[40k] Space Marines vs Stargrunts

[Keevan_Colton]

FOUNDING NEW CHAPTERS
According to their charter, each Chapter is obliged to send 5% of its genetic material to the Adeptus Mechanicus on Mars. This 'tithe' has two purposes. Firstly, it enables the Adeptus Mechanicus to monitor the health of each Marine Chapter. Secondly, it enables the Adeptus Mechanicus to store gene-seed with a view to founding new Chapters.

A new Chapter cannot be founded overnight. A single suitable gene-seed must be selected for each zygote. Zygotes are then grown in cultures and implanted into human test-slaves. These test-slaves must be biologically compatible and free from mutation. Test-slaves spend their entire lives bound in static experimental capsules. Although conscious, they are completely immobile, serving as little more than mediums within which the various zygotes can develop. From the original slave come two progenoids, which are implanted within two more slaves, from which come four progenoids and so on. It takes about 55 years of constant reproduction to produce 1,000 healthy sets of organs. These must be officially sanctioned by the Master of Adeptus Mechanicus and then by the High Lords of Terra speaking for the Emperor. Only the Emperor can give permission for the creation of a new Chapter.

[andrewgpaul]

The goofy and insane 'extreme range" stuff aside, I do have to admit I have a greater fondness/preference for the earlier edition stuff. (I have a plethora of useful titbit calcs just showing how fucking sophisticated the Guard was portrayed back then - despite what some idiots say.) computerized medikits, comlinks with 100 km range and audio/visual capability, etc...

And yet, simultaneously, filled with psychopaths and primitive barbarians (oh, and it was the Army back then, not the Imperial Guard).

Hell they had grenade launchers that could fire grenades on an electromagnetic charge (railgun grenades!)

The Vehicle stuff in particular ws neat. Not only did the Guard have antigrav vehicles explicitly (including the land speeder, no "Land's Speeder" crap.) They had rhinos (though the Chimera is IMHO a better design) they had the Rhino variants like the Predator. Basilisks could fire off two shots instead of one. Demolishers had insane recoil. Vehicles could have automated systems (autopilot, auto targeting) as well as targeters and sensors. They even had power fields available for the tanks (I liked that.. a nice defensive complenet to the Guard as mobile barriers.)
And the Chimeras running on nuclear reactors or wood fuel

All in all it was more logically consistent in terms of tech - none of this "well the Guards have antigrav jetpacks and grav parachutes, but they don't have grav speeders or gravtanks anymore") or having automation/sensors on disposable remote stationary sentry drones (Tarantulas) but not on the tanks or other vehicles.

Hell, back in RT era, the Guard could use Land Raiders IIRC

I take it you're including 1st edition Epic stuff here; The Basilisk, Chimera and Leman Russ didn't exist on 40K until 2nd edition. Heck, the Chimera didn't arrive until 2nd edition Epic, and even then was described as variant of the Basilisk (exactly the opposite of now!).

(only one 'a' in 'Chimera', BTW )

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

(only one 'a' in 'Chimera', BTW )

It's Anglicized from Greek (via Latin) so either spelling is correct.

[Connor MacLeod]

And yet, simultaneously, filled with psychopaths and primitive barbarians (oh, and it was the Army back then, not the Imperial Guard).

You also forgot the Ogryns and the Penal legions. And it is worth noting that the "primitives and psychopaths" generally were trained to use sophisticated technology and weapons to some degree (even the Ogyrns had their ripper guns.) Such regiments can be useful because of their bloodthirstiness or fanatacism, and they're bound to be more useful as disposable/expendable assets than more highly trained or discipliend troops (like say, Cadians or Valhallans or Catachans.)

Besides, in the calcs I did on the "fleet analysis" thread (which I'll probably revise shortly, despite the fact I wanted to be done with that) the vast majority of Guard regiments will be formed from troops from civilized and Hive worlds, which are quite sophisticated. ("Psychopath" is going to be a relative term. I'm sure alot of people consider Americans and Repulbicans to be Psychopaths )

The "primitives" aspect will at most form only a quarter or so of the overall Guard numbers - Feudal and Feral worlds both tend to have lower populations, and the numbers of such worlds aren't likely to be grreat enough to offset that significantly.

I take it you're including 1st edition Epic stuff here; The Basilisk, Chimera and Leman Russ didn't exist on 40K until 2nd edition. Heck, the Chimera didn't arrive until 2nd edition Epic, and even then was described as variant of the Basilisk (exactly the opposite of now!).

(only one 'a' in 'Chimera', BTW )

Haven't bothered a great deal with Epic stuff, but I am aware the earliest editions generally didn't have Russes or Chimaeras. I'm aware that the equipment and vehicles tended to be used more interchangably among the Imperial side (Land speeders, Rhinos, Predators, ,etc. tended to be used by both the Astartes AND the Guard.) I am also aware that even before that there weren't many vehicles (I am aware that in RT you were pretty much allowed to "build your own vehicle type".)

I generally contend (and I've seen this panned out in some sources - the Sabbat Worlds crusade has Imperial Guard Predators, Predator Annihilators, and Rhinos. and I've heard Space Wolves has PDF units using such as well.)

I also am aware Epic tended to have a greater variety/diversity of stuff (the Capitol Imperialis, ,the Leviathans, and the Deahtstrike batteries.)

[GunDoctor]

Here's another analogy for you: Modern US Navy vs Iraq. Would you want to play as Iraq in the "real" version? The simple fact is that people play a "war game" for fun and enjoyment, they don't want to face an automatically losing proposition.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/metasearch ... earch=Iraq

Done lying out of your ass? Or are you that ignorant?

No, "real war" isn't about balance or fairness, but real war isn't about fun either. Its about winning, and if winning means having a lopsided advantage over your enemy so you steamroll him, then so be it. But are you going to tell me that makes for a fun game? It doesn't matter if one side is unmatched and "may" win some of the time. If one side has a considerable edge I'd be rather frustrated and angry with the game system because its so goddamn unbalanced. I don't care to lose, but maybe you do.

Or, perhaps, maybe it only works with scenarios where there isn't an inherently lopsided advantage for one reason or another. Or maybe Wargames ARE balanced. There are lots of ways to "balance" a game. In which case its hardly fair to generalize wargaming.

Do you have anything other than 'waaa! I don't like losing!'

So by your logic, its even possible for any opponent with a drastic disadvantage to win, given the right circumstances? Like say, Modern Britain vs WW1 era Germany?

Further, I notice again you emphasize the "sometimes" excuse, and imply that if someone can't "win" in a wargame without a disadvantage, there must be something with the gamer. Care to justify why this is more than just egotism on your part? I question severely whether being able to win only "some of the time" (which could mean anything from "1 in 3" to "1 in 10") is a good enough excuse.

Yes, given a large enough value of 'win'. Sometimes victory is making him bleed for his win, or outlasting his army until the civilians back home get tired. At the tactical level, victory is ALWAYS possible, although sometimes 'victory' means 'still alive to talk about it later'. The most dangerous weapon is your brain, use it once and a while, I know it might be novel.

I'm still open to the argument that 40k is not a wargame, and thus is not required to accurately simulate its source material. I'll buy that.

Actually the earlier fluff and game stuff did represent a good deal of what you see in the fluff and novels. But that lead to the complexity you were complaining about. You really sound like those SB "doctrine wankers" who whinge about 40K tactics on teh basis of history alone. (oh and nice strawman, 40K is not "just give a volley and charge" - you can play it that way, but there are otehr ways you can play it too. Last I checked, napoleonic era didn't have communications sets, orbital support, or handheld sensor systems.)

Since the most clunky parts of 40k are combat resolution and the turn sequence, no matter how much detail you strip out, the game still will be chart-tastic. Let's see here, str. VS tough., roll armour save, one down 99 to go. And sure, you could charge and then volley, but that's sub-optimal isn't it?

Napoleonic games don't have those because they didn't exist, what exactly is 40k's excuse? Flipping open my handy copy of Star Grunt II to the table of contents:

Communications...pg 16
Aerospace operations...chapter 18
Electronic Warfare...chapter 19

So, the lesson here; I would rather play 40k with SGII, then failing that, I would rather play the editions in reverse order, RT + supplements, then 2nd Ed, etc. Detail is worth some inconvenience when the rules are going to blow chunks anyway.

On top of that I laugh at the idea that you think "futurisitic warfare" that involves space ships and starfighters can somehow be portrayed "realistically" I must have forgotten where the US built its first space battleships or something. Maybe they're all hiding behind the moon put there by MIB.

Ah, the usual retreat of the intellectually lazy or the actively dishonest; 'SF can't be realistic, narf!' Maybe not physics textbook realistic, but at least accurate to its own fucking source material, yes?

It sounds more like you ARE bitching about 40K in general simply for the sake of bitching, ,rather than having anything meaningful to contribute. Frnakly it sounds rather arrogant to me. Unless you have something more meaningful than a bunch of "40K ain't "realistic and it sucks" then go take your whinging to spacecbattles. Its much more welcomed there than it is here.

Huh, go fuck yourself Mr 'GW can do no wrong' Fanboi. While we're calling each other names, I can't say I approve of your taste in clothing, it doesn't do a thing for you. Have anything relevant? I'm arrogant? Why thank you, that has what, exactly, to do with my argument?

Again, it becomes blatantly obvious you sound like a SB.com "doctrine wanker" (who by definition are chronically incapable of analysis and just do it to bash 40K for some personal reason.)

Now, tactics are all very well and good, but they mean fuck all without quantified capabilities. (your tactics can be all sophisticated as shit but it means fuck all if you can't hurt the other side.) I do despise people who act as if "tactics are the only important" factor in capability, and largely ignore technology (particularily since the evolution of tactics has, historically, depended HEAVILY on technology.)

Again it becomes blatantly obvious you don't care if 40k has any connection between its technology and tactics. How exactly does better guns and armour invalidate find, fix, and flank? The funny thing is that my argument all along has been that 40k fluff gives X technology, but not only is X technology unsupported in the game, the ramifications of X technology on tactics are no where to be found.

Again, just tell me that 40k is not a wargame, and I will buy that argument. I will still prefer to play 40k with a proper set of wargames rules rather than the official set.

[Connor MacLeod]

Here's another analogy for you: Modern US Navy vs Iraq. Would you want to play as Iraq in the "real" version? The simple fact is that people play a "war game" for fun and enjoyment, they don't want to face an automatically losing proposition.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/metasearch ... earch=Iraq

Done lying out of your ass? Or are you that ignorant?

oh look, the emo warboy can use a search engine. Did you forget that we have a "burden of proof" rule here? Generally that means that if you expect to refute a point you provide something more substantial than "Iraq vs US war games exist" because a bunch of fucking search engine results do NOT say shit about their game mechanics or play balance.

Or am I supposed to take your authoritarian word that they're all highly "real;istic"

Do you have anything other than 'waaa! I don't like losing!'

Hey look, Mr Emo Warboy can't refute an argument. Guess you're not much without your search engine, are you.

Yes, given a large enough value of 'win'. Sometimes victory is making him bleed for his win, or outlasting his army until the civilians back home get tired. At the tactical level, victory is ALWAYS possible, although sometimes 'victory' means 'still alive to talk about it later'. The most dangerous weapon is your brain, use it once and a while, I know it might be novel.

Ah, so you're not only an Emo Warboy, but you're an elitist gamer asshole as well. Thanks for clarifying that. Evidently we all can't have your "super Gamer Skillz" can we?

Since the most clunky parts of 40k are combat resolution and the turn sequence, no matter how much detail you strip out, the game still will be chart-tastic. Let's see here, str. VS tough., roll armour save, one down 99 to go. And sure, you could charge and then volley, but that's sub-optimal isn't it?

Ah, look, more proof that the whole point behind all your whinging and bullshitting is that you just have a grudge against GW, even though you can't formulate an actual argument to save your life. OF course, I'm sure I'm just like everyone else here and we fail to comphrehend your utter brilliance.

Napoleonic games don't have those because they didn't exist, what exactly is 40k's excuse? Flipping open my handy copy of Star Grunt II to the table of contents:

Communications...pg 16
Aerospace operations...chapter 18
Electronic Warfare...chapter 19

So, the lesson here; I would rather play 40k with SGII, then failing that, I would rather play the editions in reverse order, RT + supplements, then 2nd Ed, etc. Detail is worth some inconvenience when the rules are going to blow chunks anyway.

So again, its just because you don't like the 40K rules you're trying to spin your grudge into being an actual argument. Too bad you're failing utterly, except for demonstrating the "Elitist Gamer Asshole' part.

Ah, the usual retreat of the intellectually lazy or the actively dishonest; 'SF can't be realistic, narf!' Maybe not physics textbook realistic, but at least accurate to its own fucking source material, yes?

Shove it up your ass, fuckwit. Strawmanning your opponet isn't accepted here. You're not exactly one to be accusing the other side of "intellectual laziness."

And becuase you're too fucking stupid to read, I'll reiterate: whining about "realism in sci fi combat" is fucking absurd because the concepts DONT' FUCKING EXIST. We don't have giant space battleships or laser guns, so its rather hard to have "realistic" doctrines for them, isn't it?

This has nothing to do with "physics", despite your pretending it does (Maybe you forgot all those SoD related threads I tend to do on here. It might help if you take your head out of your ass first.)

Of course I also like how you retreat into your repetitive self-fellating GW-bashing. I'm sure it keeps you warm at night when you rub yourself up against those stargrunt rules, too

Oh, and the idiotic "doctrine wanking" is amusing too. I love how the whining about "Napoleonic era" crap always comes out eventually. Because as we know, Napoleon had space battleships and laser guns.

Huh, go fuck yourself Mr 'GW can do no wrong' Fanboi. While we're calling each other names, I can't say I approve of your taste in clothing, it doesn't do a thing for you. Have anything relevant? I'm arrogant? Why thank you, that has what, exactly, to do with my argument?

Actually I've never played the games. I'm more into the fiction. What does amuse me is poking fun at elitist, emoing assholes like you. Or did you fail to notice that 'mockery of stupid people' in the logo? Its understandable if you missed it, again its hard to see anything with your head so far up your ass.

Again it becomes blatantly obvious you don't care if 40k has any connection between its technology and tactics. How exactly does better guns and armour invalidate find, fix, and flank? The funny thing is that my argument all along has been that 40k fluff gives X technology, but not only is X technology unsupported in the game, the ramifications of X technology on tactics are no where to be found.

Again, just tell me that 40k is not a wargame, and I will buy that argument. I will still prefer to play 40k with a proper set of wargames rules rather than the official set.

Oh look, you ignored what I wrote once again to reiterate your idiotic elitist bullshit. I guess your "wargaming skillz" put you above burden of proof, don't they?

Seriously, stop trying to pretend you have a legitimate argument here rather than just you whinging about how much you "hate" 40K as a game.

[GunDoctor]

Ah, so we come to base of your argument:

'I've never played the game, but you're wrong!'

Fuck you mr Fanboi.

Since I'm the one who has played the game, all versions thereof, and Stargrunt, and many other wargames, maybe we'll take my word for it eh?

If that's not agreeable, how about you shut the fuck up since you have nothing to base an argument on.

I know your reading comprehension isn't what it could be, but try to keep up. I love 40k, I just don't let that love blind me to its faults. That's why I still keep my minis around and use other games systems to play the game. And what is so hard to understand about wanting the game simulate its own universe? The only person who has gone on about realism is you you nitwit!

You know, since you don't even have a basic ability to follow arguments or even an understanding of 40k as a game or even the nature of wargames, this discussion is without merit. I'll just assume any further text out of your asshole is 'I concede'.

[NecronLord]

Enough of this. The original post was vague, and this has drifted waaay off even its hazy point. If you must discuss the validity or lack thereof of 40K rules, start a thread for it in G&C where it belongs.