Realistic Space Marines

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.

**Wyzilla**

Pendix wrote:
Wyzilla wrote:
Using the TT to judge anything is asinine and silly. It's an outdated system that, objectively, is a bad game. Using it to determine the ballistics of weapons it features is such a hysterical notion that I cannot decide whether to laugh or embed my head in the nearest desk out of complete disdain for such a silly notion. Especially when FFG made a far superior system, or when GW has published hundreds of books for us to go over and dissect.
...
I can't even comprehend why anyone would suggest the TT be used for anything. It's garbage quite frankly that people (including me) largely play just because it's 40k.

Would it being a better 'game' make it more valid as a source? I don't see a causal relationship here. Is it about liking the game? does liking it make it a better source (actually I'd say yes, at least when taken as a better source for yourself, and not in an absolute sense[see discussion below]).

Because the game was made to be a game. It is constrained by game mechanics and thus by its very existence is arbitrary. Especially when we have well over a hundred books of established lore to pour over.

Wyzilla wrote:
But the system and the rules cannot be extrapolated into actual lore or any in-depth analysis, it doesn't make sense.

It may seem absurd to you, but this:

Wyzilla wrote:
. . .run calculations on quotations from the Black Library. . .

seems just as absurd to me. What? when a writer says: "he had the strength of 100 men" you going to determine the average strength of a man, and multiply it by 100 and treat that as a hard number?

To me that's . . . I don't even know where to begin with that. But if that's how you roll; so be it.

I maintain that the table-top game is as valid a source as any other. It behoves us to remember that 40K has (explicitly) no hard cannon, and fans are required (due to rampant inconsistency) to determine, for themselves, their own image of the 40K setting. To do that they have a variety of sources to chose from, from source books to novels to RPGs to computer games, to 'lore' books (like the Uplifting Primer & Xenobiology). Such sources may be from the core studio, a sub-department or attached business, or even a independent 3rd party. There is such a wealth of material, and soo much of it is inconsistent, fans find themselves deriving systems to make their own images of the setting coherent. We decide if one this is more valid than another for constructing our individual images of the setting, but these are choices. At a fundamental level, no source is better than any other. They all have their virtues and issues. None are created purely to accurately convey the setting precisely and scientifically, all are subservient to other requirements. The game may have to make 'compromises' to be balanced (YMMV), but the novels have to be entertaining, and are more than subject to poetic licence and (worse) poor writing. And don't even get me started on the computer games.

40K is not like other settings, cannon is individual and we all chose what works for us. These discussions can help inform that process, but there is huge room for different interpretations, and those people with different ideas are not the enemy to be chased off or shut down, they are our comrades, engaged in the same pursuit and love of this setting as we are, even if they are using different tools to do so.

Obviously you do not take such things as "they have the strength of a hundred men" literally unless the author is clear that he fully intends for such a statement to be literal. Do you understand the concept of "feats"?

**prof. squirrel**

in response to the fluff part of this discussion,
i too have noticed the inconsistency in the stories. in response to the "how would this correlate to reality" part, i have had MANY daydreams about space marine battles. then, (unfortunately), inevitably, i remember that it's not real. so i guess what i'm trynna say is, how close (or far away) do you think we are to some of this tech?

**Computron**

prof. squirrel wrote:
in response to the fluff part of this discussion,
i too have noticed the inconsistency in the stories. in response to the "how would this correlate to reality" part, i have had MANY daydreams about space marine battles. then, (unfortunately), inevitably, i remember that it's not real. so i guess what i'm trynna say is, how close (or far away) do you think we are to some of this tech?

There are weapons which can fire mini grenades which can be exploded at will. I saw a youtube video where targets were behind a wall. The round is fired through a window for instance and explodes just after it gets through the window hitting whatever is on the other side. Not mass-reactive, timed charge which is more advanced.

**Pendix**

Wyzilla wrote:
Obviously you do not take such things as "they have the strength of a hundred men" literally unless the author is clear that he fully intends for such a statement to be literal. Do you understand the concept of "feats"?

Not as such. I'm always fascinated by the ways people develop their own coherent image of 40K, and I've heard you mention 'feats' in passing before, so colour me intrigued.

**Ashiraya**

'Feats' is a typical concept used in, say, versus debates. You look at all the impressive gak someone has pulled off, look at all the impressive gak someone else has pulled off, how easily they did it, and then compare it.

In this context, you're effectively taking everything a Marine has been capable of doing, eliminate impossible outliers (like the Mach 180 Marines) and then use that as the basis for their ability.

Obviously, it works better for some people than others. Some have a very narrow definition of 'possible', and vice versa.

**dusara217**

Computron wrote:
I think a lot of you are under-estimating the bolter. It has limited magazine capacity, limited magazines on the marine, yet is the basic weapon used and marines are reknowned for holding against great odds.

I imagine a bolter round is a mini grenade - when it hits it explodes and does major damage to soft targets within its blast radius.
A marine is trained and has the coordination to place his shots into a mass of oncoming enemies.
He aims for a target in the second row of attackers - it hits - the target is blasted apart and several others are either killed or wounded.
That was the first round of a burst that emptied the magazine - every round hit and took out several enemies with not overlap for maximum effectiveness.
The marine already had a spare clip coming up to bolter when the last round was fired.
Seconds later and the next magazine is being emptied.
That's not movie stuff, that's what a marine should be able to do, otherwise what is the point.

That does seem like the most logical way to build the Bolters, but after looking at the design of the Bolt and Bolter here http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter#WikiaArticle
And after reading about how they react on the TT and in the fluff, it seems most logical and most likely that they would be designed to first penetrate the target, then explode, as they were originally intended to deal with not only humans, but also the innumerable monstrosities that one will encounter as a Space Marine. Now, these monstrous aliens will not be on the tabletop, as they are many and varied and would not bring in too much profit for GW to start making models for them.