists do and Berzerkers hardly) as it is "combat experience". You have Afghan or Somalia militia who've been fighting since they are 5 years old, decades of experience in the field. But a well trained (and most likely much younger) US or UK Black Ops will still likely pwn them 1 vs. 1 all things being equal (and again, unique and "special" individuals might be the exception to the rule). Most martial arts and combat sports are full (!) of stories of some underdog or another taking down a champion, even in their prime, despite his greater experience, equally rigorous training, etc... .

And I acknowledged that experience does play a minor role. But certainly not the only one. And certainly not to the degree that it would make sense to have WS (which, btw, isn't the be-all-end-all of combat prowess in 40K either... LD, special rules, etc..) as a shortcut to "years in the field". If that were the case, GW would have called the stat "combat experience (CE)" instead.

Lots of examples such as Ragnar vs. Long Fangs or Cassius vs. Calgar clearly contradict such a mono-dimensional interpretation.

The bottom line is.. .for GW, WS (or BS or whatever) wlll "represent" whatever GW wants it to represent. For Eldar, it might reflect, years of combat experience. For Berzerkers, it might reflect Chaosy-infusion of martial mayham. For Space Marines it might represent rigorous training. For Tau it might represent advanced tech-gadget supporting their movements. For many named character models, it simply represents heroic awesomeness and plot armour. For Death Company, it probably represents them being flooded with their Primarch's final moments (thinking about it, they should probably have their Primarch's Weapon Skill if you'd go purely by background).

There are as many ways to "explain" a high or low Weapon or Ballistic Skill as there are factions and unit types in 40K.One of them might be combat experience. Others might justify their WS stat by other reasons. They are all equally viable and cherry-picking just one, such as experience, and using it comparatively across units, misses the abstraction inherent to the rules.

To go at it backwards and argue that unit X should have a higher/lower Weapons Skill than unit Y because one has more/less experience is a fallacy.Experience isn't the only or even the most important background-aspect that determines WS (or BS or any other stat).

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Anakin beat Dooku because he was physically much stronger you asstard.

No.

BlaxicanX wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Anakin beat Dooku because he was physically much stronger you asstard.

No.

I will add "HELL NO"

 tomjoad wrote:
Well, they are trained Space Marines with 10,000 years of constant active duty. Fluffwise, it would make more sense for ALL Chaos Marines to be WS and BS 5, with World Eaters getting bumped up to a 6. Thank of them like Death Company with 20 times as much experience.

Traitor Marines haven't really been on 10,000 years of active duty. For many of them, it's been only a few centuries since they were besieging the walls of Terra.

Remember that raw aggression also comes into place when considering WS5.

A highly skilled and trained, usually 10k years old, space marine on a berserker rage being able to outmatch a line or even a veteran loyalist marine is something not so far fetched imo.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
If you're having to bring up the Ultramarines movie as a fluff defense, you've hit the bottom of the barrel.

Sure the movie was abysmal. But it's still 40K fluff. It doesn't really matter... bottom of the barrel or top. I could lay out the entirety of 40K fluff and throw some random darts at it. What I hit will support my argument. At least I DID bring examples. If you can't even find a valid reference to contradict the bottom of the barrel... your evidence is poor indeed.

Well I suppose the fact that the fluff is generally biased towards the IoM in the first place on purpose helps make it worth searching, no? When one takes the side of the loyalists and makes a claim as such it's the same as saying the sky is blue while avoiding explaining how or how come some may not see it as blue.

40k canon, is a joke a best; A horrible joke along the lines of one about some tragic event presented moments after it. If any laugh at it, it will most likely be the one saying it himself and not those around them.

 n0t_u wrote:


Well I suppose the fact that the fluff is generally biased towards the IoM in the first place on purpose helps make it worth searching, no? When one takes the side of the loyalists and makes a claim as such it's the same as saying the sky is blue while avoiding explaining how or how come some may not see it as blue.

40k canon, is a joke a best; A horrible joke along the lines of one about some tragic event presented moments after it. If any laugh at it, it will most likely be the one saying it himself and not those around them.

Perhaps.

But than you're running rather quickly into a very paradoxical argument. On one hand, "you" (perhaps not you personally, if you get what I mean) claim that the stats of this or that unit are off because they don't reflect the background accurately. On the other hand, "you" claim the background is fubar and should be ignored.

You can't have one and the other. Either you try to make an argument for stats, mechanics, etc.. on the basis of the background. Than you should actually take the background that is given (and take all of it.. cherry-picking only the background "you like" to represent/support your personal bias is just as obviously a tautology ).

Or you say that background isn't worth it in the first place. But than you cannot really make an argument to change X or Y because of some background reason.

If the background is IoM biased and the models are supposed to "represent the fluff", than models and rules need to be IoM-biased too. Simples.

Which is why then you don't try to match the two together to allow the fluff a little more room to work with whereas the rules do their own thing and try to focus on balance.

Sort of jumped into this without looking too much.

Better question is why arent the KB like thousand sons and have ap3 "Berzerker weapons" If your smashing into people with the force of 1000 suns you probaly dont care about little tisseue paper power armour or flack armour. Hell even a cultist gets a save vs a berserker.

Explain that GW

Khorne is the God of martial prowess. Khorne Berserkers are disciples of Khorne. Khorne Berserkers get boosted martial prowess. 2+2=4.

Also, the World Eaters specialize in close combat to an extreme; while other marines are practicing bolter skills, Berserkers just keep swinging around their chainaxes. That has to count for something.

Loyalist Marines have hundreds of years of combat experience.

Khorne Bezerkers also have hundreds of years of combat experience, plus they are favored by the god of martial prowess.

Its fairly easy to see why they have WS5.



That said, I think some entries for loyalist marines need to change.

Terminators, command squads, and Veterans should be WS5. They are the elite warriors of the chapter.

Honor Guard, Chapter Masters, and Captains should be WS6.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Khorne Bezerkers also have hundreds of years of combat experience

And yet, unaugmented humans are able to beat them in close combat. Sometimes with contemptuous ease.

Let's not get too deeply in to this marinewank thing, chaos or not. They're highly skilled, yes, but only the exceptional ones are exceptionally good. Just like every other close combat specialist in the game, really.

Most of the reason for them being WS5 is to differentiate them on tabletop. Tabletop stats do NOT reflect stats in lore except in the loosest sense.

I mean, if they did, more Space Marines would die every decade than are created. Power armor (no matter who wears it) is much better in the lore than it is on tabletop, and Marines don't get mortally wounded as often, either.

 Melissia wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Khorne Bezerkers also have hundreds of years of combat experience

And yet, unaugmented humans are able to beat them in close combat. Sometimes with contemptuous ease.

Well, those are the very best of humans, vs unnamed (no plot armor) Khorne Berserkers. Your average guardsman will lose 10/10 fights in melee combat with a Khorne Berserker, just like Ciaphas Cain would lose 10/10 fights against Kharn.

Actualy I'm fairly certain that, in a Cain book, Cain would win 10/10 fights against Kharn.

Ciaphas Cain is a protagonist, and thus has more plot armor than an antagonist.

Also no, a guardsman would not lose 100% of all fights agaisnt a berserker. That's just nonsensical wankery.

 Melissia wrote:
And yet, unaugmented humans are able to beat them in close combat. Sometimes with contemptuous ease.

That's an irrelevant point.

Any unaugmented human who can best a Berzerker in martial combat is a very exceptional human.

As for Cain vs. Kharn, I frankly highly doubt GW would ever let Kharn be fodderised in a Cain novel.

Is it truly so hard to believe that a Khornate Berzerker, a Marine who dedicates himself specifically to martial combat, as well as a powerful Chaos Marine serving Khorne (Who, after the Butcher's Nails are implanted, is said to be one with the Blood God), would be more martially capable than the average Marine?

WS isn't just a function of a combatant's finesse. Ferocity, speed, and unpredictability all factor into that score, things which berzerkers have in spades.

Which also helps explain why genestealers are WS 6.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Is it truly so hard to believe that a Khornate Berzerker [...] would be more martially capable than the average Marine?

No, it's not hard to believe.

But you misunderstand me-- I just don't consider Marines to be that much better than humans in terms of raw skill to begin with.

I personnaly find it funny then death company have a higher WS then Sang guard, the elite of the elite, should at least be the same but theres the direct comparsion for you, death company with their rage and just wanting to kill is higher WS then the elite guard unit

 Melissia wrote:
No, it's not hard to believe.

But you misunderstand me-- I just don't consider Marines to be that much better than humans in terms of raw skill to begin with.

Can you clarify on that point?

I find that, when responding to your post, I have trouble really assessing what it is you are trying to say.