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.

Because in an age of airplanes, much less orbital bombardments, siege warfare is stupid and they portray it in a stupid manner. Storm of Iron was a great read, but a terribly stupid event.

 Frazzled wrote:
Because in an age of airplanes, much less orbital bombardments, siege warfare is stupid and they portray it in a stupid manner. Storm of Iron was a great read, but a terribly stupid event.

Very true! Just bomb them back into the stone age.

The Ultramarines are a strong shout. Not only are they posterboys so gain inevitable plot armour and plot arms, but they also had the numerical advantage to thenpoint where Horus feared them joining the war on Terra and swinging a 9-3 advantage to a 4-9 Imperial advantage. To the point he had his own largest force and hardest hitting force (Word Bearers and World Eaters) make sure they were too crippled to help out.

 Frazzled wrote:
Because in an age of airplanes, much less orbital bombardments, siege warfare is stupid and they portray it in a stupid manner. Storm of Iron was a great read, but a terribly stupid event.

That's the go-to conclusion, but what about the scenario where the fortress is loaded with the types of defenses that make orbital bombardment impossible? Then imagine that it's got more defenses that deter air assault. Then the only way to besiege the fortress is by landing far away, and approaching by land. It's a logical scenario that serves the 40K universe well.

The thing with various criteria is that only a handful of the legions were really "take all comers". Back during the heresy a lot of them were very specialized (in fact only the Dark Angels were suppose to be "all rounders" because they were the first legion). Luna Wolves and Ultramarines would be able to handle any situation more competently *on average* compared to other legions, but there would be one specific legion that would be superior to both of them in any one given situation.

This is sort of why Roboute Guilliman eventually ended up writing the Codex Astartes; Horus was able to command so many legions and turn them against the Emperor was in part because most of the legions were never meant to be autonomous units and thus had a cascading domino effect when one falls to chaos. The Codex Astartes would have remedied that by making each Chapter self-sufficient and self reliant, so they would never be forced into a situation to seek out help from another chapter.

Having read Inferno the TS sound super souped up.

Hate attritional warfare, all about flexibility and coordination, comparatively large amount of vehicles (never used in the battle of prospero: they only managed to get about a fifth working) and Alpha legion levels of precog and sabotage tactics.

Oh and psykers did we mention the psychic shenanigans?

Alpha legion because they already replaced every member of every legion with alpha legion...

but seriously their fluff is training in everything without real traditional specialists so they have to rank up there

I'll concede that the Sons of Horus were probably top tier.

I'd argue that Iron Hands and Dark Angels would be tied for immediate second tier, with Fists, Blood Angels, and Ultramarines a close third tier.

Ferrus Manus was one of the first primarchs found (4th I think), and he is widely held in the fluff as being the most relentless and strong minded of the primarchs. His strong-mindedness shaped his legion into an unstoppable juggernaut in war. Horus openly laments not having Ferrus on his side after the war, and again, the fluff points pretty heavily to the Iron Hands being one of the most successful legions.

I've noticed people consistently ranking the Ultras above the Dangles, but here's something to consider. In the HH novel Unremembered Empire, they spend quite a bit of time on Guilliman's inner monologue after he found out the Dark Angels were on their way. He himself admits that Lion is one of the *only* primarchs he looks up to, and even holds him and his legion in a position of awe. While we don't see them in action too much through the novels, but I'm hoping Angelus will flesh them out more. Then again, they did tend to operate on the fringes anyway, so who knows?

 Amanax wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Because in an age of airplanes, much less orbital bombardments, siege warfare is stupid and they portray it in a stupid manner. Storm of Iron was a great read, but a terribly stupid event.

Very true! Just bomb them back into the stone age.

I haven't read Storm of Iron, but I'm sure there are plenty of sieges in 40k where the attackers don't have air and space superiority, so bombing them to death isn't plausible. Also, bombing alone doesn't win wars and battles. You've gotta have boots on the ground to seize land. Many fortresses likely have underground parts and bunkers that those bombs can't penetrate as well.

Basicly every legion has the ability to perform all kinds of operations, but they don't wish to. As for the strongest legion i'd say SoH, Space wolves and Thousand sons +Dark Angels. SoH are great tacticians and specialize in shock assaults, plus having huge resources to call upon. The Space wolves and TS were feared by Horus, so he wanted them dead. Russ and his legion are just on par with the SoH in terms of assault and would be realy dangerous, while Magnus and his guys were masters of psykik warfare, that the other legions had no defence against, plus by this they could enhance any aspect of warfare they needed right now. The dark angels are realy strong thanks to their protocolls, so they can tailor themselves to combat any enemy. Need a fast and deadly force -go Ravenwing, need a tankheavy army wirh dreads - go Ironwing, need lots of termies - go Deathwing.

 Flanker wrote:

 Amanax wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Because in an age of airplanes, much less orbital bombardments, siege warfare is stupid and they portray it in a stupid manner. Storm of Iron was a great read, but a terribly stupid event.

Very true! Just bomb them back into the stone age.

I haven't read Storm of Iron, but I'm sure there are plenty of sieges in 40k where the attackers don't have air and space superiority, so bombing them to death isn't plausible. Also, bombing alone doesn't win wars and battles. You've gotta have boots on the ground to seize land. Many fortresses likely have underground parts and bunkers that those bombs can't penetrate as well.

If you don't have air and space superiority you are the target not them. Thats the dirty little secret of pointy sticks 40K.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Flanker wrote:

 Amanax wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Because in an age of airplanes, much less orbital bombardments, siege warfare is stupid and they portray it in a stupid manner. Storm of Iron was a great read, but a terribly stupid event.

Very true! Just bomb them back into the stone age.

I haven't read Storm of Iron, but I'm sure there are plenty of sieges in 40k where the attackers don't have air and space superiority, so bombing them to death isn't plausible. Also, bombing alone doesn't win wars and battles. You've gotta have boots on the ground to seize land. Many fortresses likely have underground parts and bunkers that those bombs can't penetrate as well.

If you don't have air and space superiority you are the target not them. Thats the dirty little secret of pointy sticks 40K.

Not necessarily, a lack of air superiority could indicate an ongoing dogfight, or orbital battle. For example, in Battle for Macragge, Behemoth did not have orbital superiority, it was engaged, but still managed to bombard the planet (with Drop Pod spores) quite heavily. If a normal foe cared so little for their own casualties they could have done the same, except with munitions rather than troops.

 Deadshot wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Flanker wrote:

 Amanax wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Because in an age of airplanes, much less orbital bombardments, siege warfare is stupid and they portray it in a stupid manner. Storm of Iron was a great read, but a terribly stupid event.

Very true! Just bomb them back into the stone age.

I haven't read Storm of Iron, but I'm sure there are plenty of sieges in 40k where the attackers don't have air and space superiority, so bombing them to death isn't plausible. Also, bombing alone doesn't win wars and battles. You've gotta have boots on the ground to seize land. Many fortresses likely have underground parts and bunkers that those bombs can't penetrate as well.

If you don't have air and space superiority you are the target not them. Thats the dirty little secret of pointy sticks 40K.

Not necessarily, a lack of air superiority could indicate an ongoing dogfight, or orbital battle. For example, in Battle for Macragge, Behemoth did not have orbital superiority, it was engaged, but still managed to bombard the planet (with Drop Pod spores) quite heavily. If a normal foe cared so little for their own casualties they could have done the same, except with munitions rather than troops.

Deadshot has the right of it, that's what Death from the Skies was supposed to represent. Too bad it added too much complication, still, wasn't bad as a standalone game.