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.

 tauist wrote:
Not everyone sees marines just as chainsword flailing loonies yelling gothic to their enemies (would they even understand it?). They can be as nuanced as you make them. In fact, for my personal lore sensibilities, Marine armies spamming CC infantry aren't even fluffy, that just sounds like a counts-as Ork army. Melee is risky for both opponents, Astartes are a prescious resource, geneseed super valuable.

Agreed. Orks are not noted for having high-tech visors or sensors, and cannoning headlong into Tyranids is a great way to end up as an entree.

Way I see it, some Chapters / Strike Forces use exclusively shock tactics, while others use Mechanized forces and favour long range weaponry, yet others mix and match both when applicable. Space Marines are not a homogenous blob who all act the same way (see Horus Heresy as an example)

Also true. When I built my chapter, I decided their doctrine would emphasize fire and movement over close assaults. This was in alignment with the focus of the Ultramarine Codex, which offered them veteran tactical squads. One didn't need an abacus to figure out that BS5 offered far greater value relative to the points than WS5.

Obviously there is room for both and I would argue a need for both - they compliment each other and this was included in the earliest fluff.

I always assumed that marines, when they are not dropping straight in to battle in drop pods,use camouflage to get into position.
They then use the armours ability to change colour to flip to their heraldic colours as soon as they are ready to charge in.

Its not very glorious to report 'they saw us miles away and ran off before we got there'

Some wouldnt of course, Black Templars for example would keep in B/W, and the Raptors probably stay in camo.

 tauist wrote:
Not everyone sees marines just as chainsword flailing loonies yelling gothic to their enemies (would they even understand it?). They can be as nuanced as you make them. In fact, for my personal lore sensibilities, Marine armies spamming CC infantry aren't even fluffy, that just sounds like a counts-as Ork army. Melee is risky for both opponents, Astartes are a prescious resource, geneseed super valuable.

Way I see it, some Chapters / Strike Forces use exclusively shock tactics, while others use Mechanized forces and favour long range weaponry, yet others mix and match both when applicable. Space Marines are not a homogenous blob who all act the same way (see Horus Heresy as an example)

Yes, technically those things can happen in canon but they represent an ineffective and pointless waste of resources. Marines have three advantages:

1) The near-total immunity to small arms fire provided by their armor. Yes, sustained fire will eventually wear away ablative plates or find a weak point but real combat is not a firing range and getting that kind of focused fire on a target is difficult at best.

2) The ability to use melee weapons that are far beyond what normal humans are capable of. Anyone can aim and fire a laser weapon, it takes power armor to wield a chainsaw sword the size of a normal human or rip off a tank's armor with a power fist.

3) The psychological impact of the above. War is hell in general but the impact of an invulnerable demigod chainsawing your sergeant in half as your shots do nothing more than scratch the paint on his armor is the kind of thing that leads to an instant mass retreat.

If you're going to invest in marines you need to maximize those factors. Sitting at range and trading heavy weapons fire is playing to all of their weaknesses as each krak missile/lascannon shot/etc that gets a lock is a dead marine and their offense is barely more than a guard heavy weapon crew. And using those priceless supersoldiers as tank crew is even more of a waste. Why go to all the effort of adding extra organs, power armor interfacing, etc, when you're just going to use the marine as a tank driver where either the tank's own armor protects the crew or everyone is dead? Marines need those supporting elements, of course, because they can't count on help from other Imperial forces but their sole reason for existing is close combat. Marines need to get up close ASAP where their shock effects are maximized, heavy weapons are too unwieldy to get effective shots before their crews are slaughtered, and the superior speed and reaction time of marines allows them to kill their targets before the cumulative damage of small arms fire is enough to be fatal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Also true. When I built my chapter, I decided their doctrine would emphasize fire and movement over close assaults. This was in alignment with the focus of the Ultramarine Codex, which offered them veteran tactical squads. One didn't need an abacus to figure out that BS5 offered far greater value relative to the points than WS5.

That's funny, I never would have thought you would have chosen your fluff as nothing more than an excuse for the list optimization choices you had already made.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 tauist wrote:
Not everyone sees marines just as chainsword flailing loonies yelling gothic to their enemies (would they even understand it?). They can be as nuanced as you make them. In fact, for my personal lore sensibilities, Marine armies spamming CC infantry aren't even fluffy, that just sounds like a counts-as Ork army. Melee is risky for both opponents, Astartes are a prescious resource, geneseed super valuable.

Way I see it, some Chapters / Strike Forces use exclusively shock tactics, while others use Mechanized forces and favour long range weaponry, yet others mix and match both when applicable. Space Marines are not a homogenous blob who all act the same way (see Horus Heresy as an example)

Yes, technically those things can happen in canon but they represent an ineffective and pointless waste of resources. Marines have three advantages:

1) The near-total immunity to small arms fire provided by their armor. Yes, sustained fire will eventually wear away ablative plates or find a weak point but real combat is not a firing range and getting that kind of focused fire on a target is difficult at best.

2) The ability to use melee weapons that are far beyond what normal humans are capable of. Anyone can aim and fire a laser weapon, it takes power armor to wield a chainsaw sword the size of a normal human or rip off a tank's armor with a power fist.

3) The psychological impact of the above. War is hell in general but the impact of an invulnerable demigod chainsawing your sergeant in half as your shots do nothing more than scratch the paint on his armor is the kind of thing that leads to an instant mass retreat.

If you're going to invest in marines you need to maximize those factors. Sitting at range and trading heavy weapons fire is playing to all of their weaknesses as each krak missile/lascannon shot/etc that gets a lock is a dead marine and their offense is barely more than a guard heavy weapon crew. And using those priceless supersoldiers as tank crew is even more of a waste. Why go to all the effort of adding extra organs, power armor interfacing, etc, when you're just going to use the marine as a tank driver where either the tank's own armor protects the crew or everyone is dead? Marines need those supporting elements, of course, because they can't count on help from other Imperial forces but their sole reason for existing is close combat. Marines need to get up close ASAP where their shock effects are maximized, heavy weapons are too unwieldy to get effective shots before their crews are slaughtered, and the superior speed and reaction time of marines allows them to kill their targets before the cumulative damage of small arms fire is enough to be fatal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Also true. When I built my chapter, I decided their doctrine would emphasize fire and movement over close assaults. This was in alignment with the focus of the Ultramarine Codex, which offered them veteran tactical squads. One didn't need an abacus to figure out that BS5 offered far greater value relative to the points than WS5.

That's funny, I never would have thought you would have chosen your fluff as nothing more than an excuse for the list optimization choices you had already made.

Since you want to be combative:

Funny how you neglected the fourth advantage: the superiority of auto-senses and wargear.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Funny how you neglected the fourth advantage: the superiority of auto-senses and wargear.

Which:

1) Only give a decisive advantage against cannon fodder. Tau, Necrons, and Eldar have better gear and if you want to neglect the high-end enemies in favor of butchering poorly equipped traitor PDF you don't need marines.

2) Can be issued to normal humans. You don't need a marine to carry a plasma gun or use a fancy scanner.

3) Still favor brutal close combat. Auto-senses and such are of limited value at long range. Yeah, you have a very precise shot with your krak missile but so does the enemy and the long distance gives them time to fire theirs too. Where that stuff matters most is up close, where a marine can smash through a door and use his superior reflexes and gear to kill everyone in the room before any of them can react effectively. In a close-range brawl you don't have time to be pressing buttons on a hand-held scanner, you need that data wired directly into your brain or you're dead before you have a chance to use it. And the same is true of superior gear. Having the best gun doesn't matter much on an open battlefield where the enemy can concentrate multiple good enough guns against each marine. It matters a lot in close combat where the marines can reduce the battle to a series of 1v1s and decisively beat each individual before kicking down the next door to take on the next enemy.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 tauist wrote:
Not everyone sees marines just as chainsword flailing loonies yelling gothic to their enemies (would they even understand it?). They can be as nuanced as you make them. In fact, for my personal lore sensibilities, Marine armies spamming CC infantry aren't even fluffy, that just sounds like a counts-as Ork army. Melee is risky for both opponents, Astartes are a prescious resource, geneseed super valuable.

Way I see it, some Chapters / Strike Forces use exclusively shock tactics, while others use Mechanized forces and favour long range weaponry, yet others mix and match both when applicable. Space Marines are not a homogenous blob who all act the same way (see Horus Heresy as an example)

Yes, technically those things can happen in canon but they represent an ineffective and pointless waste of resources. Marines have three advantages:

1) The near-total immunity to small arms fire provided by their armor. Yes, sustained fire will eventually wear away ablative plates or find a weak point but real combat is not a firing range and getting that kind of focused fire on a target is difficult at best.

2) The ability to use melee weapons that are far beyond what normal humans are capable of. Anyone can aim and fire a laser weapon, it takes power armor to wield a chainsaw sword the size of a normal human or rip off a tank's armor with a power fist.

3) The psychological impact of the above. War is hell in general but the impact of an invulnerable demigod chainsawing your sergeant in half as your shots do nothing more than scratch the paint on his armor is the kind of thing that leads to an instant mass retreat.

If you're going to invest in marines you need to maximize those factors. Sitting at range and trading heavy weapons fire is playing to all of their weaknesses as each krak missile/lascannon shot/etc that gets a lock is a dead marine and their offense is barely more than a guard heavy weapon crew. And using those priceless supersoldiers as tank crew is even more of a waste. Why go to all the effort of adding extra organs, power armor interfacing, etc, when you're just going to use the marine as a tank driver where either the tank's own armor protects the crew or everyone is dead? Marines need those supporting elements, of course, because they can't count on help from other Imperial forces but their sole reason for existing is close combat. Marines need to get up close ASAP where their shock effects are maximized, heavy weapons are too unwieldy to get effective shots before their crews are slaughtered, and the superior speed and reaction time of marines allows them to kill their targets before the cumulative damage of small arms fire is enough to be fatal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Also true. When I built my chapter, I decided their doctrine would emphasize fire and movement over close assaults. This was in alignment with the focus of the Ultramarine Codex, which offered them veteran tactical squads. One didn't need an abacus to figure out that BS5 offered far greater value relative to the points than WS5.

That's funny, I never would have thought you would have chosen your fluff as nothing more than an excuse for the list optimization choices you had already made.

Ok, so clearly not a HH player. Lets agree to disagree. kthxb

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Funny how you neglected the fourth advantage: the superiority of auto-senses and wargear.

Which:

1) Only give a decisive advantage against cannon fodder. Tau, Necrons, and Eldar have better gear and if you want to neglect the high-end enemies in favor of butchering poorly equipped traitor PDF you don't need marines.

2) Can be issued to normal humans. You don't need a marine to carry a plasma gun or use a fancy scanner.

3) Still favor brutal close combat. Auto-senses and such are of limited value at long range. Yeah, you have a very precise shot with your krak missile but so does the enemy and the long distance gives them time to fire theirs too. Where that stuff matters most is up close, where a marine can smash through a door and use his superior reflexes and gear to kill everyone in the room before any of them can react effectively. In a close-range brawl you don't have time to be pressing buttons on a hand-held scanner, you need that data wired directly into your brain or you're dead before you have a chance to use it. And the same is true of superior gear. Having the best gun doesn't matter much on an open battlefield where the enemy can concentrate multiple good enough guns against each marine. It matters a lot in close combat where the marines can reduce the battle to a series of 1v1s and decisively beat each individual before kicking down the next door to take on the next enemy.

I'm not sure what's funnier. Is it the fact you think all Astartes battles take place in open, unbroken terrain? Or is it the fact that you think Guardsmen who were possibly living in pre-industrial societies before can use complex EW and sensor suites? Or is it your obsession with melee combat in a world with far more precise and deadly fires than the modern day, where melee combat is not a facet of state-on-state warfare?

 RaptorusRex wrote:
I'm not sure what's funnier. Is it the fact you think all Astartes battles take place in open, unbroken terrain?

I don't. I'm not sure why you're saying this, I think I was quite explicit that marines fighting at long range in open terrain is stupid.

Or is it the fact that you think Guardsmen who were possibly living in pre-industrial societies before can use complex EW and sensor suites?

Like I said already: you don't need marines to kill pre-industrial cannon fodder. Marines are an immense investment of resources that only pays off when they're taking on the high-end enemies that you can't beat with endless waves of cannon fodder. So the assumption with marine fights is that they're intended to deal with at least the upper end of guard/PDF where basic competence with modern gear can be assumed.

Or is it your obsession with melee combat in a world with far more precise and deadly fires than the modern day, where melee combat is not a facet of state-on-state warfare?

Yes, ranged weapons in 40k are amazing. But you don't need marines for that kind of warfare. You don't need a genetically engineered super-soldier to press a button and fire a guided missile or to sit in an office building miles from the front line operating a fleet of drones. If you want to fight that kind of war you train a bunch of guardsmen to press buttons and bring overwhelming numbers that marines can never hope to compete with. The only place a marine force has an advantage anywhere close to justifying their immense cost and scarcity is in close quarters shock assaults with point-blank bolter fire and melee weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tauist wrote:
Ok, so clearly not a HH player. Lets agree to disagree. kthxb

30k marines =/= 40k marines. 30k marines were abundant enough to be used as cannon fodder so why not use them in every role. 40k marines are a rare and precious resource that has to be saved for when the Imperium absolutely needs them and no alternative can get the job done.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
I'm not sure what's funnier. Is it the fact you think all Astartes battles take place in open, unbroken terrain?

I don't. I'm not sure why you're saying this, I think I was quite explicit that marines fighting at long range in open terrain is stupid.

Or is it the fact that you think Guardsmen who were possibly living in pre-industrial societies before can use complex EW and sensor suites?

Like I said already: you don't need marines to kill pre-industrial cannon fodder. Marines are an immense investment of resources that only pays off when they're taking on the high-end enemies that you can't beat with endless waves of cannon fodder. So the assumption with marine fights is that they're intended to deal with at least the upper end of guard/PDF where basic competence with modern gear can be assumed.

Or is it your obsession with melee combat in a world with far more precise and deadly fires than the modern day, where melee combat is not a facet of state-on-state warfare?

Yes, ranged weapons in 40k are amazing. But you don't need marines for that kind of warfare. You don't need a genetically engineered super-soldier to press a button and fire a guided missile or to sit in an office building miles from the front line operating a fleet of drones. If you want to fight that kind of war you train a bunch of guardsmen to press buttons and bring overwhelming numbers that marines can never hope to compete with. The only place a marine force has an advantage anywhere close to justifying their immense cost and scarcity is in close quarters shock assaults with point-blank bolter fire and melee weapons.

Listen. It takes a lot more than "pressing buttons" to operate any weapon system, be it an assault rifle, an ATGM, or a tank. These things require teamwork, training, physical fitness, and technical competence. Marines are just a better platform for a number of weapons systems by their very nature.

Their scarcity has long been exaggerated. We know there's more than "a thousand chapters".

And I'm not sure if your seeming insistence on CQC only even hews to the lore. We know Marines have mechanized and armored forces. We know they do siege warfare with Astartes in the 41st Millennium; that's why Siege Vanguard existed.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Listen. It takes a lot more than "pressing buttons" to operate any weapon system, be it an assault rifle, an ATGM, or a tank. These things require teamwork, training, physical fitness, and technical competence. Marines are just a better platform for a number of weapons systems by their very nature.

Yes, and those things can be trained in a few weeks, as we demonstrate IRL. You don't need a genetically engineered super soldier with physical strength far beyond mortal human limits if all you're doing is pressing a button that tells a guided missile "kill that thing". The fact that you need to train the operator how to use their weapon doesn't turn an intellectual task into a feat of strength.

Their scarcity has long been exaggerated. We know there's more than "a thousand chapters".

Source? Because I'm pretty sure the "thousand chapters" thing is explicit canon and the argument otherwise is based on fan theories about how they want marines to be more common.

And I'm not sure if your seeming insistence on CQC only even hews to the lore. We know Marines have mechanized and armored forces. We know they do siege warfare with Astartes in the 41st Millennium; that's why Siege Vanguard existed.

Like I said, they have those forces because they can't count on having support available. You have a Predator squadron in your melee-focused chapter because a particular mission might need supporting tanks and those clumsy idiots running the local guard forces can't reliably provide LRBTs, you don't have a chapter specialized in tank warfare*. That's playing to the weaknesses of marines, not their strengths, and a spectacular waste of resources. Spending that investment on more LRBT regiments would be far more effective.

*Well, technically you can, but it would be an example of the Imperium's stupidity.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Or is it the fact that you think Guardsmen who were possibly living in pre-industrial societies before can use complex EW and sensor suites?

Like I said already: you don't need marines to kill pre-industrial cannon fodder. Marines are an immense investment of resources that only pays off when they're taking on the high-end enemies that you can't beat with endless waves of cannon fodder. So the assumption with marine fights is that they're intended to deal with at least the upper end of guard/PDF where basic competence with modern gear can be assumed.

Or you want a surgical strike, where you eliminate the command elements but leave the buildings standing, because rebuilding needed facilities is less efficient. That may well mean that you're not dealing with high-end troops at all, but is a role that Marines are ideal for - they're the Emperor's Angels of Death, after all...

Depends on the overall sector picture.

If it’s an otherwise peaceful and well behaved system, but a Feudal World is experiencing rebellion against the Planetary Governer? Marines would absolutely be overkill, as it’s unlikely to be a situation that would bother the Guard’s abilities.

But. If it’s a system with widespread trouble, and it’s something a quick strike by Astartes can tackle? From a wider strategic picture it could well be worth the focussed ferocity to rip out the trouble on that world root and stem. Not just a display of frankly shocking violence, but one that is likely to be particularly impressive to such a low tech population. Maybe even enough to stop further rebellion for generations to come. For the drop pod deployment of just a Demi-Squad, you can free up a fair amount of Guardsmen for more pressing concerns.

Hell, it might even prove a useful live fire exercise for Marines who just happened to be in the general vicinity with nothing more important to beat up.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

That's funny, I never would have thought you would have chosen your fluff as nothing more than an excuse for the list optimization choices you had already made.

Wait, are you seriously trying to throw shade at me for playing an army whose rules and fluff align with how I like to play?

Look, I'm sorry if the only way you can make Marines work is to use them as orks in power armor.

I find "shooty Marines" to be challenging and engaging. And as you have already admitted - it's in the canon!

I think it's wonderful that the game is big enough to make us both happy.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Wait, are you seriously trying to throw shade at me for playing an army whose rules and fluff align with how I like to play?

No shade at all, competitive play is a perfectly valid way to play the game. You recognized that WS5 is worth less than BS5 and so you took the better option. Nothing wrong with that.

Look, I'm sorry if the only way you can make Marines work is to use them as orks in power armor.

Why do you think this is about on-table strategy and "making it work"? This is the lore forum and I'm specifically talking about lore issues, not gameplay issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
Or you want a surgical strike, where you eliminate the command elements but leave the buildings standing, because rebuilding needed facilities is less efficient. That may well mean that you're not dealing with high-end troops at all, but is a role that Marines are ideal for - they're the Emperor's Angels of Death, after all...

Which, coincidentally, is a mission best accomplished by a drop pod assault to get into close combat as fast as possible. Get in, chainsaw the targets in half, leave the infrastructure intact. Staying at range and trying to win with heavy weapons would cause far more damage to the buildings.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
No shade at all, competitive play is a perfectly valid way to play the game. You recognized that WS5 is worth less than BS5 and so you took the better option. Nothing wrong with that.

I also prefer shooting, so yeah, I went with the whole package.

Why do you think this is about on-table strategy and "making it work"? This is the lore forum and I'm specifically talking about lore issues, not gameplay issues.

The iconic image of space marines from the get-go is them standing back-to-back blasting away with boltguns and heavy weapons against impossible odds. That's the play style that interested me and the original rules rewarded it through the Rapid Fire rule.

If you want to argue that the lore changed, fine. I like the old lore (and rules) better.

The cutaway diagram of astartes power armour in the RT rulebook showed it included a "programmable" mimetic coating i the shell of the armour.

It could be programmed to show parade/Chapter colours or a variety of camouflage patterns. It's also worth pointing out that marines were never meant as "modern" soldiers with high tech weapons and armour - more "high tech space knights" with "holy relics" that nobody really understands how they work anymore.

 chromedog wrote:
The cutaway diagram of astartes power armour in the RT rulebook showed it included a "programmable" mimetic coating i the shell of the armour.

It could be programmed to show parade/Chapter colours or a variety of camouflage patterns. It's also worth pointing out that marines were never meant as "modern" soldiers with high tech weapons and armour - more "high tech space knights" with "holy relics" that nobody really understands how they work anymore.

I really like the idea that Marine power armour includes programmable chameleoline by default, but most Chapters have no idea how it works and just paint over it in heraldry.

 Haighus wrote:
I really like the idea that Marine power armour includes programmable chameleoline by default, but most Chapters have no idea how it works and just paint over it in heraldry.

Me too - there's a bit in one of the Iron Hands novels where the Company Command staff are shocked to discover their coffee table is actually a 3D tactical hologram display! (A newly awakened dreadnought comes in and turns it on)

beast_gts wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
I really like the idea that Marine power armour includes programmable chameleoline by default, but most Chapters have no idea how it works and just paint over it in heraldry.

Me too - there's a bit in one of the Iron Hands novels where the Company Command staff are shocked to discover their coffee table is actually a 3D tactical hologram display! (A newly awakened dreadnought comes in and turns it on)

Haha love this, I really don’t think this aspect of dystopia is worked enough in 40K texts. The idea that the tech has outlived the understanding is so much fun cos you don’t have to get bogged down in the science of how it all works like in Star Trek and you can join in with the characters ignorance and wonder

One of the best line ever in a GW novel is during the The Beast Arises, when post-HH Marines see Sisters of Silence for the first time:

‘If those are Rhinos,’ Warfist said, ‘why are they flying?’

Aecus Decimus wrote:


That's funny, I never would have thought you would have chosen your fluff as nothing more than an excuse for the list optimization choices you had already made.

Why not, its the same thing the game designers did. They didn't give UM WS5, or Dark Angels Veteran Vanguards. The Big Four all have thematic choices for list optimization built by the designers to give the Chapter theme and uniqueness. Expecting a DIY'er to do less seems unfair/unrealistic.

I agree with Aecus Decimus in the broad strokes- Space Marines are primarily shock-assault troops and generally this is the only efficient use of their assets with the restricted Chapter system in the 41st millennium.

However, I think the details are more nuanced than all melee, all the time.

Shock assault and close-quarters fighting in general is not just a melee affair. Short-to-medium range aggressive firefights are also part of this concept- the bolter is as much a shock assault weapon as the chainsword. I think there is plenty of room for shooting-focused forces in shock assaults.

Camo can obviously play a role in this- I think an argument can be made that a sudden ambush of bolt fire blowing up your comrades around you from hard-to-identify enemies is a viable shock tactic as much as a 7 foot knight in heraldry carving up your comrades with a chainsword. Clearly the latter approach is more popular among Chapters, but Chapters that favour the former definitely exist (such as the Raptors or the Mantis Warriors).

Camo may also allow the conditions for a shock assault by using stealth to gain an optimum position to assault from. The Raven Guard and many of their successors being a good example of practioners in this approach. Is this superior to just ramming in with a land raider spearhead or dropping in from orbit? Sometimes.

I think camo is a tool in the box for Marines, and it is not mutually exclusive with the kind of shock assaults Astartes are optimised for within the post-Heresy Imperium.

 Haighus wrote:
However, I think the details are more nuanced than all melee, all the time.

Shock assault and close-quarters fighting in general is not just a melee affair. Short-to-medium range aggressive firefights are also part of this concept- the bolter is as much a shock assault weapon as the chainsword. I think there is plenty of room for shooting-focused forces in shock assaults.

Camo can obviously play a role in this- I think an argument can be made that a sudden ambush of bolt fire blowing up your comrades around you from hard-to-identify enemies is a viable shock tactic as much as a 7 foot knight in heraldry carving up your comrades with a chainsword. Clearly the latter approach is more popular among Chapters, but Chapters that favour the former definitely exist (such as the Raptors or the Mantis Warriors).

A big part of the disparity is that 2nd ed. was far more shooting-oriented as a game. With their BS, targeters and Rapid Fire abiity, Marines were arguably the best in the game, certainly on a per-model basis.

Under those circumstances, moving your tactical squads into a good firing position and then pouring close-range fire into a target was a very successful tactic. Remember that bolt pistols were +2 to hit at short range. Why close to melee when you can double tap models in cover on a 2+?

With 3rd ed. the balance shifted strongly in favor of melee combat. Barring lots of difficult terrain, you could not break up a charge with just shooting - they were going to make contact, and you had to prepare for that. One result was the advent of Assault Marines without jump packs. Unlike Blood Angels and Black Templars, other marines did not have the option of equipping every squad with bolt pistol and chainsword, so you had to put together a "fire brigade" to meet the center of the assault.

Regarding camouflage, one of the other elements that hasn't been brought up is denying a clear target to the would-be chargers. If you can't see anything but woods, where do you direct your charge? That also makes supporting fire more difficult.

Alternatively, you could have a very visible position to draw the assault but also hidden troops in position to flank the attackers.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
However, I think the details are more nuanced than all melee, all the time.

Shock assault and close-quarters fighting in general is not just a melee affair. Short-to-medium range aggressive firefights are also part of this concept- the bolter is as much a shock assault weapon as the chainsword. I think there is plenty of room for shooting-focused forces in shock assaults.

Camo can obviously play a role in this- I think an argument can be made that a sudden ambush of bolt fire blowing up your comrades around you from hard-to-identify enemies is a viable shock tactic as much as a 7 foot knight in heraldry carving up your comrades with a chainsword. Clearly the latter approach is more popular among Chapters, but Chapters that favour the former definitely exist (such as the Raptors or the Mantis Warriors).

A big part of the disparity is that 2nd ed. was far more shooting-oriented as a game. With their BS, targeters and Rapid Fire abiity, Marines were arguably the best in the game, certainly on a per-model basis.

Under those circumstances, moving your tactical squads into a good firing position and then pouring close-range fire into a target was a very successful tactic. Remember that bolt pistols were +2 to hit at short range. Why close to melee when you can double tap models in cover on a 2+?

With 3rd ed. the balance shifted strongly in favor of melee combat. Barring lots of difficult terrain, you could not break up a charge with just shooting - they were going to make contact, and you had to prepare for that. One result was the advent of Assault Marines without jump packs. Unlike Blood Angels and Black Templars, other marines did not have the option of equipping every squad with bolt pistol and chainsword, so you had to put together a "fire brigade" to meet the center of the assault.

Sure. But that is specifics of different versions of the game, it doesn't mean anything in the lore. In the lore, Marines are good at melee and ranged combat. They also use excessively violent weaponry for both.

Regarding camouflage, one of the other elements that hasn't been brought up is denying a clear target to the would-be chargers. If you can't see anything but woods, where do you direct your charge? That also makes supporting fire more difficult.

Alternatively, you could have a very visible position to draw the assault but also hidden troops in position to flank the attackers.

Yup, good point that these tactics are not mutually exclusive. I think scouts demonstrate this well, they will often use camo even when the main force does not.

Camouflage isn't primarily intended to hide combatants altogether. It's to break up silhouettes and make them harder to identify. You can still see that something is out there, you can see muzzle flashes, you know the general disposition of the enemy, but it becomes much harder to accurately determine numbers, engage point targets, or take advantage of fleeting shot opportunities.

These are all things that Marines can benefit from, shock troops or not. Especially when their armor has weak points that are best protected by obscuring their exact location. Even if your enemy knows exactly where you are, visual obscuration is a force-multiplier.

We camouflage tanks IRL and it isn't to perform stealth operations with sixty-ton turbine-driven vehicles.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Listen. It takes a lot more than "pressing buttons" to operate any weapon system, be it an assault rifle, an ATGM, or a tank. These things require teamwork, training, physical fitness, and technical competence. Marines are just a better platform for a number of weapons systems by their very nature.

Yes, and those things can be trained in a few weeks, as we demonstrate IRL.

What we demonstrate IRL is that every time a country or non-state actor thinks they can send three-weeks-in-basic conscripts up against professional armies, let alone special forces, and be on equal footing, they get wrecked, even without electronic warfare, PGMs, or strategic assets in play.

If you're under the impression that ATGM gunners and drone operators reach peak operational effectiveness with just a few weeks of training, you should probably stop trying to appeal to how militaries work IRL, because they don't work the way you think they do. Operational readiness comes from a combination of institutional knowledge, individual training, and raw experience, and that takes years to cultivate in any military unit. Both trigger-pulling and button-pushing MOSes require a hell of a lot more than a few weeks of training to be effective.

Marines have a place in forms of combat other than door-kicking for all the same reasons SOF do.