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.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 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.

True, however I'm not aware of a smith who's made a choppa and then nearly tried to take their leg off with it

 Crimson wrote:

 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.

But Marines are not just meat. They are quite literally described as superhuman, and have been genetically modified into an "improved" form (for war).

In addition, power armour is supposed to be a boost, not merely passive. Even at the most basic level, the extra momentum imparted by the extra weight of the armour would make impacts from a Marine far stronger than the speed of blows alone would suggest. The game has long been consistent that power armour alone has not been enough to add a point of strength, but it is described as enhancing strength.

Again, Marines have the ability to significantly damage light-armoured vehicles like APCs and destroy them, albeit with considerable difficulty. Gorillas do not.

I looked up the upper estimate for punching force of a gorilla, 12000 newtons, and it was about the same as 7.62mm NATO (although obviously not concentrated into the surface area of a bullet so much less likely to penetrate or damage metal). More-or-less the minimum standard for a vehicle to be considered armoured is stopping full-powered rifle cartridges like 7.62mm NATO, going all the way back to the earliest armoured vehicles in WW1 through the modern day.

To top it off, 7.62mm NATO rifles would probably be considered S3 based off militia rifles in the HH list, and known calibres for autoguns.

This doesn't feel like Marines are not grounded to me. They are supposed to be technological monsters cramming a huge amount of different force multipliers into a compact killing machine.

On Marines and their abilities in combat? Take any known human limit, and then exceed it.

Have you seen Ip Man, when he takes on a whole load of Japanese fighters and pummels them? A Marine can do that, only faster and stronger. When he’s doing the old jazz fist solo on the poor sod’s chest? A marine can strike that fast, and with sufficient force to not just crack, but shatter the bone underneath.

Most terrifyingly for an opponent? They can do it for hours at a time.

They’re not human. They’re post-human.

Could a Marine punch through a steel door? No. Not in a oner. But I’m confident they could batter it down given sufficient time. Like the Dark Troopers in Mando S2, when trying to get on the bridge.

Their Combat Knives have a monomolecular edge. So they’re beyond ludicrously sharp. Again it would take time, but I see no reason why they couldn’t hack open your more vulnerable hatches for a grenade to be posted, addressed to “To Whom It May Concern”.

It doesn’t matter if people want them to be more grounded. They’re not grounded. At all.

 Haighus wrote:

But Marines are not just meat. They are quite literally described as superhuman, and have been genetically modified into an "improved" form (for war).

Yes. But being as strong as a silverback gorilla, is superhuman! Humans are not normally that strong. Genemodding is not magic* it is just gives them more muscles (and probably more fast-twitch fibers) but that's just what gorillas already have.

In addition, power armour is supposed to be a boost, not merely passive. Even at the most basic level, the extra momentum imparted by the extra weight of the armour would make impacts from a Marine far stronger than the speed of blows alone would suggest. The game has long been consistent that power armour alone has not been enough to add a point of strength, but it is described as enhancing strength.

Power armour is mostly for carrying its own weight. Sure, it might be a small boost, but its main value is the protection.

Again, Marines have the ability to significantly damage light-armoured vehicles like APCs and destroy them, albeit with considerable difficulty. Gorillas do not.

I looked up the upper estimate for punching force of a gorilla, 12000 newtons, and it was about the same as 7.62mm NATO (although obviously not concentrated into the surface area of a bullet so much less likely to penetrate or damage metal). More-or-less the minimum standard for a vehicle to be considered armoured is stopping full-powered rifle cartridges like 7.62mm NATO, going all the way back to the earliest armoured vehicles in WW1 through the modern day.

To top it off, 7.62mm NATO rifles would probably be considered S3 based off militia rifles in the HH list, and known calibres for autoguns.

This doesn't feel like Marines are not grounded to me. They are supposed to be technological monsters cramming a huge amount of different force multipliers into a compact killing machine.

I'm not sure why you think marines have ability to harm APCs. Because in the game they can? In the game a gretchin can harm a land raider. And in the game marine has no better chance of harming a rhino than a gretchin or a guardsman has. Besides I don't think marines are fighting vehicles by punching them with bare hands, they use their combat knives to wedge them into weak spots etc.

* Now 40K science is of course nonsense, so if you want, you can just treat it as magic, I guess you can. But what I meant is with more "grounded view" is not doing that.

Anyway, in the game marines are and have always been S4. That's stronger than a normal human, but probably not absurdly so, as there several steps above it. So they are "roughly" as strong as orks or gorillas. They might be sligtly stronger, perhaps, but not significantly so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I snipped the fanboying.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

It doesn’t matter if people want them to be more grounded. They’re not grounded. At all.

"Give me a hundred Space Marines. Or failing that give me a thousand other troops."
-Rogal Dorn-

A marine is about as good than ten normal soldiers. They are good, they are not invincible superheroes. They can be beaten by normal humans.

 Crimson wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

But Marines are not just meat. They are quite literally described as superhuman, and have been genetically modified into an "improved" form (for war).

Yes. But being as strong as a silverback gorilla, is superhuman! Humans are not normally that strong. Genemodding is not magic* it is just gives them more muscles (and probably more fast-twitch fibers) but that's just what gorillas already have.

In addition, power armour is supposed to be a boost, not merely passive. Even at the most basic level, the extra momentum imparted by the extra weight of the armour would make impacts from a Marine far stronger than the speed of blows alone would suggest. The game has long been consistent that power armour alone has not been enough to add a point of strength, but it is described as enhancing strength.

Power armour is mostly for carrying its own weight. Sure, it might be a small boost, but its main value is the protection.

Again, Marines have the ability to significantly damage light-armoured vehicles like APCs and destroy them, albeit with considerable difficulty. Gorillas do not.

I looked up the upper estimate for punching force of a gorilla, 12000 newtons, and it was about the same as 7.62mm NATO (although obviously not concentrated into the surface area of a bullet so much less likely to penetrate or damage metal). More-or-less the minimum standard for a vehicle to be considered armoured is stopping full-powered rifle cartridges like 7.62mm NATO, going all the way back to the earliest armoured vehicles in WW1 through the modern day.

To top it off, 7.62mm NATO rifles would probably be considered S3 based off militia rifles in the HH list, and known calibres for autoguns.

This doesn't feel like Marines are not grounded to me. They are supposed to be technological monsters cramming a huge amount of different force multipliers into a compact killing machine.

I'm not sure why you think marines have ability to harm APCs. Because in the game they can? In the game a gretchin can harm a land raider. And in the game marine has no better chance of harming a rhino than a gretchin or a guardsman has. Besides I don't think marines are fighting vehicles by punching them with bare hands, they use their combat knives to wedge them into weak spots etc.

* Now 40K science is of course nonsense, so if you want, you can just treat it as magic, I guess you can. But what I meant is with more "grounded view" is not doing that.

Anyway, in the game marines are and have always been S4. That's stronger than a normal human, but probably not absurdly so, as there several steps above it. So they are "roughly" as strong as orks or gorillas. They might be sligtly stronger, perhaps, but not significantly so.

I'm talking about in editions where lasguns couldn't harm titans and there was much less abstraction in the game. 8th edition onwards has become increasingly abstract and unhelpful for contextualising the lore. Gretchin did not used to be able to harm land raiders.

When armour values were a thing, armoured vehicles had a minimum value of 10. Unarmoured vehicles were 9 (basic civilian vehicles) but these didn't routinely exist in the wargame (you could make them in the vehicle design rules in 3rd, and the 3rd edition genestealer cult list had AV9 civilian lorries).

Light vehicles were AV10 on the sides and sometimes even front, and essentially all vehicles were AV10 on the rear. Marines could damage these in melee, even without grenades. Orks could not, until they eventually got bumped up to S4 (I think that happened in 7th?), with the exception of Furious charge once that was introduced in 4th. Ordinary humans also could not.

Lasguns, autoguns, stubguns, and auxilia rifles could also not damage armoured vehicles, which essentially gives us the baseline strength, because equivalents of these weapons cannot significantly harm armoured vehicles today either.

Essentially, GW was consistent for years that Marines were significantly stronger than Ork boyz (S4 vs S3), and were strong enough to physically damage light-armoured vehicles that could stop bullets.

Assuming an Ork boy is on par with a gorilla is obviously an assumption, but it seems far more likely to be comparable than to the Marine punching tanks.

Re. the power armour- as I mentioned, even if all the power armour did was carry its own weight, it would be a noticeable strength boost in combat because of the greatly increased momentum. It is the same reason being hit by a small hatchback at 30mph is far more survivable than being hit by the latest monstrosity of a Ford pick-up truck travelling at 30mph. The velocity is the same, but the impact is far greater on the latter. Marines do weigh about a ton in power armour.

Edit: combat knives is a fair point. That said, the default assumption in 40k is that everyone is using some kind of roughly analagous close combat weapon unless otherwise stated though, so that essentially seems to be factored into the strength value. The Marine has a combat knife, but the Ork also has a chopper.

Yeah, I know how old rules worked. So what? That is outdated now, just like orks being no stronger than guardsmen. And in any case, marines were not punching tanks with bare hands. And yes, of course armoured gauntlets increase the impact of a punch, but that is not what I am talking when I compare the pure strength. And yeah, ork has weapon too, but the gorilla usually doesn't, so I don't undstand why you'd compare armed marine against unarmed gorilla. I was just talking about the base strength, not weapons.




Like look at this. The ork is a huge slab of meat. Sure he is shorter than a marine, but is actually more beefy. It seems to me obviously the right call to put him in the same s4 bracket with the marine instead of the s3 bracket with the guardsman.

A squad of marines could absolutely do something in melee to lighter vehicles in previous editions with just their fists. It wasn't as good as maybe the Sergeant with a power fist, but a bunch of extra str4 hits to the rear of a Falcon or a warwagon could do something. You'd be better off using the krak grenades all marines came with standard, but grenades didn't get the +1A charge bonus so it was a choice between 2 str4 and 1 Str6.

Getting an extra stun or maybe a weapon destroyed result on a vehicle was worth being able to roll the dice at all. Granted you couldn't KILL the vehicle with a glancing hit, unless the vehicle took multiple crew stun or shaken results and failed their "morale" check. In which case they would abandon the vehicle and insta-kill it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
A squad of marines could absolutely do something in melee to lighter vehicles in previous editions with just their fists. It wasn't as good as maybe the Sergeant with a power fist, but a bunch of extra str4 hits to the rear of a Falcon or a warwagon could do something. You'd be better off using the krak grenades all marines came with standard, but grenades didn't get the +1A charge bonus so it was a choice between 2 str4 and 1 Str6.

Getting an extra stun or maybe a weapon destroyed result on a vehicle was worth being able to roll the dice at all.

Yes, I know how the rules worked. I just do not think this represented the marines punching through the tank armour with bare hands any more than in the current edition the guardsmen being able to harm tank in melee represent that. They are using their knives, shovels, other small & improvised weaponry to jam tracks, destroy sensors, pry open hatches etc.

We can also consider what it means to damage a tank.

There’s a difference between physically ripping it into bits, and having the strength to shut off exhausts, rip out cabling, dislodge a track, shatter viewports etc.

If you can squeeze shut the exhaust? The engine is gonna have a bad time. Oh sure, it’s a fairly easy repair compared to patching and welding. But it can still cause the engine to shut off and stall. Not something you really want to happen in the middle of battle.

With enough oomph, you can jam the traversal of weapons with a rock wedged deeply. Or even shove a stone down the barrel.

Causing damage doesn’t have to mean completely obliterating.

Consider the animation for Secret Level. Okay, even I’ll confirm running through a light vehicle feels a bit silly. But on the Leman Russ? Get on top, Chainsword the hatch, drop some grenades in, job’s a good ‘un is skilful but realistic enough to be credible in-universe. Until they Melta-bomb it? Probably not a terribly intensive repair job. Pick up the fleshy bits, mop it out, check nothing is wedged where it shouldn’t be if you’re lucky.

 Grey Templar wrote:
A squad of marines could absolutely do something in melee to lighter vehicles in previous editions with just their fists. It wasn't as good as maybe the Sergeant with a power fist, but a bunch of extra str4 hits to the rear of a Falcon or a warwagon could do something. You'd be better off using the krak grenades all marines came with standard, but grenades didn't get the +1A charge bonus so it was a choice between 2 str4 and 1 Str6.

Getting an extra stun or maybe a weapon destroyed result on a vehicle was worth being able to roll the dice at all. Granted you couldn't KILL the vehicle with a glancing hit, unless the vehicle took multiple crew stun or shaken results and failed their "morale" check. In which case they would abandon the vehicle and insta-kill it.

Glances could kill in every edition where that was a mechanism. It took longest in 5th, where the vehicle essentially had to be completely mission-killed by immobilising and destroying all weapons, but in 3rd-4th glances could directly wreck a vehicle, and 6th-7th had hull points.

Not sure where you are getting the morale check mechanism from? Sounds like an optional rule or a homebrew.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
A squad of marines could absolutely do something in melee to lighter vehicles in previous editions with just their fists. It wasn't as good as maybe the Sergeant with a power fist, but a bunch of extra str4 hits to the rear of a Falcon or a warwagon could do something. You'd be better off using the krak grenades all marines came with standard, but grenades didn't get the +1A charge bonus so it was a choice between 2 str4 and 1 Str6.

Getting an extra stun or maybe a weapon destroyed result on a vehicle was worth being able to roll the dice at all.

Yes, I know how the rules worked. I just do not think this represented the marines punching through the tank armour with bare hands any more than in the current edition the guardsmen being able to harm tank in melee represent that. They are using their knives, shovels, other small & improvised weaponry to jam tracks, destroy sensors, pry open hatches etc.

As I mentioned, the weapon aspect applies to all the others too. Humans use knives, bayonets, etc. Orks use knives and choppas. Neither of them could reliably damage and destroy tanks when more simulation was in the ruleset.

Obviously newer rules are less useful for looking at this, because they are intentionally more abstract for gameplay reasons.

Also, to go back to the earlier comparison, even if a gorilla could use a knife it probably couldn't use it to destroy an armoured vehicle. They'd be able to hit about as hard as battle rifle rounds at most when focused into a point.

I know Black Library can be inconsistent, but we actually have a decent amount of novel support for Space Marines ripping up tanks in melee as well. I don't think it was a coincidence that they could punch a Leman Russ to death in 4e without actually having to resort to their kraks.

Examples:

The strength in his arms built, the strength to shatter steel and buckle the hull of an armoured vehicle. He pictured exactly where his fists would strike.

- A Thousand Sons

"We are the Gal Vorbak." Argel Tal crashed a fist into the Rhino's flank, denting the armour plating.

- The First Heretic

During a particular training exercise in ambush methods, a fledgling Disciple was crushed by his own poorly-rigged log trap. One of the four - Gabre - simply levered the half-tonne log off the dead man and Mautista saw with his own eyes the way Gabre barely strained to lift it.

- Flesh and Iron

Armoured beings stormed past him. They were terrible, golden angels, and they fell upon the Guard with bolter and chainsword. They savaged the units that had escaped the release of the gas and tore the tanks apart. They were monsters who bore the garb of beauty. They were giants in the service of war turned into art. There were only five of them. There were a hundred times as many Guardsmen, and that was far too few. The battle was even more one-sided than the attack on the rebels had been. Within seconds, hulls had been ripped open, treads yanked from wheels and used as whips, and men scythed into shrieking meat. The Chaos Space Marines stood proudly in the carnage, gods well pleased by their allotment of blood. The surviving rebels emerged from their hiding places. They began to cheer, and the cry was taken up by more and more people pouring into the streets.

- Death of Antagonis

And many, many many more examples.

(Almost feels nostalgic to dig out my old library of quotes again. I've not used them while debating on here for like a decade+ now, time flies..)

Right. BL is the propaganda where marines are invincible superheroes, the game is the reality where they get killed by lasguns.

Did I trigger the "canned anti-black library complaint" keyword in the Crimson bot, or what is going on?

This was about strength and whether they can damage tanks without their weapons or not. They can in the game. The novels agree they can. No one has said a word about lasguns, this just sounds like you have an axe to grind.

Also note the wording in the first three.

Buckle. Not breach.

Dent. Not penetrate.

Lever. Not lift.

These are all different feats of strength to the preceding extremes.

Buckling and Denting can at least partially or temporarily disable armour.

The last one? It reads with some artistic license. Those golden angels. Giants. The recollection of someone utterly awed by raw power, but still exaggerating to some degree.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Did I trigger the "canned anti-black library complaint" keyword in the Crimson bot, or what is going on?

This was about strength and whether they can damage tanks without their weapons or not. They can in the game. The novels agree they can. No one has said a word about lasguns, this just sounds like you have an axe to grind.

Yeah, but the text you quoted is the typical bolter porn hyperbole. No one doubts that marines can harm vehicles; any infantry can. It is just that punching tanks to death with your fists is not how it is done.

It is just this bizarre disconnect to anything that the game depicts that exists in some of these books. Like in the last quote five marines apparently effortlessly overcome five hundred soldiers and their vehicles!
Yet on the tabletop things are much closer to the foundational lore of the game: "Give me a hundred Space Marines. Or failing that give me a thousand other troops." There is at least tenfold disagreement about the power of marines.

The disconnect is just massive, these things do not in any meaningful sense depict the same world. And this is not about right or wrong. The books say what they say, and you of course can prefer that. But this is why the discussions of the lore are so pointless: the lore is so utterly all over the place that there is no any sort of coherent reality to discuss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, lifting a half tonne log was the one thing I had no issue with, and is indeed in the ball-park of gorilla strength. They can lift more, but 500kg without much straining seems pretty reasonable for a silverback.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Further, marine strength mainly is due biscopea, which increases muscle growth. There is no indication that this is anything more magical than just extra muscle. This is combined with ossmodula creating larger and sturdier bone frame, which is certainly needed for the bigger muscles to function. That's basic marines, so really nothing gorilla wouldn't already have. Primaris marines in addition have sinew coils, which strengthens the tendons, allowing the muscles to transfer power more effectively without breaking the tendons.

None of this sounds particularly superheroic to me. Marine creation process is not realistic to begin with, but if we assume it works in even at least somewhat plausible manner, I don't see this creating anything that would be in a significantly different category than any other big primate with big muscles.

Depending on the length, tank tracks can weight up to 5 tonnes, so. I guess they were wiping (thanks for reminding me this line exists, urgh) with shorter segments.

 Crimson wrote:
The disconnect is just massive, these things do not in any meaningful sense depict the same world. And this is not about right or wrong. The books say what they say, and you of course can prefer that. But this is why the discussions of the lore are so pointless: the lore is so utterly all over the place that there is no any sort of coherent reality to discuss.

Sure, the numbers of 40k are all over the place. This ranges from both quotes like the ones I shared to all other kinds of numbers. For example, Ryza was invaded by hundreds of billions of Orks in the Cult Mechanicus Codex, against which twenty Guard regiments (lol) was considered an appropriate supporting force.

For once, the numbers are not the point. I just saw it be brought up that the game rules depict Space Marines attacking and destroying tanks without needing weapons. I pointed out that the novel material supports that level of strength. If they can buckle tank armour with their fist, they can certainly rip off all manner of things that don't want to be ripped off.

That's all. Not interested in any vendettas beyond that, be they against particular sources, particular factions, or the lore as a whole. I don't enjoy the Imperial Guard as a faction, but I am not going to rant about the faction being childish or dumb or whatever. I find that sort of attitude tiring.

 Haighus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
A squad of marines could absolutely do something in melee to lighter vehicles in previous editions with just their fists. It wasn't as good as maybe the Sergeant with a power fist, but a bunch of extra str4 hits to the rear of a Falcon or a warwagon could do something. You'd be better off using the krak grenades all marines came with standard, but grenades didn't get the +1A charge bonus so it was a choice between 2 str4 and 1 Str6.

Getting an extra stun or maybe a weapon destroyed result on a vehicle was worth being able to roll the dice at all. Granted you couldn't KILL the vehicle with a glancing hit, unless the vehicle took multiple crew stun or shaken results and failed their "morale" check. In which case they would abandon the vehicle and insta-kill it.

Glances could kill in every edition where that was a mechanism. It took longest in 5th, where the vehicle essentially had to be completely mission-killed by immobilising and destroying all weapons, but in 3rd-4th glances could directly wreck a vehicle, and 6th-7th had hull points.

Not sure where you are getting the morale check mechanism from? Sounds like an optional rule or a homebrew.

IIRC it was 4th edition. As I recall, the only difference between a Glance and a Penetrating hit was that Glances had a -2 penalty on the damage chart(which made the destroyed or explodes result impossible without another bonus). The lowest two results on the vehicle chart were Crew Stunned and Crew Shaken. Stunned was basically you became BS1 for a round but could act normally. Shaken was BS1 and couldn't move, and if a vehicle that was Shaken suffered another Shaken(and maybe stunned as well) result in the same turn had to roll a D6 and on a 5 or a 6 the vehicle was considered destroyed as the crew bailed out. POTMS might have made you immune to this as well.

Sorry to say you misremember. I went digging!





This is all it says about shaken/stunned.