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.

What he meant was that being able to swap tactics on the fly is a very valuable thing in a fight.


This would be a valid point, if Assault Marines had access to any sort of actual firepower.

 Slarg232 wrote:
What he meant was that being able to swap tactics on the fly is a very valuable thing in a fight.

She. And I think was she meant to say is that Batman trains more than thug at beating up people, and then trains some more to do a bunch of other stuff. But I do not think using Batman could be a relevant comparison here. Because Batman makes not freaking sense at all!
I guess the argument could work with special forces versus random street thugs, but I am not sure. I am not very knowledgeable about the respective hand to hand fighting capacities of street thugs and special forces.

 Lynata wrote:
But that's the thing, isn't it? All those years of experience at operating a sniper rifle... don't necessarily make you a better close combat fighter.

Scouts don't spend "years operating a sniper rifle". You're a fluff buff, you know better. Sniper rifles aren't even standard equipment for Scouts (despite them having access to them), bolters are.

Scouts are trained in every aspect of warfare. Once they're proficient at that, they're then moved up into the specialized classes (devastator, assault marine), and then into the role of tactical marine after they've mastered all the combat roles.

This discussion is stupid. Guardsman sargants aren't "better fighters", do you know why? Because going by your own metric, the game mechanics, they're worse fighters. They're WS3, compared to an Assault Marine's WS4. So I'm supposed to believe that guardsman sargants are "superior fighters" to assault marines, thus their extra attack, despite the fact that they're WS3 and therefore by in-game stats, terrible in close-combat compared to even devastators.

Hm. No. Sargants have 2 attacks because the table-top mechanics demand that all squad leader models have 2 attacks. There is no reason beyond that.

So what you're saying is the fluff is a more reliable indication?

Yes, the fluff is a more reliable indication of the fluff.

...

So... This Chess game looks interesting.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
But that's the thing, isn't it? All those years of experience at operating a sniper rifle... don't necessarily make you a better close combat fighter.

Scouts don't spend "years operating a sniper rifle". You're a fluff buff, you know better. Sniper rifles aren't even standard equipment for Scouts (despite them having access to them), bolters are.

Scouts are trained in every aspect of warfare. Once they're proficient at that, they're then moved up into the specialized classes (devastator, assault marine), and then into the role of tactical marine after they've mastered all the combat roles.

This discussion is stupid. Guardsman sargants aren't "better fighters", do you know why? Because going by your own metric, the game mechanics, they're worse fighters. They're WS3, compared to an Assault Marine's WS4. So I'm supposed to believe that guardsman sargants are "superior fighters" to assault marines, thus their extra attack, despite the fact that they're WS3 and therefore by in-game stats, terrible in close-combat compared to even devastators.

Hm. No. Sargants have 2 attacks because the table-top mechanics demand that all squad leader models have 2 attacks. There is no reason beyond that.

So what you're saying is the fluff is a more reliable indication?

Yes, the fluff is a more reliable indication of the fluff.

...

Ninja'd, again.

That's what I get for not watching this thread, just leaving it in a tab unrefreshed.

BlaxicanX wrote:Scouts are trained in every aspect of warfare. Once they're proficient at that, they're then moved up into the specialized classes (devastator, assault marine), and then into the role of tactical marine after they've mastered all the combat roles.

You're repeating what I just said. And missing that this also means that Assault Marines have not yet mastered their combat role, else they'd be either Tactical Marines or ... Assault Marine Sergeants.

BlaxicanX wrote:Guardsman sargants aren't "better fighters", do you know why? Because going by your own metric, the game mechanics, they're worse fighters. They're WS3, compared to an Assault Marine's WS4. So I'm supposed to believe that guardsman sargants are "superior fighters" to assault marines, thus their extra attack, despite the fact that they're WS3 and therefore by in-game stats, terrible in close-combat compared to even devastators.

Having the bravery or experience to attempt additional attacks has no influence on how successful they are. In RPG terms, you're trying to throw Initiative* and Accuracy into the same stat here.

(*: depending on the specific RPG - Shadowrun lets characters with high Initiative attempt more attacks than other characters, as it has a "fluid" combat order. in Dark Heresy, the equivalent would be more something along the lines of Dual Strike or Lightning Attack)

BlaxicanX wrote:Yes, the fluff is a more reliable indication of the fluff.

You skipped the important part of that question.

Technically, there is no such thing as "the" fluff. There are lots of fluffs, and one TT ruleset. So what I'm doing for my interpretation of the 'verse is focusing on those versions of the fluff that correspond to the TT rules. Such as the article about how reliably Marine power armour may protect against small arms, or how Horus gets stunned by a random infantryman's plasma gun, or about how the Emperor almost got choked to death by some Ork.

It makes for an overall grittier setting that is, at least to a good degree, devoid of the "high fantasy" that has crept into most publications lately. And I feel it makes for better synergy between the different armies, in that it doesn't just sideline everyone else in favour of having Marines front and center of anything that happens. I'm not a Marine player (anymore), so I hope it's understandable why I'd want a more "universal" portrayal of the setting that cares for anyone who lives in it. Because to me, this also adds to the immersion and the atmosphere.

 Lynata wrote:
You're repeating what I just said.

No, I'm not. The idea that Scouts "spending years using sniper rifles" would diminish their skill with melee weapons compared to a Guardsmen Sargent is silly and flat-out false.

And missing that this also means that Assault Marines have not yet mastered their combat role, else they'd be either Tactical Marines or ... Assault Marine Sergeants.

Non-sequitur, they don't need to be masters of close-combat by Astartes standards to have superior experience and training to a Guardsmen. Simply by virtue of being an Assault marine, they will have already had years of experience and training over the super majority of guardsmen, including their Sargents.

Having the bravery or experience to attempt additional attacks has no influence on how successful they are.

Experience is defined by weapon skill. From the rulebook: "This characteristic defines the close combat skill a warrior possesses... An Imperial Guardsman (a trained human warrior) has Weapon Skill 3, whilst a battle-hardened Space Marine rnight have Weapon Skill 4, Weapon Skill 5 or possibly even higher!". You're making a poor argument anyway because Assault Marines have vastly more combat experience than guardsmen sargants. Bravery is defined by leadership. "Leadership reveals how courageous, determined and self-controlled a model is. A creature with a low leadership value is very unruly or cowardly, to say the least! Elite forces, such as Space Marines have Leadership 8 or higher, whilst cowardly troops, such as Gretchin, have Leadership 5 or less." Also a dumb argument, because Space Marines know no fear bro. I guess all space marine's should have two attacks then, because they're certainly more skilled and less cowardly than most gaurdsmen.

Technically, there is no such thing as "the" fluff. There are lots of fluffs, and one TT ruleset. So what I'm doing for my interpretation of the 'verse is focusing on those versions of the fluff that correspond to the TT rules. Such as the article about how reliably Marine power armour may protect against small arms, or how Horus gets stunned by a random infantryman's plasma gun, or about how the Emperor almost got choked to death by some Ork.

It makes for an overall grittier setting that is, at least to a good degree, devoid of the "high fantasy" that has crept into most publications lately. And I feel it makes for better synergy between the different armies, in that it doesn't just sideline everyone else in favour of having Marines front and center of anything that happens. I'm not a Marine player (anymore), so I hope it's understandable why I'd want a more "universal" portrayal of the setting that cares for anyone who lives in it. Because to me, this also adds to the immersion and the atmosphere.

Cool. The Game's mechanics are inaccurate to the fluff, and aren't designed to be accurate. Game mechanics take game balance into consideration first, and fluff accurately second. Hence, it's a poor representation of the fluff.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Game mechanics take game balance into consideration first

Do they? Really?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Game mechanics take game balance into consideration first

Do they? Really?

Yes.

That they fail at it does not matter, but they try.

I doubt the fact that vehicles are now harder to explode is some cosmic luck chance that was retconned into the fluff.

 Ashiraya wrote:
That they fail at it does not matter, but they try.

That is not exactly what I got from the latest WDW leeks. Felt more like “whatever man, just pick whatever you want and make pew pew sounds!”
Maybe they used to.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
That they fail at it does not matter, but they try.

That is not exactly what I got from the latest WDW leeks. Felt more like “whatever man, just pick whatever you want and make pew pew sounds!”
Maybe they used to.

Eh, it makes no difference for the argument.

Yeah, I just reacted to the silly idea that rules of 40k were made with balance in mind . Canoness disagree.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Yeah, I just reacted to the silly idea that rules of 40k were made with balance in mind . Canoness disagree.

As said, that they try does not mean that they are remotely close to success.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yes, the fluff is a more reliable indication of the fluff.

That's the funniest thing I've read here in a while. Thank you BlaxicanX. It's always amusing to watch logic smash into Lynata's latest rant.

 Ashiraya wrote:
As said, that they try does not mean that they are remotely close to success.

Let us not even talk about success. When they put the Canoness at the same point cost as the Chaos lord, do you thing they were even trying to do balance? Have you ever tried to compare those profiles?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
As said, that they try does not mean that they are remotely close to success.

Let us not even talk about success. When they put the Canoness at the same point cost as the Chaos lord, do you thing they were even trying to do balance? Have you ever tried to compare those profiles?

Clearly GW was convinced Acts of Faith and Shield of Faith made up for it.

Edit: Nevermind. It seems we are talking past each other and we're not convincing either of us, so I apologise for the waste of time, take my opinion and leave, before I'm drawing any further insults.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Clearly GW was convinced Acts of Faith and Shield of Faith made up for it.

Are you saying they are bubbling idiots ? That does not even compensate going from Fearless to Stubborn…

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Clearly GW was convinced Acts of Faith and Shield of Faith made up for it.

Are you saying they are bubbling idiots ? That does not even compensate going from Fearless to Stubborn…

Rulewise? Yes, they certainly don't write very logical rules.

Clearly you cannot pretend they are actually trying. Ridiculously weak Act of Faith and minor Shield of Faith as a tradeoff against Fearless, +1 to basically every characteristic that matters, access to much more and better wargear, …

This seems to have drifted long from the original point.