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.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 Matthew wrote:

Round 3: 1 Space Marine Terminator vs 10 Emperor's Guard

Everything else is woefully in the Space Marines' favour, but this one is sharply in the other direction.

The only depiction I've seen of the Emperor's Guard doing anything was in Dark Empire. And in that they are the Sue-est Mary Sues that ever Sued. Soloing a storm trooper contingent, blocking blasters with his staff, shooting a tie that's on a collision course right for him through the cockpit in such a way that it stops and careens over a hill on top of another contingent of storm troopers.

The problem is... how effectively can they deflect 3 bolter rounds per second with their staves?

They're force sensitive, they'll just wave the bullets away. It doesn't work vs blasters because they're not solid projectile.

And they could probably force-choke the Terminator.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Completely different universes and settings, along with degrees of power and technology levels. 40k setting is just way too advanced compared to SW's

E.g - SW's Death Star was the defining terror weapon and was regarded as the epitome of technology... and there was one in the Galaxy. Any Astartes Battle Barge can do exactly the same thing, but may take just a tad longer. On the other hand a Blackstone Fortress can wipe out entire systems.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a Battle Barge is capable of destroying the rock a planet is made from.

Battle Barges can perform Exterminatus, but they cannot destroy the planets themselves - merely make them unlivable.

I-class Star Destroyers have the same ability, called a Base Delta Zero Operation, by which through turbolaser bombardment, they strip a planet of its atmosphere and destroy all ground installations.

Later Super Star Destroyers had Super-lasers, like the one on the Death Star, which while only having something like 20% of the Death Star Superlaser's damage output were still more than capable of destroying a battlecruiser in one shot - the Death Star 2 shot that destroyed the Mon Cal cruiser in Return of the Jedi was only firing at 5% power.

I don't believe the Imperium could beat anyone due to its structure. And their tech is rather gakky as well, or IG tanks would hit more than half the time.

As presented in the fluff, space marine chapters would be trivially eliminated by nuclear strikes from orbit or tactical nuclear weapons. Futuristic combat is very boring indeed.

Yeah but we can't have realism in 40k because psykers exist, apparently.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Yeah but we can't have realism in 40k because psykers exist, apparently.

They'd be nuked, too.

No no, the argument goes along, psykers exists, therefore realism can't exist.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't believe the Imperium could beat anyone due to its structure. And their tech is rather gakky as well, or IG tanks would hit more than half the time.

As presented in the fluff, space marine chapters would be trivially eliminated by nuclear strikes from orbit or tactical nuclear weapons. Futuristic combat is very boring indeed.

The rules, especially something with the low granularity of a d6 system, do not perfectly correspond to the fluff.

In what context would this nuclear strike take place? When would Space Marines just be standing around defenseless in open ground, open to bombardment?

Right after landing in their pods, as long as you have something that's worth sacrificing, you can just aim your nukes at it, wait till the SM's jump on it and then slag the entire site.

And while the d6 has flaws, its a good indication of what's better than what.

And don't forget to go slag their home planets, too. The concept of space marines is utterly absurd to begin with. It only works in a starship troopers style implementation. And guess what they used? Nukes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 asorel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't believe the Imperium could beat anyone due to its structure. And their tech is rather gakky as well, or IG tanks would hit more than half the time.

As presented in the fluff, space marine chapters would be trivially eliminated by nuclear strikes from orbit or tactical nuclear weapons. Futuristic combat is very boring indeed.

The rules, especially something with the low granularity of a d6 system, do not perfectly correspond to the fluff.

In what context would this nuclear strike take place? When would Space Marines just be standing around defenseless in open ground, open to bombardment?

Doesn't really matter. Both the Imperium and Marines are imbeciles regardless of the claims in the fluff. Largely because the authors of the IP are also imbecilic and horrible futurists.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Right after landing in their pods, as long as you have something that's worth sacrificing, you can just aim your nukes at it, wait till the SM's jump on it and then slag the entire site.

And while the d6 has flaws, its a good indication of what's better than what.

You only have boots on the ground when there's something worth fighting for. If the enemy could afford to just destroy everything in the general area, more often than not the same would be true of the Imperials, and they would have done the same instead of sending in ground troops.

I never disputed that the d6 system is fine for telling relative power, but the actual probabilities don't stand on their own. Power armor doesn't actually fail one every three hits, for instance.

 asorel wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Right after landing in their pods, as long as you have something that's worth sacrificing, you can just aim your nukes at it, wait till the SM's jump on it and then slag the entire site.

And while the d6 has flaws, its a good indication of what's better than what.

You only have boots on the ground when there's something worth fighting for. If the enemy could afford to just destroy everything in the general area, more often than not the same would be true of the Imperials, and they would have done the same instead of sending in ground troops.

I never disputed that the d6 system is fine for telling relative power, but the actual probabilities don't stand on their own. Power armor doesn't actually fail one every three hits, for instance.

But it does. Because the mathematical model says it does. If you wanted power armor to be better, it would be better.

Space marine are irreplaceable if they are exterminated. Some patches of dirt are very replaceable.

Martel732 wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Right after landing in their pods, as long as you have something that's worth sacrificing, you can just aim your nukes at it, wait till the SM's jump on it and then slag the entire site.

And while the d6 has flaws, its a good indication of what's better than what.

You only have boots on the ground when there's something worth fighting for. If the enemy could afford to just destroy everything in the general area, more often than not the same would be true of the Imperials, and they would have done the same instead of sending in ground troops.

I never disputed that the d6 system is fine for telling relative power, but the actual probabilities don't stand on their own. Power armor doesn't actually fail one every three hits, for instance.

But it does. Because the mathematical model says it does. If you wanted power armor to be better, it would be better.

So what's your reaction when the rules change from one edition to the next? Or when official fluff, released in the same publication as these rules, contradicts it? When the hull points were introduced, did every vehicle in-universe suddenly get less durable?

When the discussion doesn't concern the in-game values, insistently bringing them up is asinine and serves the discussion in no way.

 asorel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Right after landing in their pods, as long as you have something that's worth sacrificing, you can just aim your nukes at it, wait till the SM's jump on it and then slag the entire site.

And while the d6 has flaws, its a good indication of what's better than what.

You only have boots on the ground when there's something worth fighting for. If the enemy could afford to just destroy everything in the general area, more often than not the same would be true of the Imperials, and they would have done the same instead of sending in ground troops.

I never disputed that the d6 system is fine for telling relative power, but the actual probabilities don't stand on their own. Power armor doesn't actually fail one every three hits, for instance.

But it does. Because the mathematical model says it does. If you wanted power armor to be better, it would be better.

So what's your reaction when the rules change from one edition to the next? Or when official fluff, released in the same publication as these rules, contradicts it? When the hull points were introduced, did every vehicle in-universe suddenly get less durable?

When the discussion doesn't concern the in-game values, insistently bringing them up is asinine and serves the discussion in no way.

The in-game model diverges so far from the fluff text, that one must be rejected. Given that my personal reality is being shot off the table by Eldar, I don't see how any of the BA fluff is remotely feasible given how gakky they are. Edition changes are literally a new reality. So yes, tanks did just become more fragile. Because the model says so. The fluff doesn't help me vs Eldar, so it is basically dead to me.

Martel732 wrote:

 asorel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Right after landing in their pods, as long as you have something that's worth sacrificing, you can just aim your nukes at it, wait till the SM's jump on it and then slag the entire site.

And while the d6 has flaws, its a good indication of what's better than what.

You only have boots on the ground when there's something worth fighting for. If the enemy could afford to just destroy everything in the general area, more often than not the same would be true of the Imperials, and they would have done the same instead of sending in ground troops.

I never disputed that the d6 system is fine for telling relative power, but the actual probabilities don't stand on their own. Power armor doesn't actually fail one every three hits, for instance.

But it does. Because the mathematical model says it does. If you wanted power armor to be better, it would be better.

So what's your reaction when the rules change from one edition to the next? Or when official fluff, released in the same publication as these rules, contradicts it? When the hull points were introduced, did every vehicle in-universe suddenly get less durable?

When the discussion doesn't concern the in-game values, insistently bringing them up is asinine and serves the discussion in no way.

The in-game model diverges so far from the fluff text, that one must be rejected. Given that my personal reality is being shot off the table by Eldar, I don't see how any of the BA fluff is remotely feasible given how gakky they are. Edition changes are literally a new reality. So yes, tanks did just become more fragile. Because the model says so. The fluff doesn't help me vs Eldar, so it is basically dead to me.

The discussion in question concerns fluff. If crunch were being discussed, it would be as simple a matter as tossing some X-wing models on one side of a table and some 40k models on the other.

The answer is almost always going to involve weapons of mass destruction, not heroic duels. That's another problem with fluff arguments. That's on top of my inability to take anything GW writes about their own setting seriously in any way.

I really feel you may have found the wrong game, Martel. In the grim darkness of the far future, there are only psykers and chainswords!

 Ashiraya wrote:
I really feel you may have found the wrong game, Martel. In the grim darkness of the far future, there are only psykers and chainswords!

Yeah, I found it in 1994, though. It seemed really cool, then!

...But back in 1994, wasn't there just as many psykers and chainswords as today?

 Ashiraya wrote:
...But back in 1994, wasn't there just as many psykers and chainswords as today?

Yes, but I hadn't read nearly as many good sci-fi books. I was gonna quit, too, but then 3rd ed came out. That's what losing every game in 2nd ed will do for you.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Completely different universes and settings, along with degrees of power and technology levels. 40k setting is just way too advanced compared to SW's

Huh? If anything it's the other way around. The SW galaxy has long since been topped out on what they can actually use technology to do, as in hyperspace travel, but new applications can be devastating. The 40K Milky Way is locked in a genocidal apocalyptic war where no one can create anything new anymore and even the really advanced guys are just a sidenote in a SW history book.

Both genres have massive tech gaps that are inexplicable in the face of FTL. Realizing that Lucas made Star War fight choreography off of WWII fighter battles explains a lot, though.

The only fictional setting's military that could match up to the Imperium happens to be the other one with a God-Emperor.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
The only fictional setting's military that could match up to the Imperium happens to be the other one with a God-Emperor.

Dune?

I don't know the setting well but I've been told that the Culture can do it as well.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
The only fictional setting's military that could match up to the Imperium happens to be the other one with a God-Emperor.

That's probably not even close to true given how primitive 40k tactics are. Any genre with truly futuristics weapons probably the inanity that is grimdark.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
The only fictional setting's military that could match up to the Imperium happens to be the other one with a God-Emperor.

Nah The Culture would deal with them without issue

The Shadows or Vorlons as well

Species 8472

Any of the major powers in the Renegade Legions universe

If we're talking Old Republic...

The Imperium arrives in the Hoth system.

Emperor Vitiate, aboard his invisible space-station, devours them all through the Force, as he did to the entire populace of the Imperial Crown-world of Ziost.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Completely different universes and settings, along with degrees of power and technology levels. 40k setting is just way too advanced compared to SW's

E.g - SW's Death Star was the defining terror weapon and was regarded as the epitome of technology... and there was one in the Galaxy. Any Astartes Battle Barge can do exactly the same thing, but may take just a tad longer. On the other hand a Blackstone Fortress can wipe out entire systems.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a Battle Barge is capable of destroying the rock a planet is made from.

Battle Barges can perform Exterminatus, but they cannot destroy the planets themselves - merely make them unlivable.

I-class Star Destroyers have the same ability, called a Base Delta Zero Operation, by which through turbolaser bombardment, they strip a planet of its atmosphere and destroy all ground installations.

Later Super Star Destroyers had Super-lasers, like the one on the Death Star, which while only having something like 20% of the Death Star Superlaser's damage output were still more than capable of destroying a battlecruiser in one shot - the Death Star 2 shot that destroyed the Mon Cal cruiser in Return of the Jedi was only firing at 5% power.

That I did not know and is quite interesting. But is it canon?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Completely different universes and settings, along with degrees of power and technology levels. 40k setting is just way too advanced compared to SW's

Huh? If anything it's the other way around. The SW galaxy has long since been topped out on what they can actually use technology to do, as in hyperspace travel, but new applications can be devastating. The 40K Milky Way is locked in a genocidal apocalyptic war where no one can create anything new anymore and even the really advanced guys are just a sidenote in a SW history book.

40k is in a proccess of rediscovering their prime.
And as for genocide... the countless Force Sensitive wars are what? Anyway, the problem remains - what is and isn't canon for SW?

 Ashiraya wrote:
I don't know the setting well but I've been told that the Culture can do it as well.

The Culture has the tech, but not the heart or sheer manpower to match up to the Imperium.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I don't know the setting well but I've been told that the Culture can do it as well.

The Culture has the tech, but not the heart or sheer manpower to match up to the Imperium.

It doesn't need manpower. A single Culture warship could take on the combined forces of the entire 40k galaxy simultaneously and win in less time than it took me to write this sentence. And it can turn entire planetary masses into combat drones if, for some reason, it wishes to engage in ground combat.