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.

Martel732 wrote:
The fluff has zero impact on gameplay. Therefore, it's already thrown out. If fluff had an impact on gameplay, ba and csm wouldn't incompetent stooges. But they are.

We aren't talking about the game, damn it.

On table top and in the fluff a Meganob can shrug off a battle tank round. I assume a terminator would be similar.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The fluff has zero impact on gameplay. Therefore, it's already thrown out. If fluff had an impact on gameplay, ba and csm wouldn't incompetent stooges. But they are.

We aren't talking about the game, damn it.

The game is a model of how these things work. The fluff is just the ravings of fanboy authors.

Martel732 wrote:
The fluff has zero impact on gameplay. Therefore, it's already thrown out. If fluff had an impact on gameplay, ba and csm wouldn't incompetent stooges. But they are.

The fluff DIRECTLY affects the gameplay, you cannot have one without the other, period.

if what you claim is true, then every army would have the exact same rules, weapon profiles etc. but they don't, because the fluff says they are different.

Now if you had claimed that the fluff affects different units in different ways to different levels, we would be in agreement, as it stands right now, your just flat wrong.

Well it's a good thing the 40k general discussion forum focuses entirely on the gameplay aspect.


Wait a minute.....

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well it's a good thing the 40k general discussion forum focuses entirely on the gameplay aspect.


Wait a minute.....

That... is not an answer, ok explain this to me please, if you will.

Why is an ork nobs rules, different to the space marine sergeants rules?

Why is a shooter, different than a bolter?

Why is a wave serpent different than a Devilfish?

please, go ahead.

As has been noted already by a few other posters, the answer to this hypothetical depends entirely on the combat readiness of the military base. If the Terminators teleport in at the dead of night then it's likely that they'll be able to neutralize most of the biggest threats before the base can muster a defense.

But in a stand-up fight, the Terminators are going down.

 Formosa wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well it's a good thing the 40k general discussion forum focuses entirely on the gameplay aspect.


Wait a minute.....

That... is not an answer, ok explain this to me please, if you will.

Why is an ork nobs rules, different to the space marine sergeants rules?

Why is a shooter, different than a bolter?

Why is a wave serpent different than a Devilfish?

please, go ahead.

It wasn't actually aimed at you. I just didn't read the second page because I'm supposed to be sleeping.

But my point is, what happens in the background and what happens on the game boars are two different things entirely. Otherwise you'd only have to buy one squad of marines and you'd be able to take down entire Ork armies without breaking a sweat or losing a guy. Because that's how good marines are in the fluff. Except that isn't good balance for the tabletop game.

If you are talking about hypothetical situations that are supposed to occur in real life, you have to look at the fluff. When people talk about Lord of the rings situations, like say Gondor vs the Roman Empire. You don't look at the tabletop game for your answers, you look in the book.

Natalya wrote:
As has been noted already by a few other posters, the answer to this hypothetical depends entirely on the combat readiness of the military base. If the Terminators teleport in at the dead of night then it's likely that they'll be able to neutralize most of the biggest threats before the base can muster a defense.

But in a stand-up fight, the Terminators are going down.

I highly doubt they would go down in a straight up fight. If Autoguns (or you modern day equivelent of) aren't considered to be armour penetrating, then any ordinary marine is going to have a hell of a time killing an Astartes, let alone one wearing TDA. If one Terminator is carrying a Cyclone missle launcher, you can bet your arse your heavy armour is toast. As soon as you don't have any heavy armour, you don't have a chance of killing a Terminator.

 Commissar Terrence wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Commissar Terrence wrote:
Idk. It turns out earth was a undiscovered world to the imperium and decides to get a squad of termies to disable a main part of the main force (NATO) so they teleport a squad of termies in after what they realised what we were using for weapons. The base is a regular base (Basic ammo, 3 or four tanks. 2 or three platoons of marines. And a few mg emplacements. Who would win?

Assuming this isn't a "Terminators teleport into chow hall when nobody has any idea what's going on" scenario (in which case it doesn't matter if you're talking Terminators or a modern 2000lb bomb), then modern weapons & physics wins. A modern NATO tank of just about any type can put accurately hit a moving tank sized target with a 90%+ accuracy while moving itself from a distance of 2 kilometers or more, and with projectiles capable of penetrating a full meter of cold rolled steel, while even fifty year old RPG's can hit targets at under 100/200 meters with great certainty and penetrate 200mm or more of armor. Small arms fire may not do terribly much, but they can do things that 40k fluff doesn't really talk about, like shatter optics or break weapons (that Storm Bolter isn't much use after it's been hit by a burst of machinegun fire), cut exposed cabling, potentially penetrate through underarmored joints, etc.

This is to say nothing of the air and artillery support that would be called upon in short order.

Also, a typical military base is going to be much larger than a couple platoons of infantry and a couple armored vehicles. Looking at something like Miramar or Pendelton (I used to live in San Diego) you're going to have many thousands/tens of thousands of infantry, with gobs of aircraft, tanks, artillery, etc.

A single squad of Terminators against modern weaponry wouldn't last very long at all. 40k works in it's "fantasy in Space" universe, but really rapidly breaks down once the real world is applied to it.

Im assuming the petty abram's would maybe dent the armour.

Based on what? We have armor values for 40k vehicles and equivalents to modern day weaponry and we know their effectiveness against flesh and blood with everything pointing to the 40k universe being far more primitive than real life equivalents. A modern MBT like a T-90, Abrams, Leopard 2, etc can do things that even the Eldar would be jealous of, both in-game and fluff-wise. 40k fundamentally is a Fantasy universe with a scifi skin pasted over the top that breaks down when the real world is applied to it.

And a rpg would just probably bounce off the armour.

Again, based on what? Modern RPG's/infantry anti-tank weapons are nearly as effective as MBT guns at penetrating armor within their effective range, and nothing in the fluff suggests that Terminator armor is equal to a meter of steel in terms of protection.

And it will take a helluva long time to break there weapons with basic military rounds

Again..based on what? Is a Storm Bolter particularly heavily armored? Looking at actual guns being hit by small arms, even heavier weapons like cannons, they can be broken just fine.

And if that happened they'll just rely on power fists and there sheer lack of getting there amour pierced.

Yes...they'll run everything down on foot an punch it. It's not like TDA isn't slow (remember, they can't make sweeping advances for this reason), and that modern fighting vehicles couldn't just run circles around them and pound them to ash, nor is Terminator armor invulnerable.

Now if they didn't have a helmet. The marines could just shoot them in the head. And the termie's can just punch the tanks until there's nothing left.

How are they going to catch a tank maneuvering at speed? I mean a *real* tank, able to maneuver at 50KPH on broken ground and engaging targets two thousand meters away, not a cartoon-parody Leman Russ with a breach that extends so far into the turret you couldn't actually fit someone into the hatch, or Land Raider that would be stopped by a parking lot speed bump because its ground clearance is effectively nonexistent.

And before hand the termie's could just teleport into the armoury and detonate that before anyone know's what's going on.

How do they know where the armory is? What sort of intelligence apparatus is delivering this information to them? Is the armory the only place weapons are stored? If you look at actual military base armories, these are large complexes of spread out and fortified buildings, where hitting one thing won't cause everything else to go up. You may impact their ability to fight for extended periods, but the troops and vehicles may be carrying munitions already. Ammunition and weapons are unlikely to be stored in a single vulnerable place.

And now even with marines with odd amounts of weapons wont be able to dent the armour with small arm's and knifes. And they could also teleport near where the vehicles are stored and simply break destroy them or rig them beforehand.

If we're assuming the marines somehow have perfect intelligence about everything, sure, but then, you could do the same with a real life military too, so that's not proving much. If you catch a force completely unprepared and already know where everything is and what's there, you don't need a Space Marine to achieve a decisive victory, you could do that with a couple of F-16's or a wing of Apache's too.

Bury the under tons of metal then have a pyrite bonfire.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well it's a good thing the 40k general discussion forum focuses entirely on the gameplay aspect.


Wait a minute.....

That... is not an answer, ok explain this to me please, if you will.

Why is an ork nobs rules, different to the space marine sergeants rules?

Why is a shooter, different than a bolter?

Why is a wave serpent different than a Devilfish?

please, go ahead.

It wasn't actually aimed at you. I just didn't read the second page because I'm supposed to be sleeping.

But my point is, what happens in the background and what happens on the game boars are two different things entirely. Otherwise you'd only have to buy one squad of marines and you'd be able to take down entire Ork armies without breaking a sweat or losing a guy. Because that's how good marines are in the fluff. Except that isn't good balance for the tabletop game.

If you are talking about hypothetical situations that are supposed to occur in real life, you have to look at the fluff. When people talk about Lord of the rings situations, like say Gondor vs the Roman Empire. You don't look at the tabletop game for your answers, you look in the book.

If you say so. But I personally reference the fluff for nothing. So why should I start now?

40K tanks can't even move and shoot effectively. That puts them at early WWII design specs. What a joke.

 ProwlerPC wrote:
On table top and in the fluff a Meganob can shrug off a battle tank round. I assume a terminator would be similar.

I remember the 5th ed codex talking about meganobs taking direct ordnance hits and just getting knocked down (and subsequently having lots of trouble getting to their feet even with assistance, though otherwise mosly unharmed).

And they are just wearing copious amounts of steel armour. TDA is space magic metal.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:


If you say so. But I personally reference the fluff for nothing. So why should I start now?

40K tanks can't even move and shoot effectively. That puts them at early WWII design specs. What a joke.

Abstract game mechanics are abstract.

In DoWII, 40k's equivalent of Starcraft 2, they can.

And Starcraft 2 tanks can't move and shoot either (and die quickly to small arms fire) yet you seem to praise them often!

Martel732 wrote:
The game is a model of how these things work. The fluff is just the ravings of fanboy authors.

Which is a perfectly valid position on what is canon in 40k, thanks to GW's refusal to clarify the subject.

FoW is not exactly identical to real world warfare either, however.

I love the "Fluff doesn't matter!" Arguments.

Until the USMC, Abrams Tanks, Apache helicopters and every other piece of weaponry/trooper on the planet needs to roll a D6 to see if their shot hit, body armor worked, or to test to see if they fall back.
Fluff is what an argument like this -should- be based on.

"Not my s3 ap - thingy killed a terminator in game once so, a terminator would fall to an M4 easy"

And based on fluff a 5 man terminator squad would walk through a modern day military facility like a field of Daisys.

 Chapter Master Angelos wrote:
I love the "Fluff doesn't matter!" Arguments.

Until the USMC, Abrams Tanks, Apache helicopters and every other piece of weaponry/trooper on the planet needs to roll a D6 to see if their shot hit, body armor worked, or to test to see if they fall back.
Fluff is what an argument like this -should- be based on.

"Not my s3 ap - thingy killed a terminator in game once so, a terminator would fall to an M4 easy"

And based on fluff a 5 man terminator squad would walk through a modern day military facility like a field of Daisys.

I agree, these people for whatever reason don't seem to like the fluff of 40k or marines specifically, tabletop is affected by fluff, fluff is sometimes dictated by tabletop, they are intertwined, tabletop should never be used in these hypothetical situations are it very very rarely reflects how ANY of the factions work in the fluff.

Because the fluff is awful fanfic level fiction that is not reflected in the part of the game that I spent hours playing.

A termie is softer than a land raider and according to GWs own fluff an Abrams MBT has 3-4 times more effective armour than a land raider depending on if it's a shaped charge or kinetic projectile. Most modern anti tank weapons would have no problem penetrating terminator armour.

 Gargantuan wrote:
A termie is softer than a land raider and according to GWs own fluff an Abrams MBT has 3-4 times more effective armour than a land raider depending on if it's a shaped charge or kinetic projectile. Most modern anti tank weapons would have no problem penetrating terminator armour.

Where does it say the Land raiders armor is that "ineffective". If you're referring to its thickness that means little in this case as we do not know the actual strength of the armor.

Martel732 wrote:
Because the fluff is awful fanfic level fiction that is not reflected in the part of the game that I spent hours playing.

except the fluff describes the strength and capabilities of those units. without the fluff you're just rolling dice and removing your pretty painted dollies from the table in a semi arbitrary fashion.

I would just like to point out that rules wise a human is Strength 3 and could theoretically punch a terminator to death, so yea enough people shooting or dog piling on a Terminator will kill it.

Fluff wise, a sqaud could take out the planet.

Since it's all fiction, then it's all up to what you believe and can't be answered. My opinion is the fluff is ridiculously over powered.

Modern day military is somewhat like those planets being brought in by the Legionaires during the crusade, always over estimating themselves until their world gets wrecked and plea for mercy.

One thing that needs mentioning is tactics, the marines wouldn't just send down a terminator squad to overtake a vital base. There will be combination of flyers, marines and terminators, plus whatever is deem necessary. Plain old guardsmen are like our modern day spec ops, PDF are like our regular military.

 Gargantuan wrote:
A termie is softer than a land raider and according to GWs own fluff an Abrams MBT has 3-4 times more effective armour than a land raider depending on if it's a shaped charge or kinetic projectile. Most modern anti tank weapons would have no problem penetrating terminator armour.

Wait, what? Now were saying a ancient tank is capable of destroying a heavily armoured moving fortress. But a amazingly powerful laser cannon cannot pierce the armour 5/6 times it shoot's at it.

We wrote:
I would just like to point out that rules wise a human is Strength 3 and could theoretically punch a terminator to death, so yea enough people shooting or dog piling on a Terminator will kill it.

Gamewise a hotshot lasgun is no better against a normally clothed human (or indeed a Terminator) than your hands are.

Let's see if the IG fans agree with that one...

 Commissar Terrence wrote:

 Gargantuan wrote:
A termie is softer than a land raider and according to GWs own fluff an Abrams MBT has 3-4 times more effective armour than a land raider depending on if it's a shaped charge or kinetic projectile. Most modern anti tank weapons would have no problem penetrating terminator armour.

Wait, what? Now were saying a ancient tank is capable of destroying a heavily armoured moving fortress. But a amazingly powerful laser cannon cannot pierce the armour 5/6 times it shoot's at it.

Don't take this the wrong way- but it doesn't really sound like you know what you're talking about in terms of a modern military's equipment. Go watch a video of an M1A2 Abrams shooting a super-SABOT and what happens to it's target. Vaktathi's got it pretty much nailed down.

One point I'd like to make about the comparison between in game battle tanks and modern ones- notice that tanks like the Leman Russ in the game use a large blast to denote the explosion caused by their shells impacting. That's not how real modern tank projectiles work- like at all. Even HEAT rounds aren't designed to explode and produce shrapnel for the purposes of defeating anything but very light tanks and heavy APC's. Just an observation.

thing is an Abrams is shooting known technology. a Land raider's hull is made out of advanced materials super science.

BrianDavion wrote:
thing is an Abrams is shooting known technology. a Land raider's hull is made out of advanced materials super science.

I don't think so. Actually, I think 40K alloys are probably worse. It's the retro future, where everything and everyone sucks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Because the fluff is awful fanfic level fiction that is not reflected in the part of the game that I spent hours playing.

except the fluff describes the strength and capabilities of those units. without the fluff you're just rolling dice and removing your pretty painted dollies from the table in a semi arbitrary fashion.

The fluff does nothing of the kind. In each books fluff, that faction is the bee's knees. Well, we know how that works out for Orks, BA, and CSM. I used to know BA fluff in the 90s, but don't care anymore.

 Ignatius wrote:

 Commissar Terrence wrote:

 Gargantuan wrote:
A termie is softer than a land raider and according to GWs own fluff an Abrams MBT has 3-4 times more effective armour than a land raider depending on if it's a shaped charge or kinetic projectile. Most modern anti tank weapons would have no problem penetrating terminator armour.

Wait, what? Now were saying a ancient tank is capable of destroying a heavily armoured moving fortress. But a amazingly powerful laser cannon cannot pierce the armour 5/6 times it shoot's at it.

Don't take this the wrong way- but it doesn't really sound like you know what you're talking about in terms of a modern military's equipment. Go watch a video of an M1A2 Abrams shooting a super-SABOT and what happens to it's target. Vaktathi's got it pretty much nailed down.

One point I'd like to make about the comparison between in game battle tanks and modern ones- notice that tanks like the Leman Russ in the game use a large blast to denote the explosion caused by their shells impacting. That's not how real modern tank projectiles work- like at all. Even HEAT rounds aren't designed to explode and produce shrapnel for the purposes of defeating anything but very light tanks and heavy APC's. Just an observation.

Thats why the Leman Russ has the Vanquisher anti tank variant, that fires effectively HEAT, as it is a direct shot high Armor Penetration round.

Very few Tanks in 40k rely on blast weapons for anti armor weaponry.

Now trying to compare a Russ to an Abrams based on what the Abrams can do to /current/ armor, is not an apt comparison when you bring into fact Imperial "regressed technology" has regressed to a point that is still thousands upon thousands of years in our future.

 Ignatius wrote:

 Commissar Terrence wrote:

 Gargantuan wrote:
A termie is softer than a land raider and according to GWs own fluff an Abrams MBT has 3-4 times more effective armour than a land raider depending on if it's a shaped charge or kinetic projectile. Most modern anti tank weapons would have no problem penetrating terminator armour.

Wait, what? Now were saying a ancient tank is capable of destroying a heavily armoured moving fortress. But a amazingly powerful laser cannon cannot pierce the armour 5/6 times it shoot's at it.

Don't take this the wrong way- but it doesn't really sound like you know what you're talking about in terms of a modern military's equipment. Go watch a video of an M1A2 Abrams shooting a super-SABOT and what happens to it's target. Vaktathi's got it pretty much nailed down.

One point I'd like to make about the comparison between in game battle tanks and modern ones- notice that tanks like the Leman Russ in the game use a large blast to denote the explosion caused by their shells impacting. That's not how real modern tank projectiles work- like at all. Even HEAT rounds aren't designed to explode and produce shrapnel for the purposes of defeating anything but very light tanks and heavy APC's. Just an observation.

Ah, yes. I see your describing a battle tank. There's different varient's you know. Such as the vanquisher. Shooting a AP round designed to pierce armour rather than just exploding on impact. There is more than one leman russ. And if you pitted a leman russ agienst a m1 abram's. I'll assure you the m1 has the obvious advantage over speed and manoeuvrability, but the leman russ has the armour advantage. And also thinking on how its the 41st melinium the shell should be so advance by now... Check this out (ripped from the lexicanum)

The Vanquisher Cannon is a more complex variant of the Battle cannon mounted on the Leman Russ Vanquisher. Vanquisher cannons have superior accuracy, range and first-hit kill ratios compared to other cannons and are designed to fire specialised anti-tank rounds.[1a][2] Such is the power of the cannon and its ammunition they can even penetrate the thick armour found on Titans,[1a] such as puncturing the neck of a Reaver Battle Titan.


Unlike the battle cannon a Vanquisher cannon can only fire two types of rounds, a high explosive and a special munition called a Vanquisher Shell. Also known as a subcalibre munition or high velocity anti-tank shell, it consists of a solid dart of super density metal surrounded by a lightweight exterior case. A power charge of high energy propellent causes the round to travel at a tremendous velocity down the Vanquisher's long barrel where upon exiting the case falls away, leaving just the dart speeding towards it's target. Typically the dart is only a third of the calibre of the actual shell, but the combination of it's extreme velocity and high density produces tremendous kinetic energy upon impact.



So if the leman russ shoots a vanquisher shell. Its game over for the abram's. And since the armour is so thick on the leman russ. There is a high chance of it deflecting or just not piercing. Even in the back where the mostly exposed motor is