[40k] Space Marines vs Stargrunts

[Keevan_Colton]

So, you think having a balanced game is a stupid idea. I suppose that about wraps it up right there.

[MKSheppard]

So, you think having a balanced game is a stupid idea. I suppose that about wraps it up right there.

Reality isn't balanced.

[MKSheppard]

40k is meant to be quick skirmishes on the battle field, patrols that stumble into each other, a small section of the line on the front, etc.

Funny how other game systems also manage to simulate skirmishes with actual tactics on the platoon/company level, which is essentially what 40k tabletop is; unless you have a lot of room, time, and absurd amounts of money.

Epic 40k , is what would be called a company/battalion level wargame; in that instead of individual soldiers, you move around individiual squads.

[NecronLord]

Reality isn't balanced.

Reality isn't a populist, semi-comedy wargame with largely tournament-esque, chess-ish play. You'd have to be either a retard, or someone who's not read the orks background fully, to think that it's meant to be realistic, as opposed to amusing.

Yes, it's insanely clunky and silly, and I have yet to have a game where the stupidity of its rules hasn't annoyed me. But it's meant to be a laugh of a wargame nothing more.

*Plays with his crazy, backwards, madly designed toy tanks*

[MKSheppard]

Reality isn't a populist, semi-comedy wargame.

Calling something a wargame implies that it is something a touch more advanced and realistic than oh, a game like Company of Heroes; where Shermans can withstand point-blank hits from Tigers, all in the name of game balance.

[NecronLord]

Calling something a wargame implies that it is something a touch more advanced and realistic than oh, a game like Company of Heroes; where Shermans can withstand point-blank hits from Tigers, all in the name of game balance.

To you, maybe. To me, (in the tabletop sense) it implies a codified set of rules for playing with toy soldiers (or counters representing them).

[Shroom Man 777]

Maybe Shep's just pissed that he got owned in CoH and Dawn of War.

Wargame? Not semantics bullshit again. Next thing you know, dicks will fly in going "40k is not sci-fi! Just like Star Wars! They're not sci-fi! Neither was Alien. Alien was a slasher flick in space. Star Wars is a fantasy epic, just like Lord of the Rings. Likewise for 40k. But in space. With robots."

Or "40k and CoH aren't wargames! Wargames ought to be realistic (so when I play in multiplayer, my IG army will get assfucked by Space Marines even worse!)! Dawn of War isn't a wargame. It's just a videogame. With war in it."

[Keevan_Colton]

So, you think having a balanced game is a stupid idea. I suppose that about wraps it up right there.

Reality isn't balanced.

Reality isnt a game.

[MKSheppard]

Reality isnt a game.

So you're saying there's no way at all to accurately represent the differences in actual unit statistics and abilities without nerfing everything down to a dumb 'balanced' mean?

[Keevan_Colton]

Reality isnt a game.

So you're saying there's no way at all to accurately represent the differences in actual unit statistics and abilities without nerfing everything down to a dumb 'balanced' mean?

For fucks sake Shep, I know you're a fucking retard, but please try to keep up. If that was what was happening, every unit would have the same stats and the outcome of the game would be decided purely on a coin toss...the idea is to have a system that allows some kind of balance of potential between different forces. So that you get to actually play and have your decisions and not just luck decide the outcome.

Instead of just comparing orders of battle and deciding the outcome based on who brought more and better troops. That would be your idea of a fun game, right?

[SirNitram]

Sign a thread will need to be done execution style soon: Someone starts yelling about how a game involving magic, gods, flying nuns, knights templar with guns, dwarves, elves, demons, and orcs who speak in Cockney must be realistic.

STFU and enjoy the flying chainsaw-wielding nuns.

[white_rabbit]

I think Brothers of the Snake gives a very good example of why the game doesn't represent "reality" particularly accurately.

When a few dozen marines can slaughter enough orks to make a 3 acre carpet of orkish flesh, half a dozen orks deep, and so dense you can't walk on the ground, it becomes a touch difficult to make the game true to "reality"

(that could be literally tens of thousands of dead orks)

Its as much a business decision as it is a rules/fun based decision, nobody would buy Dark Eldar if a Veteran Sergeant could kill an Archon on his own.

[Keevan_Colton]

I think Brothers of the Snake gives a very good example of why the game doesn't represent "reality" particularly accurately.

When a few dozen marines can slaughter enough orks to make a 3 acre carpet of orkish flesh, half a dozen orks deep, and so dense you can't walk on the ground, it becomes a touch difficult to make the game true to "reality"

(that could be literally tens of thousands of dead orks)

Its as much a business decision as it is a rules/fun based decision, nobody would buy Dark Eldar if a Veteran Sergeant could kill an Archon on his own.

Plus where's the profit in armies that are two models strong...

[Hawkwings]

More like: One limb of a Space Marine vs 2,000 Imperial Guard infantry.

[NecronLord]

You know, they're not that powerful. Space Marines can be killed quite easily by many weapons; some races smallarms - necrons spring to mind - are quite capable of killing them.

[Steel]

You know, they're not that powerful. Space Marines can be killed quite easily by many weapons; some races smallarms - necrons spring to mind - are quite capable of killing them.

Exactly, space marines are not tougher than most tanks, and also are present in fewer numbers than tanks and have less firepower. A squad of space marines cannot accomplish in open battle more than what an equal number of tanks could realistically.

[Vehrec]

I think this quote sums up the proper way to write and use Space Marines.

Too many chapters used their space marines for jobs that could be left to planetary defence auxilia. A near criminal waste of resources, as far as Deathbringers were concerned. There were approximately a thousand brother marines. The Lycurgan Dominions had more than forty million planetary defence personnel, trained and equipped as Imperial Guard.

So this was how marines should be used, as far as Lysander was concerned. Strategic strike. Tactical operations with strategic ramifications.

In this light, a lot of things about Marrines make sense. They might be facing impossible odds, but they do so in a way that they never face them all at once. They don't have lots of heavy armor because they often don't need to bother with it. Their ships are engines and weapons and bases for their all impotant landing craft. They can't win all the battles, so they win ones that must be won, no matter what.

[GunDoctor]

So, you think having a balanced game is a stupid idea. I suppose that about wraps it up right there.

A balanced Wargame is a stupid idea. The whole point of a wargame is to figure out a path to victory, or least bad defeat, given the constraints of the situation. Sometimes you get to be the Israelis in '67, and sometimes you're stuck with the Finns in '35, and, oh god, oh god, sometimes you get stuck with the Arabs. In cased you missed all of human history, war isn't fair or balanced. Yet sometimes the Boers win. Sometimes the barbarians get the jump on the Romans. Sometimes the Egyptians achieve strategic suprise on the Israelis. Sometimes the Americans pack up and leave for no apparant on ground reason. Sometimes the fuzzies turn the square.

Do the best with what you have. Sometimes you win even with a craptastic correlation of forces. That's why wars happen, there are qualitites that cannot be quantified in an order of battle, like leadership. That's why diplomats don't just sit down with the orbats and say 'ya, you could wup us, what do you want?'.

Yes, WH40k can be entertaining. But it would be more so if the rules system A) actually reflected its source material in anything other than a passing fashion, and B) actually rewarded anything other than give a volley and charge. Again is it too much to ask that a 'miniatures battlegame' present a naturalistic and self consistent simulation of the fictionial universe it is supposed to represent? It would be sophmoric to ask for 'realism' in the sense of our world, yes thank you SirNitram, but is it so to ask for a game that acuratly reflects the fictional reality it is based on?

Some of us, having this dilema of wanting to play battles in this universe, decide that there's nothing to say you can't paly with your shiney Citadel minis using a rules system that doesn't blow chunks. We do so.

And to whoever asked if the marines could have won the OP firefight by just shooting, the answer is no. Getting into a medium range shooting contest with infantry dug in on a hill with crew served weapons is the definition of 'bad idea.' However, by shooting, thereby supressing the enemy positions, and then flanking said hard points, the Sparce Marines could have made that hilltop position untenable. At that point, either the enemy attempts to withdraw in the open and get shot up, they stay put and get blasted by satchel charges and grenades, or attempt to assault through the weakest point of the marine lines.

Tactics. It might sound elemtary, but it ain't easy. The enemy has a plan too, that's why he's the enemy the dirty dog.

Now if you want to say that WH40k isn't a wargame, and thus is just fine being what it is, then I kind of see your point. And yes, the balance and simple simon rules ARE a marketing decision, we're all aware of that. GW's main market is 12 year olds who think that Picket's charge was glorius, if they're aware of it in the first place. Gotta love mum's credit card. That doesn't mean it's the only way!

[SirNitram]

It would be sophmoric to ask for 'realism' in the sense of our world, yes thank you SirNitram, but is it so to ask for a game that acuratly reflects the fictional reality it is based on?

No, I think it'd be fine to be accurate, but this runs into the problem of the Space Marines being wanked up to stupid, stupid levels so it would be impossible to have a satisfying, fun game with them most times. Even as it stands, silly cheap things like demon-bombs can make the game dull and repetitive.

[Dendrobius]

There is a perfectly balanced war game in existence, AND the outcome of the game is not decided purely on who goes first.

It's called chess. Quite a fun game, you can even make a good living out of it, unlike say CoH or DoW or 40k TT.

*runs away from the rotten tomatoes*

[andrewgpaul]

You know, they're not that powerful. Space Marines can be killed quite easily by many weapons; some races smallarms - necrons spring to mind - are quite capable of killing them.

Give me one hundred Space Marines. Or failing that, give me a thousand other troops

(Space Marine, 1st edition)

Regarding Connor's notes about Rogue Trader, it specifically said the tabletop ranges were effective accurate ranges in combat, not extreme ranges. It allowed you to fire out to 'extreme range', which was 10x the listed range (or 5x listed for missiles and grenade launchers). So a bolter could fire out to 240", or 30x the distance a human could move in a turn.

[NecronLord]

Give me one hundred Space Marines. Or failing that, give me a thousand other troops

(Space Marine, 1st edition)

Yes. Thank You. I'm well aware of both the general tone of fluff regarding Space Marines, and assuming you're sourcing that oft-repeated quote from the novel of that title, that book in particular (which is one of my favourites, by probably my favourite living author). Nonetheless, your use of it there is deliberate over-literalism. Even if we assume that Rogal Dorn wasn't just a little bit biased...

A chapter of Marines are more useful than a million Army soldiers, Dorn's 'Normal Men,' not least because of their attached assets and comparative mobility. That doesn't mean they can take on and defeat one thousand times their numbers in ordinary men in a single engagement, it means they can rapidly secure objectives, outmanouver, and use their superior space-support to achieve what would otherwise take a thousand times that number of Imperial Army.

If you line one marine up against a thousand army soldiers with lasguns, let alone the support weapons they typically come with, he'll exhaust his ammo quite rapidly, and then eventually get shot down. In the same way, a squad of Dire Avengers is quite capable, at the least, of causing casualties to an equivalent sized tactical squad of space marines, if they just line up and shoot at each other.

People have a distubing tendancy to turn quotes like that into marine-wanking hyperbole. It's like taking the Medusan legend of Asirnoth and Ferrus Manus lifting entire mountain ranges on their backs literally, when we've actually seen Primarchs fight, and they're nowhere near that impressive.

[andrewgpaul]

Actually, it's from the 1st edition EPIC infantry rulebook.

All I posted it for was to illustrate your "Marines aren't that good" argument. It's comparing Marines (and Heresy-era Marines, at that) to Imperial Army troopers at a 10-to-one ratio, not 1000-1. Frankly, in large numbers, that seems reasonable (i.e, 10 Army troopers could probably take down 1 Marine, but a company of Marines would probably be able to take a company or three of regular soldiers.

[NecronLord]

I can't believe I misread that. That said, It's easily possible for a chapter of space marines to be more useful for a task than a million Army soldiers.

Alarmingly, the Heresy Art-Books have Custodes kill-ratios on Prospero being 5:1 against the Thousand Sons... Now that's uber...

And I'd call that Space Marine (Epic 1st Edition, Part 2), Epic: Space Marine or something...

[Setzer]

Well, it also depends on their leadership. I know that there are quite a few guard officers who got their posting through money or family connections. Space Marine officers, OTOH, have to earn their position.