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.

I guess the traitors should have shot them with plasma. Seems to work every time in my experience.

Yazima wrote:

Hellebore wrote:

Yazima wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI9c_PbdfD4

This elite

Seem to remember some novel, I think it was Blood Gorgon where a CSM (he was to all intents and purposes a loyalist in spiky armour) slaughters his way through an entire squad of Dark Eldar, Incubi and Plague Marines, instigating a planetary rebellion and countless other impressive feats along the way. Thats how I image space marines, not guardsmen+ with a lot of faith. That being said, clearly something needs to change, rules =/= fluff

That video is great, but it's actually not that elite.

They're doing what I described a few pages back, assymetric warfare to maximise their superiorities.

But really, that video shows a squad of marines killing nothing but guardsmen and only 2 weapons are deployed that could threaten them in a single shot and the marines receive and hide quickly rather than just waiting for the scatter laser to penetrate for example.


When you breakdown Astartes, it does what marines SHOULD do, but it doesn't do what the fanwank and worst GW books say they do.

Tbh I was just using this thread as a vector to share this incredible video. I agree with you of course, this is a relatively low-level threat for sure, I just love the brutal, overwhelming efficiency that bleeds off the space marines. They seem utterly unstoppable, utterly ruthless. The traitors, competent as they are don't stand a chance no matter what they try. It really seems like the astartes are on autopilot. Even when they come up against the potent psykers they hammer their way through in silence, pausing only to sheath their weapons. It looks elite to me, its fluid, intuitive and utterly unstoppable. Nothing they face fazes them for even a moment

The problem comes when fans expect this behaviour to work against ALL foes, including enemy elites. But it doesn't and it shouldn't. They only look overwhelming because of their oppenents.

But make those oppenents Tyranid warriors, tau battlesuits, nobz, Eldar aspects, and suddenly marines don't look so overwhelmingly badass.

But so many people just expect marines to plough through their oppenents like the all those guardsmen...

The nu-marines are a problem.

The base attacks of an Ork or Genestealer
More resilient than a Necron
A gun as powerful as the Gauss Blaster
With the range of the Tau rifle.
Far out-"eliteing" the traditional Eldar elite core infantry.

They just diminish the traditional advantages of those factions' baseline troops. And that's before the doctrines+super doctrines.

Why should marines push through guardsmen when the guardsmen outnumber them so badly AND have weapons that can bring them down pretty easily?

Martel732 wrote:
Why should marines push through guardsmen when the guardsmen outnumber them so badly AND have weapons that can bring them down pretty easily?

Traditionally, hitting guardsmen with flame and blast weapons, ignoring their armor with AP5 bolters and cutting them down as they fled close combat did the trick.

Martel732 wrote:
Why should marines push through guardsmen when the guardsmen outnumber them so badly AND have weapons that can bring them down pretty easily?

They should, but only through their training, tactics, use of demoralisation and hefty use of cover and ambush tactics.

Ten marines charging across an empty field bellowing like orks should stand no chance against 100 guardsmen.

Ten marines pulling shock and awe hit and run tactics on 100 guardsmen should have an almost completely assured victory.

changemod wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should marines push through guardsmen when the guardsmen outnumber them so badly AND have weapons that can bring them down pretty easily?

They should, but only through their training, tactics, use of demoralisation and hefty use of cover and ambush tactics.

Ten marines charging across an empty field bellowing like orks should stand no chance against 100 guardsmen.

Ten marines pulling shock and awe hit and run tactics on 100 guardsmen should have an almost completely assured victory.

I think you overestimate shock and awe. 1:10 odds should never be close to assured victory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should marines push through guardsmen when the guardsmen outnumber them so badly AND have weapons that can bring them down pretty easily?

Traditionally, hitting guardsmen with flame and blast weapons, ignoring their armor with AP5 bolters and cutting them down as they fled close combat did the trick.

Not anymore, and the LD mechanic was cribbed off historicals where it was more relevant. Even then, one tac squad had no hope vs 10 guard squads.

Weapons that shred marine armor exist in-universe, and a paltry -1 AP cuts into their efficacy greatly in game. Bolter porn is completely divorced from these realities.

changemod wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should marines push through guardsmen when the guardsmen outnumber them so badly AND have weapons that can bring them down pretty easily?

They should, but only through their training, tactics, use of demoralisation and hefty use of cover and ambush tactics.

Ten marines charging across an empty field bellowing like orks should stand no chance against 100 guardsmen.

Ten marines pulling shock and awe hit and run tactics on 100 guardsmen should have an almost completely assured victory.

I mean it depends, right?

Ten marines pulling shock and awe hit and run tactics should never fight 100 guardsmen. They should fight like, 10 at a time and then run away to strike somewhere else. Any situation where the Marines are taking on 100 Guardsmen is a loss, no matter how quickly they can hit&run away.

The whole point of irregular warfare / hit and run is to take on strategically larger and/or superior forces by breaking the engagements up into smaller chunks and preventing them from bringing their whole capability to bear. It's essentially an admission that you do not possess the capability to confidently win in a head-to-head engagement with the enemy force.

To replicate this on the tabletop at 2000 points, Marines should be really bad (like early 8th edition bad), but then have a special rule that permits them to only fight 500 or 1000 points of the enemy army at a time - perhaps because they blasted the enemy leader earlier in the day, or damaged communications, or utilized superior force concentration, something like that. But we'll never get rules like that, so we end up with half a damn chapter deployed against three guard regiments which is just ridiculous. GW wrote their fluff into a corner as soon as Marines became a "line force".

All of these descriptions assume marines can always dictate engagement. It doesn't take much to go wrong to lose an entire chapter in a day.

Martel732 wrote:
All of these descriptions assume marines can always dictate engagement. It doesn't take much to go wrong to lose an entire chapter in a day.

Right, that's part of the fluff of the Marines.

The Marines have their own navy (i.e. orbital support), their own orbital delivery transports, etc. The whole apparatus is designed to be faster than any other Imperial force. They are designed as best as the Imperium can design to be able to operate independently, with alacrity and initiative, to seize control of an engagement and dictate it.

The whole problem with Marines, of course, is that they can't always do that. Those are the tragedies when an entire chapter is wiped out. Those are the tragedies from which only Plot Armor can save you (SW during 1k Sons attack on Fenris, BA vs Tyranids on Baal, Ultramarines vs Tyranids on Macragge, etc).

So, again, to draw it back to rules, we might make the Marine player have to work to seize control of the engagement. Have it be 2k vs 2k, with the Marines fighting an uphill field battle against a superior force, unless they do [x]. I'm loathe to make it a dice roll (e.g. a 4+) because then it's just weird Seize the Initiative. But it can be very difficult to model these strategic effects on a tactical tabletop.

This goes back to 2nd ed where armies had a Strategy rating that was essentially a bonus to go first, and Marines had a better Stragegy Rating than everyone else.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

changemod wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should marines push through guardsmen when the guardsmen outnumber them so badly AND have weapons that can bring them down pretty easily?

They should, but only through their training, tactics, use of demoralisation and hefty use of cover and ambush tactics.

Ten marines charging across an empty field bellowing like orks should stand no chance against 100 guardsmen.

Ten marines pulling shock and awe hit and run tactics on 100 guardsmen should have an almost completely assured victory.

I mean it depends, right?

Ten marines pulling shock and awe hit and run tactics should never fight 100 guardsmen. They should fight like, 10 at a time and then run away to strike somewhere else. Any situation where the Marines are taking on 100 Guardsmen is a loss, no matter how quickly they can hit&run away.

The whole point of irregular warfare / hit and run is to take on strategically larger and/or superior forces by breaking the engagements up into smaller chunks and preventing them from bringing their whole capability to bear. It's essentially an admission that you do not possess the capability to confidently win in a head-to-head engagement with the enemy force.

To replicate this on the tabletop at 2000 points, Marines should be really bad (like early 8th edition bad), but then have a special rule that permits them to only fight 500 or 1000 points of the enemy army at a time - perhaps because they blasted the enemy leader earlier in the day, or damaged communications, or utilized superior force concentration, something like that. But we'll never get rules like that, so we end up with half a damn chapter deployed against three guard regiments which is just ridiculous. GW wrote their fluff into a corner as soon as Marines became a "line force".

I think an easier way to do that would be to change lieutenant's aura to the captain's. If Space Marines aren't pushed into the battle pile, they they can spread out more and use the force concentration they already have.

Marines have tanks and other capital assets. That makes them a line force. They've always been depicted that way in the art work and the codices. At least back to 2nd ed. I know before that, they were space cops. It's GW's 1000 marine chapter idiocy that makes the "surgical force" narrative appealing. But it doesn't make any sense.

 Insectum7 wrote:
This goes back to 2nd ed where armies had a Strategy rating that was essentially a bonus to go first, and Marines had a better Stragegy Rating than everyone else.

Yes, that was an attempt at grappling with this problem - it's elegant and easy, but it doesn't quite achieve the feeling IMO. Not in 8th edition at least. "You can go first" isn't really the same as "you dictate the engagement" anymore. It's certainly easy though, and has more of an effect than just nothing.

Marines also tangle with too many factions where they would in no way dictate anything. Particularly factions with their own navies.

Martel732 wrote:
Marines have tanks and other capital assets. That makes them a line force. They've always been depicted that way in the art work and the codices. At least back to 2nd ed. I know before that, they were space cops. It's GW's 1000 marine chapter idiocy that makes the "surgical force" narrative appealing. But it doesn't make any sense.

Having tanks and capital assets doesn't make you a "line" force. That's like saying "Well, an irregular force has some tanks so obviously they're ready to fight open-field battles against professional armies."

Historically (looking past rules and certainly past 8th edition rules) Marine tanks were faster and lighter than the Imperium's battle-line tanks. A squadron of Marine Predators would do poorly against a squadron of Imperial Guard Leman Russes, in the fluff, and that's because the Predators are not designed to dig into tank pits and fire ordnance weapons at ten thousand yards. They're designed for maneuver warfare - and they will beat the Russes if orbitally inserted behind them, or using their greater strategic mobility to outmaneuver them.

The problem is that none of that means much on the tabletop.

The other problem with that is that there are forces with even greater strategic mobility - Daemons that can appear from anywhere, Eldar who blur the line between aircraft and tank, etc. But those forces are supposed to be more elite than marines anyways (at least in the case of the Eldar) or a planet-ending threat that require the intervention of specialized apparatuses within the Imperial state (Daemons).

Martel732 wrote:
Marines also tangle with too many factions where they would in no way dictate anything. Particularly factions with their own navies.

Yes, but those factions are typically more elite or otherwise narratively different than Marines. For example (to reiterate one from above) Eldar can typically dictate the engagement to the Space Marines. But there are also considerably fewer Eldar than Space Marines (or at least, in theory anyways) and they are less skilled in man-to-man combat for the majority of their warriors (guardians, and again in theory anyways). Which means the Marines in this case are the strategically superior force that now the Eldar have to maneuver around, much like how the Imperial Guard are to the Space Marines (in a theoretical fight between the two).

I think those things make you a line force. Or at least a potential line force. That's why US marines have all those things so they can fight pitched battles without depending on other branches. But they can still easily end up in a line situation.

The chapter sizes are just way too small. Way, way too small.

Predators other than Baal preds have never had rules to support or imply mobile warfare.

Demons are supposed to be more elite than marines? That doesn't make much sense to me.

"But there are also considerably fewer Eldar than Space Marines"

This is impossible. A small portion of a craft world would have more Eldar than all marines in existence. As per GW's insanity. There are probably 100 X more of any given aspect than all marines and chaos marines combined.

Martel732 wrote:
I think those things make you a line force. Or at least a potential line force. That's why US marines have all those things so they can fight pitched battles without depending on other branches. But they can still easily end up in a line situation.

Yet, in the European theatre in the modern context for example, no one expects the Marines to go toe-to-toe with the Soviet Russian army and stop them. At the very best, they are expected to delay them to give the U.S. Army - the real line force - time to arrive, and then once the Army arrives they can participate in the grander strategic campaign, utilizing their own LHAs and LHDs to strike at the enemy's strategic perimeter and otherwise ensure they are engaging where the enemy is weakest rather than facing the 2nd Combined Arms Army head-on...

Much like the Marines in 40k really.

Martel732 wrote:
The chapter sizes are just way too small. Way, way too small.

This is true, but irrelevant to my point.

Martel732 wrote:
Predators other than Baal preds have never had rules to support or imply mobile warfare.

First of all, I am talking about Marine fluff, not rules, and second of all, yes they have - by comparison to the line tanks of the Imperial Guard. They were always faster than a Leman Russ, at least since 3rd (not that familiar with 2nd).
3rd edition: Russ had to stay stationary to fire its main gun. Predator could move 6"
4th edition: Russ had to stay stationary to fire its main gun. Predator could move 6"
5th edition: Russ could move 6" to fire its main gun but could fire no other weapons. Predator could move 6"
6th edition: The Russ had the Heavy rule and could not flat-out; the Predator could.
7th edition: ditto
8th Edition: Predator has 2" more movement at top speed and the Russ prefers to move 5" or less.

Martel732 wrote:
Demons are supposed to be more elite than marines? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Did you read what I said or are you ignoring me?

EDIT:
Also if you want a reply to a point in a post, wait a minute before editing it in so you can just put it as part of a new reply. I won't constantly be checking your old posts for new points.

Marines ended up as a line force in Korea. Marines would have been a line force in an invasion of Japan that didn't happen. They are not just there to wait for the army.

Yeah, I didn't see the narratively different clause.

I guess my point was that predators have mostly been incentivized to not move. That doesn't scream "mobile warfare" to me. Being a little faster doesn't really change this.

To me, it makes more sense that marines are just there for propaganda are not really any more effective on the battle field than anything else.

Martel732 wrote:
Marines ended up as a line force in Korea. Marines would have been a line force in an invasion of Japan that didn't happen. They are not just there to wait for the army.

Korea wasn't a peer threat. In 40k, I am making the assumption that there aren't just factions that are worse because "reasons". So everyone is peer. And yes, you're right, the Marines would've been a line force for the invasion of Japan, right alongside the army. It's telling that the US would rather be the only nation to use nuclear weapons in anger rather than suffer the horrific cost of using the Marines as a line force in exactly that situation.

That's literally saying "the Marines could've been a line force, but the Imperium would rather commit Exterminatus than suffer so many Space Marine casualties."

Also, did you know that the U.S. Army deployed five times as many forces to the Pacific Theater than the Marines did?

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, I didn't see the narratively different clause.

Okay.

Martel732 wrote:
I guess my point was that predators have mostly been incentivized to not move. That doesn't scream "mobile warfare" to me. Being a little faster doesn't really change this.

Don't confuse tactical mobility with strategic mobility. The Predators will never beat the Leman Russ in a pitched battle that the tabletop game is supposed to be. That's because they've made several compromises in their design to enhance their strategic mobility (they're smaller and easier to move from orbit, as well as being able to move faster at top speed when not opposed).

Don't confuse tactical mobility with strategic mobility - indeed, in arguably a majority of situations, an infantryman can tactically outmaneuver a tank (e.g. most dense terrain). Does that mean that tanks don't outmaneuver infantry?

That sort of thing is why you shouldn't ever fight a Predator squadron against a Russ squadron in a head-to-head engagement. The game does, but it really shouldn't, and that's a flaw.

Martel732 wrote:
To me, it makes more sense that marines are just there for propaganda are not really any more effective on the battle field than anything else.

To make a point about reality:
"The United States does not need a Marine Corps. However, for good reasons which completely transcend cold logic, the United States wants a Marine Corps." - Marine Brig. Gen. Victor Krulak

This is all great and grand. But GW has turned them into a line force regardless of if come maybes. Assuming they weren't a line force since 2nd ed already.

Martel732 wrote:
This is all great and grand. But GW has turned them into a line force regardless of if come maybes. Assuming they weren't a line force since 2nd ed already.

Right, and that's a mistake for obvious reasons.

GW is trying to have their cake and eat it too with Marines - able to go toe-to-toe in pitched battles with veritable armies, but also be lightning fast, operationally agile, and strategically independent without regard for other branches of the Imperial military. So instead of simply saying "I guess marines really should beat everyone 80% of the time", I'll answer the thread by saying:

"somewhere above Imperial Guard but below Eldar, and the rules they achieve this with shouldn't be raw firepower or durability but should instead attempt to reflect operational agility". This would make Marines harder to play - after all, it's easier to dig in a thousand heavy tanks and say THIS IS DEFENDED than it is to plan a masterful offensive counterstroke as a defensive attack.

But there's not really a viable way to depict operational agility.

Martel732 wrote:
But there's not really a viable way to depict operational agility.

I think there is, just not in the current over-simplified 40k rulesset as it stands. But if we were to take the current 30k rulesset to an example:

The Solar Auxilia are much more agile than the Imperial Militia, even on the table top. The rules by which this is achieved are as follows:

1) Troops Choice Mobility:
- The Imperial Militia tends to have massive, unwieldy squad sizes. Minimum 20, except Grenadiers who are minimum 10 (and can therefore fit in transports), but can't take any special weapons at all and still fit in a transport (each special weapon taken also adds a body). This means that the Imperial Militia are either stuck to really really terrible firepower, or walking speed. And remember, if even a single model takes terrain, the whole unit must slow down. So not being able to fit between terrain easily basically means the Militia are always moving the highest of 2d6" rather than 6".
- The Solar Auxilia have 10 man squads who all have special weapons. These fit in transports armed with Demolisher cannons; alternatively, their 20 man squads still fit in transports armed with twin lascannons. It's much easier to make a force that moves faster and further on the table top than the Imperial Militia while still being effective. Their squad sizes (no larger than 20, and their 10-man squads do well) are small enough to maneuver in tight terrain where the Imperial Militia squads would feel unwieldy and be forced to only move the highest of 2d6.

2) Tank/Heavy weapon mobility:
- Both armies have Leman Russ tanks, but the Solar Auxilia tanks have Outflank and can be Fast for one turn, while Imperial Militia tanks are Heavy type and can take sponsons and loads of extra gun.
- Imperial Militia choices include heavy weapon squads on foot, while Solar Auxilia tend to have armored vehicles to carry their guns.
- Imperial Militia artillery are all towed guns, Solar Auxilia artillery are all self-propelled - meaning they can move and fire while the Imperial Militia cannot.

3) Special Rules:
- The Solar Auxilia have Move Through Cover on their smaller units (making them faster, on average, through terrain than the Militia), and all their tanks and transports have Explorator Adaptation which lets them re-roll dangerous terrain tests. The Imperial Militia lacks all of these, but tends to bring cheaper firepower.

So, in a 30k engagement between a Solar Auxilia army and a Imperial Militia army, you'll have an army that's slow, unwieldy, and prefers to dig in vs. an army that's smaller, faster, and concentrates its forces where the enemy is weakest (e.g. outflanking the heavier Russes with lighter ones typically gives the victory to the lighter Russes, even without their sponsons).

40k's modern rules lack the ability to reflect this as easily though. (to pursue the same example, there's no such thing as side armor anymore so outflanking a Leman Russ with another Leman Russ gets you exactly squat). And that's terrible, because I would argue that Solar Auxilia are much closer to the Imperial Militia (they even have the same tank chassis) than SM are to IG, yet the difference in playstyle is more obvious between them than between the latter two in modern 40k.

Yeah, I'm losing squads to the antenna of a tank shooting through a window. I think strategic mobility advantages are out of the question.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, I'm losing squads to the antenna of a tank shooting through a window. I think strategic mobility advantages are out of the question.

That's the game now. It's kinda pathetic really. 30k may be more your stride.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Marines also tangle with too many factions where they would in no way dictate anything. Particularly factions with their own navies.

Yes, but those factions are typically more elite or otherwise narratively different than Marines. For example (to reiterate one from above) Eldar can typically dictate the engagement to the Space Marines. But there are also considerably fewer Eldar than Space Marines (or at least, in theory anyways) and they are less skilled in man-to-man combat for the majority of their warriors (guardians, and again in theory anyways). Which means the Marines in this case are the strategically superior force that now the Eldar have to maneuver around, much like how the Imperial Guard are to the Space Marines (in a theoretical fight between the two).

I believe the older depiction of Strategy Rating was a combination of both speed and aggressiveness. So even though Eldar technically have faster vehicles, they don't deploy as quickly or as aggressively as marines. Also, each Eldar lost is worth more to the faction than each marine. Marines are super special and all, but they still draw upon a population of trillions and refill their ranks much faster. Eldar might just be a bit less gung-ho about engagements because of it.

Either way, the 2nd ed Strategy Rating for Eldar was 4 to the Marine 5, giving the Marines a +1 advantage. I forget the Initiative rating for them respectively in Epic Armageddon. Iirc, Epic used alternating activation with Initiative giving an advantage to activation order.

Anyways, the point is really that just because your assets might be fast, the force might not be operating at "theoretically maximum possible initiative" for some reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, I'm losing squads to the antenna of a tank shooting through a window. I think strategic mobility advantages are out of the question.

What's really irritating about that is that the antenna only needs to see one model in a squad to kill everybody, but any model from the squad that can't see the antenna can't fire at it, so you get extremely disproportionate engagement capability. Irl it should be the other way around, where it's easy for infantry to find a tank and much harder for a tank to find infantry. The current terrain/LOS rules are dumb.

At a minimum, LOS should be checked after each weapon fires.

Martel732 wrote:
At a minimum, LOS should be checked after each weapon fires.

After?
Oh, nm. I get it. Remove the models in LOS and the rest of the guns can't fire.

Well, once before. Then choose one weapon to fire. Resolve. Then check to see if tank can still see the unit before firing second weapon.