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 agree that stat creep is the underlying mechanism. Things have continued to get bigger and stronger over the years.

It is a bit of a shame really. I preferred it when boyz were a bit above a baseline human, but still chaff in a horde that needed mass to be scary, and only the more elite orks went above that.

Bear in mind that S3 to S4 represented a huge difference in strength in the past. It jumped from human, to being able to punch through and damage armoured vehicles like APCs.

Ork boyz are probably fairly analogous to gorillas, and gorillas are certainly notably stronger than humans. No human would want to fight a gorilla in melee, but if they were armed it would not be a foregone conclusion. However, if I was riding in an M113 I'd feel pretty safe from an angry gorilla. Equally, no guardsman would want to fight an Ork boy in melee, they'd lose much more often than they'd win. But boyz couldn't hack their way into a Chimera (or only could with the momentum of a charge). A Space Marine punching into a Chimera? That feels appropriate.

That is all a bit moot now a lasgun can damage a titan, but I felt the strength made sense then.

I certainly would not imagine a space marine being significantly stronger than a gorilla, especially a large silverback. I'd imagine them to be pretty comparable.

I've never fought a gorilla so I can't say I have a lot of experience with their strength, but it seems decently comparable out of armour, with the armour's artificial muscles adding a substantial difference.

It's hard to say though because the gorilla is heavily constrained by being real, whereas the Space Marine is boosted by technobabble space organs and technobabble super-suits we have no consistent reference for.

In general, "how strong is a Space Marine" feels like the kind of question you're most prone to frustrate yourself by trying to answer, since it's not like GW themselves care much to run a consistent number...

 Crimson wrote:
I certainly would not imagine a space marine being significantly stronger than a gorilla, especially a large silverback. I'd imagine them to be pretty comparable.

Really? I'd expect a Marine to be able to comfortably overpower a gorilla in strength, especially in power armour. They've routinely outmatched basic boyz in strength in lore too (although some of this is the durability afforded by power armour).

Space Marines and Nobz both being S4 in 4th edition always felt right to me.

The Nobz are absolutely massive, but the Space Marine has the benefit of the armour. In a contest of strength, either could feasibly win.

I actually really enjoyed how this was depicted in Space Marine 1. When you stunned a Nob, you couldn't just rip them apart on the spot like you could with regular Boyz, they're too strong and experienced. They'd try to grapple you when you do it and you had to physically overpower them (with a button mash sequence) before you could force them down and finish them off.

Incidentally, Chaos Space Marines were treated the same way, though I was less happy with them as their AI was far more passive than the Ork AI, which broke my immersion quite a lot.

 Haighus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I certainly would not imagine a space marine being significantly stronger than a gorilla, especially a large silverback. I'd imagine them to be pretty comparable.

Really? I'd expect a Marine to be able to comfortably overpower a gorilla in strength, especially in power armour. They've routinely outmatched basic boyz in strength in lore too (although some of this is the durability afforded by power armour).

Yeah, really. Marine of course is far more resilient due the armour and is a lot better fighter and has weapons, so they probably would win a fight quite comfortably, but I don't think they'd be significantly stronger, at least not to put them into another category. But I have pretty grounded view of the setting. I do not imagine marines being superhero strong. They're just meat, and about as much meat than a big gorilla.

It probably goes without saying after all the clashes in the last week or two alone, but I definitely am okay with 40k being deliberately absurd.

In addition to previous examples of that I've mentioned (like the contentious macrocannon case), we also have Mechanicus tech adepts who "though often perceived as cold and inhumanly detached, are nonetheless capable leaders. They are able to calculate complex tactical algorithms to overcome battlefield challenges in a matter of nanoseconds, allowing them to claim their objective in the most efficient manner possible." per the 8e Admech codex (lmao, nanoseconds, sure).

Only, of course, to be outshone by none other than... "Guilliman devises blueprints of probability with every waking thought, his tactical acumen working more moves ahead than even the canniest enemies might imagine. Logistics which would confound the largest banks of Adeptus Mechanicus cogitators come naturally to Guilliman." per the 8e Space Marines codex (a quote which I feel is put in perspective by the one prior).

I don't think there's ultimately much point in trying to take 40k more seriously than it takes itself. But that is just my view.

It’s all best viewed as myth and propaganda.

The purpose of the background in a Codex is different to the purpose of the background in a novel, or in art, or in a game etc.

Yes. It’s an intrinsic part of the experience. But a Codexes’ purpose is to make that specific army as cool as possible. To hype it up. To make it The Best at some things.

Outside of that book? It’s about selling the setting and hopefully the underlying game and models as a whole. And that of course creates clashes.

I mean, who are the best motorised cavalry? Ravenwing? White Scars? Saim Hann? Speed Freeks? All have some claim to the title.

There are players out there who don’t give a fig for the background. Which is fine. I think they’re a bit odd, but to each their own.

Absolutely. I just specifically chose codex lore because Crimson doesn't hold non-codex lore such as BL novels and FFG RPGs in high regard, so I wanted to pre-empt any attacks on the source.

This is right from the horse's mouth. It's insane all the way down here too.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s all best viewed as myth and propaganda.

The purpose of the background in a Codex is different to the purpose of the background in a novel, or in art, or in a game etc.

Yes. It’s an intrinsic part of the experience. But a Codexes’ purpose is to make that specific army as cool as possible. To hype it up. To make it The Best at some things.

Outside of that book? It’s about selling the setting and hopefully the underlying game and models as a whole. And that of course creates clashes.

I mean, who are the best motorised cavalry? Ravenwing? White Scars? Saim Hann? Speed Freeks? All have some claim to the title.

There are players out there who don’t give a fig for the background. Which is fine. I think they’re a bit odd, but to each their own.

Yes, definitely. And this is sort what I mean when I say I have"more grounded" view of the setting. By this I mean looking past the hyperbole, and assuming there is some sort of vaguely verisimilitudous reality beyond it.
That reality of course is imaginary too. It is just that were I to say run a RPG set in 40K, where I had as a GM adjudicate what is and isn't possible, this is the perspective I'd assume.

And I get that some other people like things to be more superheroic, and the overall tone of the fluff certainly trends into that direction these days; unfortunately from my perspective.

 Overread wrote:
I feel like a human trying to wield a choppa - at least a proper good one that's big and full of good choppy - would be like wielding Gotrek's Axe

I think that's an unfair comparison because even other Dwarfs have issues wielding Gotrek's axe. That's brought up multiple times in the novels and Felix even points out that he can barely lift the thing two handed much less wield it.