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.

You look at the primarchs and they appear to have strength to press hundreds of tons, with Angron almost driving a warhound to explode trying to step on him,
Bloodthirster have no such feats and they're left pretty much completely unquantified.
So how strong is a bloothirster?
What about Bloodthirsters like An'ggrath who show up and leave planets destroyed?

 ThePrimordial wrote:
You look at the primarchs and they appear to have strength to press hundreds of tons, with Angron almost driving a warhound to explode trying to step on him,
Bloodthirster have no such feats and they're left pretty much completely unquantified.
So how strong is a bloothirster?
What about Bloodthirsters like An'ggrath who show up and leave planets destroyed?

They're left unquantified because the power of Bloodthirsters varies dramatically depending on how much favour they have and the environment. A Bloodthirster in the Warp is going to be far more powerful than one in realspace just about to be cut off from a portal.

In the 5th Ed Codex they were Str 8, so the Average BT is ~twice as strong as a Space Marine, ~50% as strong as most other Monstrous Creatures and Dreadnoughts, but ~20% weaker than a Wraithlord/Knight for example. So its still plenty strong.

The Primarchs are mostly listed as having Strengths of 6, but there are accounts of Primarchs (Sanguinius in particular) beating them. Sangy actually beat the same one, the second time on Terra after having his legs broken, and killed it by snapping it over his (broken leg) knee.

Fluff strength is stretchy.

I'm pretty sure the likes of Ann'grath and Angron (a Daemon Prince but more powerful that most Bloodthirsters), would, as you say, totally annihilate most things. They lay waste to planets. Plenty strong to tear through anything short of a Warlord Titan. I say warlord because of Angron, mortal mode, was able to hold back a Warhound's foot (although nearly shattered his skeleton). Daemon Angron or Anngrath would, especially being nearly the size of one, would rip a Warhound and even Reavers in half.

 Deadshot wrote:
In the 5th Ed Codex they were Str 8, so the Average BT is ~twice as strong as a Space Marine, ~50% as strong as most other Monstrous Creatures and Dreadnoughts, but ~20% weaker than a Wraithlord/Knight for example. So its still plenty strong.

The Primarchs are mostly listed as having Strengths of 6, but there are accounts of Primarchs (Sanguinius in particular) beating them. Sangy actually beat the same one, the second time on Terra after having his legs broken, and killed it by snapping it over his (broken leg) knee.

Fluff strength is stretchy.

I'm pretty sure the likes of Ann'grath and Angron (a Daemon Prince but more powerful that most Bloodthirsters), would, as you say, totally annihilate most things. They lay waste to planets. Plenty strong to tear through anything short of a Warlord Titan. I say warlord because of Angron, mortal mode, was able to hold back a Warhound's foot (although nearly shattered his skeleton). Daemon Angron or Anngrath would, especially being nearly the size of one, would rip a Warhound and even Reavers in half.

Please.

For the love of Khorne.

Stop going around propagating arbitrary game mechanics as if they had any kind of relevance to the discussion.

Trying to use maths the way you do would be pointless even if this had not been an imprecise D6 system.

I know you did not base your argument on the rules here, but it's just misleading to even point them out as you do in this context.

If a Wrathknight began pushing, and five gretchin pushed right back, do you think it would be a stalemate?

I think that whole Angron thing was preposterous personally, it just doesn't make any sense.

Even if he could press against a titans boot, simply lifting it and then smashing it down again at great speed would pop him like a grape.

As always, the fluff is too inconsistent with this kinda thing. I suppose its almost impossible to answer.

 mattyrm wrote:
I think that whole Angron thing was preposterous personally, it just doesn't make any sense.

Even if he could press against a titans boot, simply lifting it and then smashing it down again at great speed would pop him like a grape.

As always, the fluff is too inconsistent with this kinda thing. I suppose its almost impossible to answer.

The Titan almost exploded trying to stomp him. He was pressing a lot more than just the titans weight.
Angron also broke out of thousands of tons of rubble.
The Titan thing was without the aid of his then shredded armor....
Angron also threw a marine one handed like 30 meters.
Angron is actually pretty consistent.
Vulkan took fire from macrocannons without dying.
The primarchs were created from massive amounts of warp energy similar to daemons. Which explains why they have strength way out of proportion with thier body mass like Dawmons.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
In the 5th Ed Codex they were Str 8, so the Average BT is ~twice as strong as a Space Marine, ~50% as strong as most other Monstrous Creatures and Dreadnoughts, but ~20% weaker than a Wraithlord/Knight for example. So its still plenty strong.

The Primarchs are mostly listed as having Strengths of 6, but there are accounts of Primarchs (Sanguinius in particular) beating them. Sangy actually beat the same one, the second time on Terra after having his legs broken, and killed it by snapping it over his (broken leg) knee.

Fluff strength is stretchy.

I'm pretty sure the likes of Ann'grath and Angron (a Daemon Prince but more powerful that most Bloodthirsters), would, as you say, totally annihilate most things. They lay waste to planets. Plenty strong to tear through anything short of a Warlord Titan. I say warlord because of Angron, mortal mode, was able to hold back a Warhound's foot (although nearly shattered his skeleton). Daemon Angron or Anngrath would, especially being nearly the size of one, would rip a Warhound and even Reavers in half.

Please.

For the love of Khorne.

Stop going around propagating arbitrary game mechanics as if they had any kind of relevance to the discussion.

Trying to use maths the way you do would be pointless even if this had not been an imprecise D6 system.

I know you did not base your argument on the rules here, but it's just misleading to even point them out as you do in this context.

If a Wrathknight began pushing, and five gretchin pushed right back, do you think it would be a stalemate?

Mathematics govern everything. I stalwartly believed that rules reflect the fluff. They have relevance.
And no, it doesn't work like that.

 ThePrimordial wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
I think that whole Angron thing was preposterous personally, it just doesn't make any sense.

Even if he could press against a titans boot, simply lifting it and then smashing it down again at great speed would pop him like a grape.

As always, the fluff is too inconsistent with this kinda thing. I suppose its almost impossible to answer.

The Titan almost exploded trying to stomp him. He was pressing a lot more than just the titans weight.
Angron also broke out of thousands of tons of rubble.
The Titan thing was without the aid of his then shredded armor....
Angron also threw a marine one handed like 30 meters.
Angron is actually pretty consistent.
Vulkan took fire from macrocannons without dying.
The primarchs were created from massive amounts of warp energy similar to daemons. Which explains why they have strength way out of proportion with thier body mass like Dawmons.

Breaking out from underneath rubble isn't the same as having a Giant 410 Tonnes walker stepping on you. And yeas even if the rubble was "Thousands of tons" I doubt that the full weight was on Angron.

 Deadshot wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
In the 5th Ed Codex they were Str 8, so the Average BT is ~twice as strong as a Space Marine, ~50% as strong as most other Monstrous Creatures and Dreadnoughts, but ~20% weaker than a Wraithlord/Knight for example. So its still plenty strong.

The Primarchs are mostly listed as having Strengths of 6, but there are accounts of Primarchs (Sanguinius in particular) beating them. Sangy actually beat the same one, the second time on Terra after having his legs broken, and killed it by snapping it over his (broken leg) knee.

Fluff strength is stretchy.

I'm pretty sure the likes of Ann'grath and Angron (a Daemon Prince but more powerful that most Bloodthirsters), would, as you say, totally annihilate most things. They lay waste to planets. Plenty strong to tear through anything short of a Warlord Titan. I say warlord because of Angron, mortal mode, was able to hold back a Warhound's foot (although nearly shattered his skeleton). Daemon Angron or Anngrath would, especially being nearly the size of one, would rip a Warhound and even Reavers in half.

Please.

For the love of Khorne.

Stop going around propagating arbitrary game mechanics as if they had any kind of relevance to the discussion.

Trying to use maths the way you do would be pointless even if this had not been an imprecise D6 system.

I know you did not base your argument on the rules here, but it's just misleading to even point them out as you do in this context.

If a Wrathknight began pushing, and five gretchin pushed right back, do you think it would be a stalemate?

Mathematics govern everything. I stalwartly believed that rules reflect the fluff. They have relevance.
And no, it doesn't work like that.

So Bloodthirsters which tear tanks by punching them. Because they're twice as strong. Yeah.
The way you could actually do it is say that each point of strength makes something three-four times as strong.
So a Bloodthirster would be between 64-128 as strong as a marine.
Hence then insta-killing marines.

yeah guys a company commander can take three times as much dark eldar poison as a space marine without dying, np, game mechanics are fluff accurate 100%

Way to kill the thread because of a pet peeve Ashiraya.

OP: Fluff depictions vary pretty wildly at times, so its really tough to figure out how strong something is. Even the title of strongest bloodthirster varies based on what story you are reading, so it isn't even really possible to use the fights between Sanguinius and Ka'Bandha as a gauge. It is probably safe to say that they are going to be somewhere in the ballpark of the primarchs though, IMO.

It's just as strong as the story needs it to be. Same as Space Marines that fluctuate between barely-above IG cannon fodder dying in droves all the way up to superhuman engines of destruction that take out a thousand times their number faster than the eye can see.

 Orblivion wrote:
Way to kill the thread because of a pet peeve Ashiraya.

Use of game mechanics in a fluff debate is incorrect.

Pointing out the flaws in someone's argument is hardly 'killing the thread'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
It's just as strong as the story needs it to be. Same as Space Marines that fluctuate between barely-above IG cannon fodder dying in droves all the way up to superhuman engines of destruction that take out a thousand times their number faster than the eye can see.

This, of course, is correct.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Orblivion wrote:
Way to kill the thread because of a pet peeve Ashiraya.

Use of game mechanics in a fluff debate is incorrect.

Pointing out the flaws in someone's argument is hardly 'killing the thread'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
It's just as strong as the story needs it to be. Same as Space Marines that fluctuate between barely-above IG cannon fodder dying in droves all the way up to superhuman engines of destruction that take out a thousand times their number faster than the eye can see.

This, of course, is correct.

You seem to forget that the fluff is only in place because of the game. The fluff is just there to provide an interesting narrative to the games. To say "game mechanics are not relevant in a discussion about the justification of said mechanics" is like saying "Triangles are not relevant in Pythagoras' Theorem," or "Einstein is not relevant to E=MC^2"

 Deadshot wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Orblivion wrote:
Way to kill the thread because of a pet peeve Ashiraya.

Use of game mechanics in a fluff debate is incorrect.

Pointing out the flaws in someone's argument is hardly 'killing the thread'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
It's just as strong as the story needs it to be. Same as Space Marines that fluctuate between barely-above IG cannon fodder dying in droves all the way up to superhuman engines of destruction that take out a thousand times their number faster than the eye can see.

This, of course, is correct.

You seem to forget that the fluff is only in place because of the game. The fluff is just there to provide an interesting narrative to the games. To say "game mechanics are not relevant in a discussion about the justification of said mechanics" is like saying "Triangles are not relevant in Pythagoras' Theorem," or "Einstein is not relevant to E=MC^2"

You are confusing it.

The fluff exists because of the game, but that does not mean that game stats are relevant in a fluff discussion. They are still disconnected.

The US exists mostly because of UK, but that does not mean that UK stats are relevant in a US discussion. They are still disconnected.

Because UK stats are not the source of the US, Great Britain (as it was known back then) is. You are entirely right in that statement. But if discussing the reason for X is so in the States, and saying British influence has no bearing, is false. For example, why does America use a different English to England? England is the source of the language so it is relevant.

Here is how the rules and game is relevant. Bloodthirsters are stronger than Space Marines and can punch through tanks. How do we know this? The rules are written so that it can, and the fluff then reflects this by having BT slaughter Marines by the bucket. If they were not stronger, the rules would reflect otherwise and the fluff written to address that.
The rules allow us a rough, and I mean rough, estimate of how much stronger the Bloodthirster is compared to a Space Marine. Estimation (using the old Str8) being about twice as strong. Probably a different stat now but use that as an example. We can then retroactively use fluff to justify rules. For example, Adeptus Custodes are commonly fan-made at Str5, slightly stronger than an Astartes, but weaker than a Hive Tyrant at Str 6.

I guess you think that Hive Tyrants are only twice as strong as a normal human being then? A Carnifex is only three times as strong?

No sorry, you're wrong and there's no amount of mental gymnastics you can do to change that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ThePrimordial wrote:
You look at the primarchs and they appear to have strength to press hundreds of tons, with Angron almost driving a warhound to explode trying to step on him,
Bloodthirster have no such feats and they're left pretty much completely unquantified.
So how strong is a bloothirster?
What about Bloodthirsters like An'ggrath who show up and leave planets destroyed?

As for the actual thread:

Lorgar was able to 1v1 beat An'ggrath in a manfight. He collapsed afterwords and it took all he had, but he did it. IIRC An'ggrath was portrayed as physically stronger than Lorgar, if that means anything to you.

For feats on Bloodthirsters, well, in the Eye of Terror, the book of the same name showed a Bloodthirster growing larger than a planet and smashing through it, so that's a pretty amazing showing of power but it only pertains in the Warp.

Outside of it? Depends on the Bloodthirster. In terms of pure brute strength they can often rival or even succeed at least some of the Primarchs of old. They can all tear through tanks in melee without much trouble, and have grappled and killed Carnifexes 1v1. Carnifexes can tear down huge Wraithbone spires, as seen in the assault on IIRC Iyanden.

Ok, while I (like you) believe that, in discussions of the fluff, the TT game should not be dismissed out-of-hand (like some here do), it is important to understand the nature and limits of the TT game as a fluff source.

 Deadshot wrote:
The rules allow us a rough, and I mean rough, estimate of how much stronger the Bloodthirster is compared to a Space Marine. Estimation (using the old Str8) being about twice as strong. Probably a different stat now but use that as an example. We can then retroactively use fluff to justify rules. For example, Adeptus Custodes are commonly fan-made at Str5, slightly stronger than an Astartes, but weaker than a Hive Tyrant at Str 6.

In the case of relative 'strengths' all we can really say is that a typical Str 6 creature is physically stronger than a typical Str 5 creature. We DO NOT know by how much, as the scaling of the strength table has never been made explicit. There is no table, or document, saying that a given Str stat is equivalent to a given lifting capacity, or that the scale increases linearly. It could increase exponentially, logarithmic, or it could ascribe to an unknown curve, or just be relatively random. WE DO NOT KNOW. It in no way follows that Str 8 is equivalent to twice the lifting or punching, or bending capacity of Str 4. Nothing says that it should. (Unless something that I am unaware of does, if so please point it out to me.)

Hell, if we really want to we can go further and point out that Str is relevant, in the game, only (or almost always) to damage in melee combat, which is not necessarily the same thing we commonly use the term 'strength' to refer to. Usually we just use it to refer to the ability to lift heavy objects, and only sometimes how hard someone can hit, but those two are not necessarily tied. So sometimes a higher Str might not mean 'can lift heaver things' as much as it means 'can better deliver a punch'.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Orblivion wrote:
Way to kill the thread because of a pet peeve Ashiraya.

Use of game mechanics in a fluff debate is incorrect.

Pointing out the flaws in someone's argument is hardly 'killing the thread'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
It's just as strong as the story needs it to be. Same as Space Marines that fluctuate between barely-above IG cannon fodder dying in droves all the way up to superhuman engines of destruction that take out a thousand times their number faster than the eye can see.

This, of course, is correct.

Not incorrect, just not fool-proof. The stats we are given are a great way to give us averages and how they compare to others. The most important thing that, unlike the fluff, the stats are consistent. For example a Wych is I6 and a Marine is I4, so we can infer that the Wych is fluffwise faster, the only thing we don't know is by how much. As for your personal pet peeve about imperial commanders, how about this? They are lucky. Every HQ model with more then 1 wound actually only has 1 or 2 but they are lucky enough to survive so many almost-death encounters. Think of it like Lord of the Rings Fate Points, or how the Master Chief achieves ANYTHING.

As for how strong a Blood Thirster is, they have almost the EXACT same stats as an Avatar...and we all know how strong they are In reality, i'd put them up there with the worst things to meet in a dark ally.

The fluff has nothing to do with the rules. For those of you who have been around long enough you might remember the old stories GW did where just a squad or two of tactical marines is all that was needed to subdue an entire planet in a matter of a day or two. The game system is too limited in the current rendition. A 1-10 base range for stats just doesn't give the flexibility to show true strengths and weaknesses. Even though the old system was clunky it did give a truer representation of stats in the game. Instead of the current system of weapon A has a damage rating of say strength 8. The old system had a rating of strenght 8 + d20+d10+3d6. It allowed for a much wider variable.

 Deadshot wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Orblivion wrote:
Way to kill the thread because of a pet peeve Ashiraya.

Use of game mechanics in a fluff debate is incorrect.

Pointing out the flaws in someone's argument is hardly 'killing the thread'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
It's just as strong as the story needs it to be. Same as Space Marines that fluctuate between barely-above IG cannon fodder dying in droves all the way up to superhuman engines of destruction that take out a thousand times their number faster than the eye can see.

This, of course, is correct.

You seem to forget that the fluff is only in place because of the game. The fluff is just there to provide an interesting narrative to the games. To say "game mechanics are not relevant in a discussion about the justification of said mechanics" is like saying "Triangles are not relevant in Pythagoras' Theorem," or "Einstein is not relevant to E=MC^2"

Ehm, if the fluff was to mimic the game, then Space Marines would die in droves and accomplish nothing of note. On the other hand, 5 SM capture whole worlds.

Bloodthirsters are pussies

In game rules have almost nothing to do with the background.

All the rules do is say that A is stronger than B.


Anyways, going by the fluff, there is no greater warrior in the galaxy than a Bloodthirster, and nothing is a match for one.

We thought the same thing about the Avatar, don't worry. Black Library write a book about some Average Joe Marine killing a bio-titian soon, you mark my words.

 herpguy wrote:
In game rules have almost nothing to do with the background.

All the rules do is say that A is stronger than B.


Anyways, going by the fluff, there is no greater warrior in the galaxy than a Bloodthirster, and nothing is a match for one.

Except a few of the primarchs.

 Orblivion wrote:

 herpguy wrote:
In game rules have almost nothing to do with the background.

All the rules do is say that A is stronger than B.


Anyways, going by the fluff, there is no greater warrior in the galaxy than a Bloodthirster, and nothing is a match for one.

Except a few of the primarchs.

And Librarians.

Some Grey Knights and particularly legendary Space Marines have beaten them too.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
We thought the same thing about the Avatar, don't worry. Black Library write a book about some Average Joe Marine killing a bio-titian soon, you mark my words.

The Avatar was never held in nearly the same regard as a Bloodthirster in martial ability.

In the Tyranid Codex and Bloodthirster wrestles with three Tyrgons, so they're pretty strong.

Animus wrote:
In the Tyranid Codex and Bloodthirster wrestles with three Tyrgons, so they're pretty strong.

That particular Bloodthirster was a member of a quartet of Greater Daemons, right next to a *major* Warp Rift. A rift so powerful it had a constant guard of Grey Knights including 2 Dreadknights and a GK Librarian. The Librarian in charge ordered the planet to remain purely to make sure that the Rift wouldn't open.