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.

Hmmm, I could swear I remember multiple results giving a chance for the crew to panic and destroy the vehicle. Maybe 3rd edition?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hmmm, I could swear I remember multiple results giving a chance for the crew to panic and destroy the vehicle. Maybe 3rd edition?

Maybe in 2nd?

The very concept of crew disappears halfway through 3rd edition, and early 3rd only had them matter if you had a crew escape mechanism upgrade... The 1st IG codex of 3rd had the escape mechanism in the armoury, but the 2nd codex (3.5th) did not. The main rules did not mention crew. It is conceivable it was an optional rule in Chapter Approved or Citadel Journal like the Advanced Night Fighting rules, but if so I've never seen it.

4th had a mechanism where a penetrating hit on a transport forced occupants to disembark as an overcorrection to 3rd ed Rhino rush. This did not require a morale test, but it would have been a better rule if it did. I wouldn't be surprised if that was houseruled in places. Crew had gone though.

The glancing hit table in 4e destroyed the vehicle on a 6 (which I remember well because I played Orks back then and often relied on an unlikely hit and then an unlikely glance and finally an unlikely destroyed result.

5e is where there was one table and glancing was -2 and you couldn't destroy on a glance. I believe 6e was where they introduced hull points where you could stack glances to kill a vehicle like a worse version of wounds.

 Da Boss wrote:
The glancing hit table in 4e destroyed the vehicle on a 6 (which I remember well because I played Orks back then and often relied on an unlikely hit and then an unlikely glance and finally an unlikely destroyed result.

5e is where there was one table and glancing was -2 and you couldn't destroy on a glance. I believe 6e was where they introduced hull points where you could stack glances to kill a vehicle like a worse version of wounds.

Glances could also wreck a vehicle directly in 3rd.

5th edition was the only edition where that wasn't possible short of destroying all weapons on the vehicle and immobilising it, unless there were other modifiers like being AP1 or targeting an open-topped vehicle.

You could kill a vehicle with a glance in 3rd and 4th edition. Glancing had it's own chart, and a 6 was Vehicle Destroyed. Marines hitting on S4 could kill a Vehicle. . . But so could Catachan Guardsmen.

I never really thought those mechanics were any great realistic representation of what is going on in CC though. It's not like punching through steel plates or anything. More like vehicles have small, damageable bits, and anything on the 40k battlefield has some sort of weapon (or is a weapon, Tyranids), and up close there are possibilities for extra targeted attacks. Against an open topped, AV 10 Ork Vehicle you could just punch the driver. Against a Rhino, accessing the "rear" could represent being able to fire into the exhausts or prying open vents to drop grenades into, or pull wires out of, or whatever.

I'm not picturing anybody punching through armor plate. Remember a bear box at a campsite is just a steel box, but it's impenetrable by a bear. I don't think a Marine is stronger than a large bear. A marine in combat is more motivated and smarter at solving the problem though, and carries a mini grenade launcher.

. . .
Also, regarding that set of rules there are some glaring problems to begin with. Remember Guardsmen can't hurt an open-topped vehicle at AV 10. But in reality they could just shoot the exposed driver. So, yeah. Not the best yardstick to measure by.

 Insectum7 wrote:
You could kill a vehicle with a glance in 3rd and 4th edition. Glancing had it's own chart, and a 6 was Vehicle Destroyed. Marines hitting on S4 could kill a Vehicle. . . But so could Catachan Guardsmen.

I never really thought those mechanics were any great realistic representation of what is going on in CC though. It's not like punching through steel plates or anything. More like vehicles have small, damageable bits, and anything on the 40k battlefield has some sort of weapon (or is a weapon, Tyranids), and up close there are possibilities for extra targeted attacks. Against an open topped, AV 10 Ork Vehicle you could just punch the driver. Against a Rhino, accessing the "rear" could represent being able to fire into the exhausts or prying open vents to drop grenades into, or pull wires out of, or whatever.

I'm not picturing anybody punching through armor plate. Remember a bear box at a campsite is just a steel box, but it's impenetrable by a bear. I don't think a Marine is stronger than a large bear. A marine in combat is more motivated and smarter at solving the problem though, and carries a mini grenade launcher.

. . .
Also, regarding that set of rules there are some glaring problems to begin with. Remember Guardsmen can't hurt an open-topped vehicle at AV 10. But in reality they could just shoot the exposed driver. So, yeah. Not the best yardstick to measure by.

Catachans weren't S4 in 3rd/4th. That was a much later thing. Codex: Catachans made them WS4.

I get what you are saying, but grenades were genuinely separate (frags being S4 against vehicles) and generally a purchasable upgrade that wasn't standard. A Marine without grenades could still take out a vehicle. Granted, they usually had bolt weapons and the abstraction of melee does suggest some degree of point-blank shooting.

That said, the same should apply to boyz, who also had a S4 gun yet could not damage tanks in melee unless they specifically had stikkbombs (or later with furious charge by charging for the strength boost). The implication is still that a basic Marine was stronger and better able to damage stuff than a basic boy.

Again, it depends on how you define destroyed within the scope of a 40K Battle.

Marines and Catachan’s may very well have the raw strength to plug up exhausts and jam weapons.

Within the scope of a 40K game? That’s your tank knacked, even if the repair job is pretty straight forward. Clear whatever it is jamming your traversal, swap out horrifically squeezed exhaust ports, remount tracks etc.

The difference between broken for now, and completely undefethable.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Again, it depends on how you define destroyed within the scope of a 40K Battle.

Marines and Catachan’s may very well have the raw strength to plug up exhausts and jam weapons.

Within the scope of a 40K game? That’s your tank knacked, even if the repair job is pretty straight forward. Clear whatever it is jamming your traversal, swap out horrifically squeezed exhaust ports, remount tracks etc.

The difference between broken for now, and completely undefethable.

Within the scope of the rules of the time, those would be immobilised or weapon destroyed results though. I suppose conceivably a "wrecked" result on the damage table could be a total mission kill where all weapons and the mobility are knackered in one round of combat without directly harming any of the crew inside. The rules had separate provision for that by accumulating separate weapon destroyed and immobilised results until the vehicle no longer functioned though, so I'm not convinced that was the intention of glancing being able to destroy a vehicle on a single roll on the damage table.

Again, Catachans could not do this unless they had grenades or a power fist. They were S3. Where did S4 Catachan come from as an oldhammer legend? Were Catachan S4 in 2nd edition?

@Haighus: Good note about Catatchans being WS4 not S4.

I agree with everything else, grenades etc. but my overall point is really that that system was so abstracted that you can't really pull lore details from it. The overall conveyed simulation experience is Marines are big and strong and trained and have power armor and good equipment, and therefore they have a chance to do something against an armored vehicle if able to get at vulnerable locations. Orks are big and strong and mean but not as well equipped and probably less coordinated and therefore can only hurt an armored vehicle if they specifically brought more specialized equipment.

But nowhere in that am I thinking, oh yeah totally the Marines are tearing off chunks of armor punching tanks to death.

And I think the gold standard for vehicle representation would have to be 2nd ed anyways, which was far more detailed and guardsmen actually could shoot exposed crewmen. . . And Marines could typically do jack **** with their fists, but they all carried Krak grenades by default.

I was relying on a previous post re S4 Catachans

But for most 40K tanks? Knock out the engine, knock out its power. Not universally, no. But if your main guns rely on power to make go boom or pew, or to traverse their firing angles? Engine go pop, everything else switch off.

Hence, a disabled vehicle doesn’t mean it’s basically scrap.

 Insectum7 wrote:
@Haighus: Good note about Catatchans being WS4 not S4.

I agree with everything else, grenades etc. but my overall point is really that that system was so abstracted that you can't really pull lore details from it. The overall conveyed simulation experience is Marines are big and strong and trained and have power armor and good equipment, and therefore they have a chance to do something against an armored vehicle if able to get at vulnerable locations. Orks are big and strong and mean but not as well equipped and probably less coordinated and therefore can only hurt an armored vehicle if they specifically brought more specialized equipment.

But nowhere in that am I thinking, oh yeah totally the Marines are tearing off chunks of armor punching tanks to death.

And I think the gold standard for vehicle representation would have to be 2nd ed anyways, which was far more detailed and guardsmen actually could shoot exposed crewmen. . . And Marines could typically do jack **** with their fists, but they all carried Krak grenades by default.

That's fair, but I'm not familiar with 2nd and feel the 3rd-through... I think 6th (can't find some of my Ork codices to check) paradigm is helpful for giving the rough indication that Ork boyz are supposed to be closer in strength to humans than Marines. The ability to damage tanks was a side point about the impact of the strength difference between 3 and 4.

This was all in support of the original question about choppers and whether a human could wield them. Which they can if they are strong, with difficulty.

That said, choppers vary a lot in size- I've taken a handy picture demonstrating this but Dakka's image uploader is currently down so I've been skirting this a bit in the hopes it'll be fixed soon... Also a relevant photo re. Boyz and strength.

For example? Eldar Falcon chassis. Esoteric solutions and defences and that aside? Those are some lovely big and bleeding obvious engine intakes there! Same for you, Mr Tau.

Again putting high and esoteric solutions to an obvious problem aside? One could with the right opportunity plug such an intake up with mud and rocks and give it a temporarily bad time.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I was relying on a previous post re S4 Catachans

But for most 40K tanks? Knock out the engine, knock out its power. Not universally, no. But if your main guns rely on power to make go boom or pew, or to traverse their firing angles? Engine go pop, everything else switch off.

Hence, a disabled vehicle doesn’t mean it’s basically scrap.

Do we actually have any examples of that? Does taking out a Leman Russ engine stop the battle cannon or heavy bolters firing? Even the hull lascannon has its own power supply, IIRC, and turrets almost certainly have a manual back up for traversing.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't think a Marine is stronger than a large bear.

I'm eagerly awaiting a quote from a bolter porn book where a marine arm wrestles a bear with his pinky finger so hard that the bear explodes.

This is why I addressed it in broad terms. And from my original example? Multiple attacking individuals gumming up different systems.

If your engine has been knocked out, and your weapons jammed in position one way or the other? Within the scope of a 40K battle, you’re a non-entity. Your crew can be fine. The repairs can be comparatively trivial. But for the battle at hand? Yer out!

And “all” it takes is the training and sufficient strength to wedge a rock where a rock shouldn’t be, with enough force it’ll take an appropriate tool, time and leverage to pop it back out.

Let’s consider a Battle Cannon. They’re chunky lads, and I’m not going to claim or argue that outside of a Powerfist, any Astartes could deform the barrel, or slice through it within the same 40K battle time with a Chainsword.

But? Fully armoured? I do reckon an Astartes could force a suitably sized bit of rock or other debris down the barrel far enough to stop it firing, and require a crowbar or whatever to winkle it back out.

If I could take you back to childhood for a second? When you and I were wee, and had trouble undoing the lid on a jam jar. Oh, we’d get there in the end. Maybe we’d have to run it under the hot tap. But we’d get there. Here? It’s the Astartes securing that lid in the first place. Not to the point of “well I might as well just shatter the jar then hope for the best”, no. But to the point the effort expended in jamming it right on is disproportionate to the effort of getting it off.

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't think a Marine is stronger than a large bear.

I'm eagerly awaiting a quote from a bolter porn book where a marine arm wrestles a bear with his pinky finger so hard that the bear explodes.

For reals.

And that's probably just a standard trial before induction and all their implants etc.



@Haighus: Fair, fair. To the OP question I would just point out that Repentia (humans) weild Evicerators (very heavy CC weapons) and say that, sure, strong humans can wield choppas.

Actually eff it, Yarrick wields an ork power fist.

That depends. Like. Seriously.

A Bear has no combat training, only instinct. Powerful as a bear is? I’m really don’t think it could penetrate power armour.

So obvious “I don’t like Marines therefore they’re wimps, especially if I ignore all background because I’ve decided they’re wimps and anyone relying on that background I’ve random decided shouldn’t apply because my prejudiced position” tripe aside?*

Pinky wrestle a Bear? No. That’s silly. But come out on top? Let’s just say that, based on the background a certain poster won’t accept? It’s not the Bear surviving that scrap.

*Crimson. I’m referring to Crimson.

Again, it was about physical strength, not about armour. Bear is stronger.

And I like marines. A lot. That's why I find the cringe fanboyish lore that is so often written for them so frustrating. I don't like the puerile writers making the marines embarrassing.

A bear can be stronger tha a Marine. SHOULD be stronger than a Marine. It's just that a Marine is wearing a bear proof suit like that one guy built.

Maybe don’t look too deep into that’s guy’s efforts?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Maybe don’t look too deep into that’s guy’s efforts?

I have no idea what you're implying or referring to by that.

Unless you mean to tell me he didn't actually wrestle bears I guess?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Maybe don’t look too deep into that’s guy’s efforts?

I have no idea what you're implying or referring to by that.

Unless you mean to tell me he didn't actually wrestle bears I guess?

The bears wouldn't attack his suit.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Maybe don’t look too deep into that’s guy’s efforts?

I have no idea what you're implying or referring to by that.

Unless you mean to tell me he didn't actually wrestle bears I guess?

The bears wouldn't attack his suit.

So it worked perfectly then!

Haha. Perfect!

 Insectum7 wrote:
Actually eff it, Yarrick wields an ork power fist.

He also uses a storm bolter one-handed, gets back up when he dies, and generally is a man of iron (though probably not a Man of Iron).

He is like 40k Batman.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Actually eff it, Yarrick wields an ork power fist.

He also uses a storm bolter one-handed, gets back up when he dies, and generally is a man of iron (though probably not a Man of Iron).

He is like 40k Batman.

Yarrick is definitely not a standard benchmark.

Not sure if the stormbolter is helpful though. He is literally the only example of a Guard handheld stormbolter in models or artwork (not counting models converted using the Yarrick stormbolter like this guy:). We sadly never got another example before stormbolters were removed from the Guard infantry armoury in 5th edition. The weapon is listed as two handed in the armoury, but it also is in the Marine armoury and they never seem to hold them in two hands in the model range. Only the Sororitas stormbolters are actually in a two-handed grip.

I'd like to see Guard stormbolters being a thing again. And Guard combi-bolters.

To be fair, I hear a lot of characters are getting back up after they die these days . . .

I think it was more a difference in fighting style than raw strength. A tactical marine was S4 A1 I4 while a shoota boy was S3 A2 I2. That's pretty comparable but presumably space marines favor careful strikes while orks just aggressively brawl.

If upgraded to veterans the space marines would become A2 and the orks (skarboys) would become S4.