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.

 Melissia wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
you take out its leadership and look to get the bulkof the enemy forces degraded to the point you can move about at will.

Yeah that worked so well against iraq and afghanistan.

I think these are great examples how marines attacking a rebel planet would work. They use their superior technology and skills to quickly destroy the enemy leadership and key strategic assets. Then they declare 'mission accomplished' and move on, while the guard arrives and stays for twenty years to pacify the planet that has now fallen into anarchy.

 Troike wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
This whole thing is stupidity on the same level as the GK being absolutely 100% beyond any possible chance of failure immune to chaos

The fluff implies otherwise, actually. Firstly, we have the Changling instilling a "seed of doubt" into a GK in the Daemons codex. And in the Bloodtide, the GK are actually described as "needing" their blood ritual to protect them from corruption.

Yeah, the Grey Knight Codex contains a few examples. The very existence of the Purifiers shows that there are levels to their incorruptibility, that they have to handle the evil below the Chamber of Purity alone is telling. Then there's Crowe's fluff that describes him as "not so much resistant to the temptations of Chaos as immune to them" and how the Grey Knights fear that the Black Blade could corrupt any other Guardians.
There's also the ancient Librarians who guard the secrets of the Sanctum Sanctorum "for the fear is ever that even some amongst the Grey Knights would not prove immune to their temptations."

Ward does describe the aegis making the Grey Knights immune to corruption, but he also describes Terminators as invincible and unstoppable, so obviously he's not unable to use exaggeration for effect.

Last point to the argument against that the table top is the correct fluff... If the table top is correct, marines aren't even that much more expensive to produce compared to a guardsmen, what is it, 2 and a half guardsmen is the cost of one marine fully equipped?

Or is this where you say that is to fulfill balance?

in the Inquisitor game I believe marines played how they should do by the fluff, they were beasts.

 Crimson wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
you take out its leadership and look to get the bulkof the enemy forces degraded to the point you can move about at will.

Yeah that worked so well against iraq and afghanistan.

I think these are great examples how marines attacking a rebel planet would work. They use their superior technology and skills to quickly destroy the enemy leadership and key strategic assets. Then they declare 'mission accomplished' and move on, while the guard arrives and stays for twenty years to pacify the planet that has now fallen into anarchy.

So in other words, they Space Marines don't do much of anything, and the Imperial Guard does all the real work. Except the planet hasn't "fallen into anarchy", of course; theyr'e still united by their hatred of the Imperium.

After all, we utterly failed in Afghanistan using Space Marine like tactics. Al Qaeda not only wasn't destroyed, they're resurgent now, and have pushed their influence beyond Afghanistan, more motivated and more powerful than before.

 1hadhq wrote:
There is nothing that needs its role re-emphasized.

Because its the other way round.
Some people should re-evaluate their take on 40k.
WH 40k isn't a place of realism, correct scale or well thought out fluff.

GW itself hasn't decided what they want it to be. Is it a small scale skirmish? An engagement on a battalion level? Epic size?

We have GW and their usual setup of tables for example. Like "please buy our big kits" => forces SHV and GC into a "game" on a standard table....
Sure as hell would those long range big guns face off at a distance of .. 2x the length of the vehicles???

We have GW and their new tactic of adding flyers and MC ( so again they mirror fantasy, WHFB ) everywhere. Who expected the grey knight baby carrier, SM centurier etc if there was a faction specific design scheme? Anything in the background ? Or unexpected?

Basically 40k is like a snapshot of a bigger event.
So SM belong there. Even sisters or Inquisition. As part of a certain moment in time. They wouldn't fit in if it was about a whole war or even a battle.
GW focused on them, like movies focus on the shiny knight and not the masses of footsloggers in the background. This works well for them since 40k isn't meant to be "real". You don't agree to a game months before just to emulate the time your army is "in transit" to the battlefield. You don't have to care about morale, supplies, etc. You don't have to use what's available on that planet, you choose freely from a list. There is exactly zero "realism" involved.

So SM need too many ressources? Laughable. 40k ressources are endless. Your army can die multiple times per day and you don't have to wait for reinforcements to "act" again. In fact, GW doesn't care if their fluff and reality are compatible. To them its just a handwavium rich magic land....

The background may suggest the majority of conflicts involves the population and the local law enforcement. And we are still not looking at the daily life or a conflict across decades, we are re-enacting "battles" with some dozen and up to a hundred models involved. The time frame, the "window" is too small to represent anyones role in the 40k verse correclty.

Thus Space Marines are fine as they are.
GW wrote One Marine per world is enough. So take it or leave it.

Wow.

Exalted.

Why? It wasn't impressive, was just kind of boring and preachy.

 Melissia wrote:
Why? It wasn't impressive, was just kind of boring and preachy.

Look who's talking.

And yet I'm not telling anyone to either be a[n] [Insert Faction Here] Fanboy or leave 40k.

 Melissia wrote:
And yet I'm not telling anyone to either be a[n] [Insert Faction Here] Fanboy or leave 40k.

Neither did I, nor did the person I quoted.

Nice, right? We can all like the factions we prefer.

I'd prefer it if they went back to being space cops and not Uber-OP heroes of humanity. It would mean that for once the rules accurately represent the fluff.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Neither did I, nor did the person I quoted.

The person you quoted stated exactly that. And you supported it.

 Melissia wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Neither did I, nor did the person I quoted.

The person you quoted stated exactly that. And you supported it.

Strange, because I can find no fanboyism in it.

Are you sure it is just you misusing 'fanboyism' as a justification for dismissing it and sticking to your own view? You don't need a justification for that, you know. You can interpret the setting how you wish. But not trying to apply IRL logic to a setting that is so extremely illogical is not something you are wrong in doing.

"Thus Space Marines are fine as they are. GW wrote One Marine per world is enough. So take it or leave it. "


Translation: If you don't think Space Marines are unbeatable gods of war (IE, "take it"), gtfo of 40k (IE, "leave it").


The post you exalted provides no middle ground between those two.

 Melissia wrote:
"Thus Space Marines are fine as they are. GW wrote One Marine per world is enough. So take it or leave it. "


Translation: If you don't think Space Marines are unbeatable gods of war, gtfo of 40k.

You twisting his words and trying to make them look bad does not actually make them bad.

Let's take a look.

'Thus Space Marines are fine as they are.'

I do not think 'Fine' is strong enough praise to warrant accusations of fanboyism.

'GW wrote one Marine per world is enough.'

Indeed, they actually did. A quote. Does an Ork player quoting what GW wrote about them probably conquering the galaxy if united make said player a 'fanboy'? Does a SoB player quoting what GW wrote about them, that they are completely incorruptible make them a fanboy? It is actually exactly the same thing. It is okay if your opinion says, yes, they are, but it's not exactly an objective fact.

'So take it or leave it.'

...What is wrong with this? Agree with this guy, or leave his views and keep/form your own.

Why does any of this warrant insults? Is breaking forum rule #1 really worth it to somehow try to lessen his argument?

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
You twisting his words

No I'm not.

I'm responding to his words exactly as they are in the post. It's not exactly the first time someone has said "if you don't like space marines gtfo of 40k" on this forum.

 Melissia wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
You twisting his words

No I'm not.

I'm responding to his words exactly as they are in the post. It's not exactly the first time someone has said "if you don't like space marines gtfo of 40k" on this forum.

Yes you are. You can interpret his words how you like, but it does not really carry much meaning if it is not how they were intended.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
if it is not how they were intended.

He can speak for himself if that is not how it was intended, though intentions rarely matter if one words something badly.

 Melissia wrote:
intentions rarely matter if one words something badly.

Indeed. Hence why I feel the need to protest when I see things like

 Melissia wrote:

Translation: If you don't think Space Marines are unbeatable gods of war (IE, "take it"), gtfo of 40k (IE, "leave it").

Plus, as for assuming his intentions, since it is arguably a dubious case, I am going to go ahead and assume the nicer of the two. Because being polite is a forum rule, if nothing else.

I know I like to bring up Dawn of War a lot, despite an oddly large number of people here hating it, but I think that Relic did quite well with their representation of the Space Marines.

In the first game, the 3rd Company fights on Tartarus supported by millions of Guard units. They hold key locations, assassinate Ork Warbosses, and hunt down the heart of Chaos Corruption and Eldar influence while Colonel Brom's Imperial Guard regiments deal with the bulk of Xenos forces.

Dawn of War 2. Over a month long period, the Space Marines again are tasked with high profile targets, synapse creatures, and obtaining dangerous bio samples to fight the Tyranids and Orks, while Imperial Guard forces again hold the line.

Space Marine. A Space Marine combat patrol is given a specific order: Initiate Asset Denial, protect the titans. That was their objective. Again, we see most of the forces fighting the Ork invasion were Imperial Guard, and the entire campaign was a holding action until a Liberation Fleet could arrive to curbstomp the Waaagh!!!

If that is what Space Marines were all the time, I wouldn't mind it. It makes sense, and the ability of small squads to achieve major strategic and tactical victories to bolster the overall campaign gives the faction a sense of belonging with the rest of the Imperium.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
intentions rarely matter if one words something badly.

Indeed. Hence why I feel the need to protest when I see things like

 Melissia wrote:

Translation: If you don't think Space Marines are unbeatable gods of war (IE, "take it"), gtfo of 40k (IE, "leave it").

Plus, as for assuming his intentions, since it is arguably a dubious case, I am going to go ahead and assume the nicer of the two. Because being polite is a forum rule, if nothing else.

And yet another forum consumed by a flame war

Do you mean scoured? Though I suppose there are definitions of scored that apply here, they just seem odd

Seriously though, that wasn't a flame war. Just two people disagreeing.

 Melissia wrote:
Do you mean scoured? Though I suppose there are definitions of scored that apply here, they just seem odd

Seriously though, that wasn't a flame war. Just two people disagreeing.

I meant that but I had to edit it. No it just seems like these arguments that pop up are fueled by more anger than the amount you usually get with a normal argument.

 Arcsquad12 wrote:
I know I like to bring up Dawn of War a lot, despite an oddly large number of people here hating it, but I think that Relic did quite well with their representation of the Space Marines.

In the first game, the 3rd Company fights on Tartarus supported by millions of Guard units. They hold key locations, assassinate Ork Warbosses, and hunt down the heart of Chaos Corruption and Eldar influence while Colonel Brom's Imperial Guard regiments deal with the bulk of Xenos forces.

Dawn of War 2. Over a month long period, the Space Marines again are tasked with high profile targets, synapse creatures, and obtaining dangerous bio samples to fight the Tyranids and Orks, while Imperial Guard forces again hold the line.

Space Marine. A Space Marine combat patrol is given a specific order: Initiate Asset Denial, protect the titans. That was their objective. Again, we see most of the forces fighting the Ork invasion were Imperial Guard, and the entire campaign was a holding action until a Liberation Fleet could arrive to curbstomp the Waaagh!!!

If that is what Space Marines were all the time, I wouldn't mind it. It makes sense, and the ability of small squads to achieve major strategic and tactical victories to bolster the overall campaign gives the faction a sense of belonging with the rest of the Imperium.

I agree that Dawn of War games feel mostly rather fluffy. Especially early game DoWII multiplayer, before the catachan blobbing and Zoanthrope spamming starts. The way, say, Guardsmen and Tactical Marines weigh up against one another and so on feels fluffy, even if some of the stats are not. (A Guardsman survives 6 seconds of bolter fire, lol. Even at point blank.)

Bronzefists42 wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
intentions rarely matter if one words something badly.

Indeed. Hence why I feel the need to protest when I see things like

 Melissia wrote:

Translation: If you don't think Space Marines are unbeatable gods of war (IE, "take it"), gtfo of 40k (IE, "leave it").

Plus, as for assuming his intentions, since it is arguably a dubious case, I am going to go ahead and assume the nicer of the two. Because being polite is a forum rule, if nothing else.

And yet another forum consumed by a flame war

May I step in?

Cause the "translation" wasn't as good as Melissia believes.

Translation: If you don't think Space Marines are unbeatable gods of war (IE, "take it"), gtfo of 40k (IE, "leave it").

Where did I say "unbeatable" ? Or GW themselves? Please enlighten the "preachy and boring" one.
Seem to remember I said a few times at dakka the IoM will prevail...that includes SM.. but also IG etc pp. :


However, I accept the attitude of the IP owner Games Workshop, who doesn't care as much as some fans ( as long as I don't have the money to change this... ..) so any Quest for concepts the company doesn't understand looks lost from start...

 Peregrine wrote:

squidhills wrote:
Can you provide a source for this? The numbers seem a bit... high. I realize there have been more than two atomic detonations (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, obviously) because we did test the things before and after the war... but "thousands'? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would like a source, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests

Total of ~2000 for the whole world, in various kinds of tests.

Thank you for the link. I hadn't realized there had been so many nuclear tests. Of course, upon closer examination of that list, it becomes clear that the majority of the tests were underground detonations, which would dramatically limit the radiation and fallout effects. Two thousand above-ground detonations of high-yield warheads would have pretty much ended humanity.

 1hadhq wrote:

Bronzefists42 wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
intentions rarely matter if one words something badly.

Indeed. Hence why I feel the need to protest when I see things like

 Melissia wrote:

Translation: If you don't think Space Marines are unbeatable gods of war (IE, "take it"), gtfo of 40k (IE, "leave it").

Plus, as for assuming his intentions, since it is arguably a dubious case, I am going to go ahead and assume the nicer of the two. Because being polite is a forum rule, if nothing else.

And yet another forum consumed by a flame war

May I step in?

Cause the "translation" wasn't as good as Melissia believes.

Translation: If you don't think Space Marines are unbeatable gods of war (IE, "take it"), gtfo of 40k (IE, "leave it").

Where did I say "unbeatable" ? Or GW themselves? Please enlighten the "preachy and boring" one.
Seem to remember I said a few times at dakka the IoM will prevail...that includes SM.. but also IG etc pp. :


However, I accept the attitude of the IP owner Games Workshop, who doesn't care as much as some fans ( as long as I don't have the money to change this... ..) so any Quest for concepts the company doesn't understand looks lost from start...

Very much agreed. I do not think 'fanboy' is a term we should use. It is rude, often incorrect, and in the cases where the bias is so heavy so that the term would actually be somewhat accurate (But still rude, mind) it is so obvious so there is no need to point it out.
Kinda lika 'special snowflake'

 1hadhq wrote:
Where did I say "unbeatable" ?

It's implied with the "one per planet" being a reasonable assumption for Space Marine numbers that makes them anything more than a minor irrelevant faction in the grand scheme of things.

Mind you, I don't think that GW makes the assertion that it's reasonable, it just makes the assertion that it sounds cool for marketing purposes. They don't particularly care. Therefor the nuances are discussed not by them, but by us.

 Melissia wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:
Where did I say "unbeatable" ?

It's implied with the "one per planet" being a reasonable assumption for Space Marine numbers that makes them anything more than a minor irrelevant faction in the grand scheme of things.

Mind you, I don't think that GW makes the assertion that it's reasonable, it just makes the assertion that it sounds cool for marketing purposes. They don't particularly care. Therefor the nuances are discussed not by them, but by us.

Well, purposes or no, GW says it is enough, so it is enough for their purposes. That is, their truly massive force concentration being counters to enemy force concentrations, as well as being 'bully troops' that can just outmatch those who are much weaker. When you are fighting someone like Dark Eldar who can and do use tactics and technology to fight you one squad at a time, it is much better if that squad is of Astartes than of Guardsmen. They can also fight Daemons, you know, the Eldritch Abominations that drive those with less psycho-conditioning or fanaticism superpowers (Notably, SoB can do so too, by making use of the latter) insane? Or match Chaos Astartes who otherwise rampage through your lines? Not to mention the morale and propaganda advantages that their prowess grants the Imperium, as well as being religious symbols.

Both IG and SM are vital for the Imperium's survival. One is a massive, very slow stone sledgehammer, while the other is a quick, master-crafted Adamantium scalpel.

You shouldn't really bring a hammer to a knife fight.

 Llamahead wrote:
A major bombardment strike would not have been an option as Pakistan is a nuclear power and could respond in kind. It has it's own ICBM strike capability and would have rightfully responded in kind. It would also have enraged the majority of people in the world. Watching America nuke one of it's allies because a criminal is living there would have enraged most of it's allies as well. Bombings also work to encourage the enemy to fight and are a powerful propaganda tool as was proven in WW2 where attacks like Coventry were used in recruitment and mobilisation drives.

Again, you're forgetting that 40k isn't the real world. There is no worrying about the enemy "responding in kind" because you're already fighting a war where total extermination of the enemy is the only possible outcome and any enemy with the ability to nuke you back has already done so. There would be no outrage because nuking one random city is nothing compared to the millions/billions of civilians your troops have executed already. There is no concern over the opinion of allies because there are no allies, anyone who does not submit to the rule of the Imperium is to be utterly destroyed. There is no "encouraging the enemy to fight" because they already have a choice of fight or die, and the entire population has already been conscripted and sent into the meat grinder.

squidhills wrote:
Two thousand above-ground detonations of high-yield warheads would have pretty much ended humanity.

Not even close. The whole "nuclear winter" thing was based on flawed climate models, the reason WWIII would have been so bad is the fact that all of the cities would have been destroyed and civilization would have been reduced to isolated groups of survivors with none of the networking that modern society depends on.

Plus, we're talking about damage to the planet as a whole, not damage to humanity. Nuking a planet and killing everyone currently living there is great in 40k because it means that your troops have less work to do when it's time to execute everyone and replace them with your own civilization.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Well, purposes or no, GW says it is enough, so it is enough for their purposes.

You're ignoring the obvious explanation: like most of the fluff, the whole "a squad of marines can take a planet" thing is just Imperial propaganda and hero worship. It shouldn't be taken any more seriously than we take real-world religious myths.

When you are fighting someone like Dark Eldar who can and do use tactics and technology to fight you one squad at a time, it is much better if that squad is of Astartes than of Guardsmen.

No, it's better that it's guardsmen with a nuke on a dead man's switch. They're expendable enough that it doesn't matter if they die (unlike the priceless marines), and when they die they should take the DE with them.

They can also fight Daemons, you know, the Eldritch Abominations that drive those with less psycho-conditioning or fanaticism superpowers (Notably, SoB can do so too, by making use of the latter) insane?

Why fight demons? The whole area is probably lost to demonic corruption, just nuke it from orbit and move on. The only reason to fight them directly is because the insane theocracy needs to continue fighting the holy war between each side's sacred champions.

Or match Chaos Astartes who otherwise rampage through your lines?

Drown them in guardsmen.

Not that it really matters, as CSM are even rarer than loyalist marines and might as well not exist at all on the scale of the Imperium as a whole. And odds are the CSM are going to appear somewhere that the closest loyalist marine is years away.

Not to mention the morale and propaganda advantages that their prowess grants the Imperium, as well as being religious symbols.

This is the only reason marines have any value at all: they're religious icons, and the propaganda value of "every minute you keep fighting is another chance for the space marines to arrive and save us" is priceless for motivating the Imperium's armies to keep fighting even in the most hopeless and terrifying situations.

 Melissia wrote:

After all, we utterly failed in Afghanistan using Space Marine like tactics. Al Qaeda not only wasn't destroyed, they're resurgent now, and have pushed their influence beyond Afghanistan, more motivated and more powerful than before.

Irrelevant comparison. The IoM isn't hindered by the veneer of 'freedom and libertyyyyy' that the USA tries to maintain while invading other sovereign nations. The IoM would have just exterminated Iraq and Afghan. But nice job linking a grimdark future with demons and magic people with current real world politics.