I still think it's worth pointing out that in GW's rules - both the tabletop as well as Inquisitor - Space Marines are (much) easier to injure, and they use weapons with the exact same damage potential as human troops. That's a notable difference to how DW deals with things (to the woe of inter-game balance).

It is generally accepted that in GW's crunch Space Marines are weaker than in GW's fluff. Even if you don't accept Codices, you just have to read what has been written about Space Marines in the Core Rulebooks (pretty much neutral territory compared to Codices):

"In Battle, the Space Marines are the most devastating warriors the Imperium can muster. Stronger, faster and tougher than the greatest of normal men , their bio-engineered bodies can fight in any environment and survive the most traumatic of wounds , enabling a Space Marine to fight until his body has been utterly destroyed ." (4E Core, page 101)

"They are superior to normal humans in every respect, thanks to a brutal regime of genetic modification, psycho-conditioning and a life of strict discipline that only such enhanced warriors can endure. A Space Marine can survive wounds that would kill a normal man thrice over , fight in the harshest conditions imaginable, and has a depth of faith that is unquenchable in its force of belief." (4E Core, page 102)

"Although there is less than one Space Marine for every planet in the Imperium, they are sufficient to the task. The superhuman abilities of the Space Marine allow them to fight with a tenacity that lies far beyond the capabilities of lesser men , laying down a lethally accurate hail of bolter fire until the foe lies broken and beaten. [...] A half-company of fifty Space Marines is sufficient to end the rebellion of thousands , while a full chapter of a thousand or so battle-brothers can decide the fate of an entire sub-sector ." (5E Core, page 133)

I think DW is quite faithful to how GW envisions the Space Marines in their (non-propaganda) fluff.

In short, Deathwatch as a game is much more closely oriented at the Space Marine legends and myths in GW material, rather than the information presented in a somewhat more factual manner. As such, it is true that some of the studio fluff supports such a superheroic version, but I would not describe it as the core vision of the Astartes - unless it'd refer to how the Astartes are regarded in-universe , and what they are supposed to aspire to.

Totally disagree. It doesn't get more core than the description in the Core Rulebook where you introduce factions to new players.

Given that they would have this in my interpretation already, I think they have more - and as such, more than necessary , in yours.

Create a standard Tactical Squad in DW and try it out.

I dunno... GW fluff tells us there's only 1 million Space Marines, which is ridiculously few. It also tells us that a lot of these 1 million are not very reliable, at times even causing internal conflict with unnecessary casualties. And it tells us that Space Marines are regularly confronted with opposition that is too much for them, so that they must call in the Imperial Guard, which has an infinitely bigger supply of men and materiel.

This leads me to believe that an argument about this question could be made, though the Marines' value in deployment speed and their combat efficiency obviously makes it something that is very much debatable rather than a fact.

I'm sure there are many situations where a delay in troop arrival would have led to catastrophic results, just as much as I believe that Storm Troopers trying to proxy for Astartes would in most cases lead to much greater casualties (and not only from the STs, but also other allied forces in the area). As I pointed out previously, my personal belief is that the Space Marines still have an important role to play and are not easily replaced.

And the Core fluff supports that last part. However, it's because the Astartes are pretty much DW Astartes in GW's Core fluff.

And as I said, many characters in Dark Heresy may have had to face similar challenges in their backgrounds.

Equal treatment for all.

Some quotes to back that claim up?

Yeah, same here! The damage system seemed a bit weird in that it appeared they have taken inspiration from Inquisitor, without going the whole way - and instead made it look awfully complicated and, in some cases, produce rather weird results that felt a bit disconnected from what the system attempted to (or was supposed to) portray.

In short, to me, DH2 actually didn't go "far enough" with its changes.

I'm still lucky all those different ideas were published, though. At least it allows us to work with and modify them as houserules, basically treating them as inspiration. I could see a few people continuing to develop the old Beta stuff, and I think I've seen at least one poster announce that his group will stick to those rather than the release version.

Well, I wasn't that fond of the new rules yet I would have liked see to some more fundamental changes than we got now - provided they worked... but v1 did not.

Alex

I'm coming a bit late to the party here but this is my take for what it is worth

First off I don't think Space Marines are special forces in the modern sense of things. That role the Imperium has covered by Storm Troopers, the Officio Assassinorum and various specialised Inquisitorial Acolyte cells. The Astartes are Knights. Shock Troopers that lead from the front and generally shun tactics that don't allow them to display their heraldry etc.

That is why Chapters such as the Raven Guard Raptors Mantis Warriors etc are quite unusual.

Now this isn't to say that Marines don't perform lightning insertions of course but the success of these missions is often more to do with the sheer speed of the Marines assault rather than through a particular emphasis put on stealth.

With regard to how powerful marines are in the Epic scale...well there are a few ways of looking at it.

I think it is difficult to scale down the epic nature of the marines without doing a similar thing to various alien races, such as the legendary toughness of the orks (which can literally survive having their head removed long enough to have a body transplant).

On the other hand I do think that marines of the 41st millenium maybe don't match their ancestors of the Horus Heresy.

Strangley, and this is my own personal opinion no disrespect intended I don't think a toned down version of marines makes the setting more grounded or gritty. I actually think it makes it somewhat bland. To put it another way there are dozens of gritty dystopian nightmare scifi futures out there from 1984 to Akira.

What I like about 40K is that it is unashamedly over the top in every way. Every aspect of it is filtered through to a lesser or greater degree a nightmarish lense. In the case of the marines the irony is that they are held out as the greatest champions of Humanity and they in turn revere the Emperor as the greatest man. Yet both Astartes and Emperor are pretty far removed from anything that a 21st century person would associate with humanity.

If you tone down the Astartes then I think the setting loses something.

That said I am about to contradict myself by saying that the presentation of the Dark Angels in the old short story 'Deathwing' was a really good example of how Space Marines can be three dimensional humans.

Visitor Q: No worries! I've come to see this difference in opinion like a debate about movie genres, or other personal preferences. It's just a matter of style, and as this thread shows, both approaches discussed here have their fans.

It could also be likened to the difference between, say, the games Battlefield and Call of Duty. Ostensibly the same genre (military FPS), yet with a different gameplay feeling catering to different crowds.

It is generally accepted that in GW's crunch Space Marines are weaker than in GW's fluff.

Because the Space Marine fans decided so? Did you cast a vote?

Take a look at the quotes you posted - either they align perfectly with what I have previously said myself, or they are so utterly fantastic that they can only be exaggeration. "Fight until his body is utterly destroyed"? If we are supposed to take these quotes literal (as you seem to ask), then I guess anyone fighting the Astartes ought to bring a flamer, lest they risk murder by a disembodied hand!

I also have a quote from GW saying that Battle Sisters are "equals to their brother Space Marines", which with your vision of the Astartes would mean a level of power that I'm sure doesn't really synch with your image of them.

Here's another sentence from the 6E rulebook page you quoted, but which you may have missed:

"Like all legends, there is a mythology woven around the Space Marines, and the line between fact and fabrication is often blurred."

Which goes back to GW's stance regarding the official material being, to quote Marc Gascogne, "anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths."

So, when we are presented with conflicting information such as on one hand being told that Marine power armour lowers the chance of injury by small arms fire "only" by 50-85%, why should we assume they're near-invulnerable to lasguns just because we don't hear of any casualties in the retelling of some legendary battle? When they supposedly have no difficulty opposing hundreds of rebels per man in one piece of fluff (which does not tell us how well they'd be armed, by the way), why is this contrasted by stories such as the Iron Shields' massive casualties assaulting a rogue human warlord's fortress, or the harsh fighting on Armageddon (where almost half the Imperium's Space Marine Chapters have gathered and still didn't manage to eradicate the Orks, and they had the support of the Guard)?

In short: When I'm confronted with material presenting both a high-power and a low-power version of Space Marines, why should I assume that the high-powered version is the "truth", and the low-power one is myth, legend, and propaganda? To me, that just doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't necessarily say we should apply the lowest common denominator, but a balance between both stances must be found. You shouldn't just "shut out" the instances that present obvious and significant weaknesses, vulnerabilities, and limitations.

Unless that's just how you want to see them. Fair enough - but again, I don't think this was GW's vision - else they would not have contradicted themselves so clearly and so often. And they would not have presented us with an intriguing consistency regarding their mathematic vulnerability to lasgun shots that covers the tabletop, their d100 Inquisitor game, and the power armour fluff. Too much of a coincidence for me.

And the Core fluff supports that last part. However, it's because the Astartes are pretty much DW Astartes in GW's Core fluff.

I cannot agree there. GW's fluff knows too many instances of Space Marines or Chaos Space Marines being pwned by foes that would not stand a chance in DW. Though as I said previously, I blame mechanical issues that have already been present in Dark Heresy (the role of TB).

Some quotes to back that claim up?

"Many of the newly raised regiments inducted into the Imperial Guard will already have some modicum of fighting experience. This may have taken the form of formal military instruction, or simply be the result of the instincts necessary to stay alive on their respective home worlds. Only the strongest survive the gang wars inherent on hive worlds, the tribal conflicts on a medieval feudal world, or the carnivorous predators that stalk a death world."

- 5E C:IG

"Many Imperial Guard regiments are recruited from the savage urban environments of hive worlds, such as Moltova, Armageddon or Coronis Agathon; planets where family or corporate-based warfare is endemic. Such troops are battle-hardened long before they are drafted into the Imperial Guard."

- 5E Core Rulebook

"The massive populations of hive worlds periodically become unmanageable, as the masses boil over against their constant repression. Such bustling mega-cities are always rife with anarchic and destructive forces that ensure only the hardiest can survive."

- 6E Core Rulebook

I can offer some more on specific individual planets such as Catachan or Athonos or Attila or Trysia, but I think you get the picture. As you may agree, growing up in the Schola is not exactly an easy thing, either. Ultimately, a character's background in Dark Heresy or Only War can already have seen them live through quite a few challenges, exactly as it's possible for some Space Marine Chapters, as you mentioned. After all, you should take into account from whom exactly said Chapters have adopted those traditions - they did not spring into life on their own.

Space Marines are a necessary unit because they wear space suits. Many of their missions would be in hostile climates and atmospheres (or lack thereof) that Imperial Guard units can't deploy into. For that reason alone they deserve their own vessels that are committed separately from others.

I'm not inclined to see them as Gods of War. I agree with those posting that believe they would get worn down by attrition, even if the rate were 40k:1. They'd be like any other special forces unit that got sent into the front lines...wasted talent.

And I don't go by GW fluff (whatever exactly fluff is) or what comes out in the dime-store novels (sans inflation). Space opera writers and realistic circumstances don't often inhabit the same body ("the Millenium Falcon made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs," star fighters making atmospheric maneuvers where there is no atmosphere, sounds and explosions in vacuum...really, don't get me started).

I'm not sure what crunch is either, but if that means that tabletop miniature Space Marines aren't that tough then yes, they aren't. That's more a matter of play balance than anything, though. GW wants to make an interesting game that will sell.

As a GM, I'd send kill teams on missions onto space stations, airless moons, planets with heavy gravity, dense atmosphere, high winds, etc. This should make it obvious why the Space Marines are sent in.

Are there Chapters that attempt to deploy as heavy formations? Sure. They get decimated every so often and go home to their fortress monasteries to lick their wounds and grow back up to chapter strength again. Then instead of learning their lessons, they do it again. Do they fight heroic battles against terrific odds and sometimes win? Sure. And that's the stuff of legend. Do they do exactly the same thing and sometimes lose? Sure. And that's the stuff of legend. Does the Imperium write loads of lies exaggerating the victories and suppressing the defeats? Isn't that what politicians get paid to do?

These are the Astartes of the Deathwatch, however. They don't assault dug-in defenders with a line of Land Raiders carrying Assault Terminators. They insert a team of specialists to do a very specific job and get back out.

Hey, it's your game. Play it however you like. Hopefully, you have a group of like-minded players that enjoy the same playing style you do. I've had good luck with that in the past. I have high hopes for the future, too.

I'm not inclined to see them as Gods of War. I agree with those posting that believe they would get worn down by attrition, even if the rate were 40k:1. They'd be like any other special forces unit that got sent into the front lines...wasted talent.

Astartes are less SAS and more Waffen-SS though. DW Kill-Teams, otoh, operate more like Special Forces. The debate here is about whether a low-powered interpretation of the Space Marines is more valid in the context of official sources or not.

In short: When I'm confronted with material presenting both a high-power and a low-power version of Space Marines, why should I assume that the high-powered version is the "truth", and the low-power one is myth, legend, and propaganda?

Because the Core Rulebook is the core document of the 40K world. Here, the game world gets described to beginners in context. The Space Marines get described in context to the Imperium at large. Here, you want gamers to get roughly the right idea in what kind of setting their 40K battles take place. This is the core vision. The myth, legend, and propaganda part serves no other purpose than to make the core vision... malleable . Thusly, every gamer and every fiction author can sort of bend the core idea to their own liking. If you need a setting where the Astartes are just a bit better, you can do that. There's enough wiggle room for that.

However, claiming in the face of those previous quotes that Astartes are basically only Special Forces+1 and that DW deviates from what is the actual vision of the Astartes carries not much weight, I'm afraid. Deathwatch is more adherent to what has been said in the 40K Core Rulebooks at least since 4E (didnt look further backwards) than the interpretation you ascribe to.

Of course, you have a right to look at other sources and certain events in the lore. But the effect of that is only that the debate shifts from "Which interpretation do I prefer?" to "Which sources do I prefer?" which in the end amounts to the same thing. I trust, however, you will find that most gamers will consider the Core Rulebooks to sit at the heart of the 40K universe. Just sayin'.

In short: When I'm confronted with material presenting both a high-power and a low-power version of Space Marines, why should I assume that the high-powered version is the "truth", and the low-power one is myth, legend, and propaganda? To me, that just doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't necessarily say we should apply the lowest common denominator, but a balance between both stances must be found. You shouldn't just "shut out" the instances that present obvious and significant weaknesses, vulnerabilities, and limitations.

Unless that's just how you want to see them. Fair enough - but again, I don't think this was GW's vision - else they would not have contradicted themselves so clearly and so often. And they would not have presented us with an intriguing consistency regarding their mathematic vulnerability to lasgun shots that covers the tabletop, their d100 Inquisitor game, and the power armour fluff. Too much of a coincidence for me.

As I said, everyone gets to pick their sources. Which in turn only serves to bolster their own favoured interpretation. However, I do believe that for the 40K fanbase the Core Rulebook carries the most weight. If the Storm Wardens were to appear in the next Core, that would be like being knighted. Nobody could dispute anymore that they were "canon". There's a number of gamers who accept nothing from the FFG books as part of the 40K "canon", you know?

I could also claim that there is an intriguing consistency between the Core Rulebooks, the Codex Space Marines, various Space Marine BL novels and Deathwatch. In fact there is no overall consistency. There is only wiggle room and that within the wiggle room certain congruencies between hand-picked sources exists is a given.

And the Core fluff supports that last part. However, it's because the Astartes are pretty much DW Astartes in GW's Core fluff.

I cannot agree there. GW's fluff knows too many instances of Space Marines or Chaos Space Marines being pwned by foes that would not stand a chance in DW. Though as I said previously, I blame mechanical issues that have already been present in Dark Heresy (the role of TB).

The quotes from the Core rulebooks have been presented to you. These "too many instances" you mention are part of the wiggle room. It does not change the fact of how the Space Marines are described in the core document of the 40K setting.

The DW Astartes are pretty much as GW has depicted them in the Core Rulebook from 4E onwards. Does that mean one cannot cherry-pick other sources to support a different interpretation? No. But it's hard to see how they carry any more weight.

I can offer some more on specific individual planets such as Catachan or Athonos or Attila or Trysia, but I think you get the picture. As you may agree, growing up in the Schola is not exactly an easy thing, either. Ultimately, a character's background in Dark Heresy or Only War can already have seen them live through quite a few challenges, exactly as it's possible for some Space Marine Chapters, as you mentioned. After all, you should take into account from whom exactly said Chapters have adopted those traditions - they did not spring into life on their own.

More quotes would be good because none of what has been quoted has been comparable to an Aspirant's trials. The Space Marines are sifting through young men to find the elite of a generation.

This is what makes every Crimson Fist a hero:

"Rynn's World's proximity to the chapter's primary source of recruitment, the feral world of Blackwater, made it an ideal homeworld. This allowed Crimson Fists apothecaries and Chaplains to attend the annual 'Festival of the Bloodied Fist', during which the most promising ot the feral worlds' young men would vie for the opportunity to join the mighty warriors from the stars. During the festival, the aspirants must undertake feats of great strength and courage, culminating with the Rite of the Dragon, in which the would-be Space Marine must track and kill one the ferocious swamp-dwelling Barb Dragons, killing it with only his bare hands in order to earn the right to become an aspirant. Each year, only a handful of young men get as far as this rite, and only one or two of these are likely to survive it, ensuring only the aspirants are accepted into the chapter."

And this goes beyond what every starting Acolyte in the DH groups I played in has achieved in his prior life. Surviving in an underhive or on a harsh feral world does not compare. Again, there's no accounting for taste - however, as I see it, every Astartes, starting from the lowliest Scout, is a hero by nature. The right vessel for holy blood.

Alex

Because the Core Rulebook is the core document of the 40K world. Here, the game world gets described to beginners in context.

It's also the place where armies get advertised ("buy me!") and nobody is presented with notable weaknesses or flaws, in case you've looked solely at the Marine entry. Does that mean that no-one in the setting has them? Are you actually saying the Space Marines in other GW sources are not part of their vision, rather than simply complementing it - as should be assumed when looking at background material from a single source describing one and the same setting? The notion of the Index Astartes - a prime source of Astartes fluff - being "invalidated" this way seems really strange to me.

I also think you are underestimating the significance of only the Marine entry ending on the notion that they are shrouded in a layer of myth and legend - but then again, that may be just because I now tend to look at anything GW publishes with a "read between the lines" attitude.

However, I do believe that for the 40K fanbase the Core Rulebook carries the most weight.

No, definitely not. From all I've read on this forum and elsewhere, what seems to carry the most weight are the popular Black Library novels. The 40k fanbase cannot even get the Space Marines' height (as provided by GW) "right", as proven again and again by (ironically) ardent Space Marine fans.

I actually think it's sad that GW's own fluff is so underrated and (when thinking about the Index Astartes) comparatively unknown to the bolter porn novels - but this applies to all of 40k's armies, and is in part also the fault of GW for failing at distribution.

If the Storm Wardens were to appear in the next Core, that would be like being knighted. Nobody could dispute anymore that they were "canon". There's a number of gamers who accept nothing from the FFG books as part of the 40K "canon", you know?

The 40k fandom as a whole not understanding how the IP works is one of the biggest problems that "fluff nuts" have to deal with.

I could also claim that there is an intriguing consistency between the Core Rulebooks, the Codex Space Marines, various Space Marine BL novels and Deathwatch. In fact there is no overall consistency. There is only wiggle room and that within the wiggle room certain congruencies between hand-picked sources exists is a given.

There is no consistency because different authors have different ideas of how their protagonists perform - especially when it comes to Black Library novels and the concept of plot armour. One could indeed say this is wiggle room. All I'm saying is that the version of Space Marines presented in the complete collection of GW's core material is on one end of the spectrum, whilst DW is on the other, somewhat close to the Space Marine videogame.

Which makes sense, because GW's material as a whole is not intended to cater only to the fandom of a single faction but rather intends to create a breathing, living setting, whereas both DW as well as the video game are clearly aimed at Marine fans, putting the player into the role of their heroes and letting them do stuff you'd otherwise only get to see in an action movie. Both the video game's "gain health by killing enemies" as well as DW's "negate lascannon shots by sharing the damage" could be described as elements of plot armour in that they clearly wouldn't work in a more realistic environment.

And I'm not really hand-picking my sources in that manner. What I do is looking solely at GW material as a whole (a single source = the studio). It's you who is looking solely at their Codex and the Core Rulebook whilst ignoring contradictory material from the same source, whilst simultaneously adding your preferred material from other authors.

Which you are absolutely free to do, but I'd be saying that this may not be exactly what one half of the writers of your "customised collection" may have had in mind, as it damages the integrity of the rest of their material.

More quotes would be good because none of what has been quoted has been comparable to an Aspirant's trials. The Space Marines are sifting through young men to find the elite of a generation.

... I think we're talking past each other here.

By your own admission, these trials are done by Aspirants before they become Space Marines. That means when they are still human. In a human tribal culture. Like all the other Feral World backgrounds in Dark Heresy.

What exactly makes you think that such customs exist solely on those Feral Worlds controlled by a Space Marine Chapter instead of any place settled by barbaric humans? What about the Space Marines recruiting from Hive Worlds? Does this mean the Black Templars are less cool because they recruit gangers from, say, Necromunda, who grow up experiencing "only" the normal life of intense gang warfare and brutality?

The only reason GW made power armor susceptible to lasguns 33.33% of the time is because they 1) wanted a game everybody could play with a box of 6-sided dice, and 2) they wanted there to be a difference between power armor and terminator armor. Really, it's just a matter of game balance and playability.

And the comparisons of SAS and Waffen SS seem a bit contrary. Some chapters seem more like Brandenburgers, while others are airborne or SNLF. That's really a matter of tactics and employment, not competency.

The only reason GW made power armor susceptible to lasguns 33.33% of the time is because they 1) wanted a game everybody could play with a box of 6-sided dice, and 2) they wanted there to be a difference between power armor and terminator armor. Really, it's just a matter of game balance and playability.

But why do you believe so? It's also something that holds true in GW's own d100 game (Inquisitor), and the rather extensive power armour fluff in Codex: Angels of Death. Plus, I'm tempted to say the game (or rather its rules) came first, and the fluff was crafted around it in order to deliver a compelling narrative for the battles you fight.

Even in Dark Heresy and Deathwatch, lasguns actually have a chance to penetrate power armour ... the problem - and what makes these games different from Inquisitor - is that the leftover damage tends to get completely negated by TB. Because in these games, naked skin (even that of ordinary humans) is for some odd reason more resilient than actual armour.

In all fairness, though, it's more like 16 or 18%, if I recall correctly. 33% might be a bit much even in my opinion.

And the comparisons of SAS and Waffen SS seem a bit contrary. Some chapters seem more like Brandenburgers, while others are airborne or SNLF. That's really a matter of tactics and employment, not competency.

Hmmh, that's a good point. I suppose in the end, the Space Marines are just so versatile they can do both. And more.

Chapter specialty seems to be solely a matter of tradition, rather than necessity - though by now a strong focus on certain tasks and tactics may have affected some Chapters capability to operate in other jobs, in that their armoury and training sacrifice versatility for more punch in a specific area of expertise. It's not how they are meant to operate, but further goes to underline how the Imperium of M41 just doesn't operate at peak efficiency. Because efficiency is heresy.

I actually agree with ak-73 in that the Waffen-SS would be a good comparison to most Marine Chapters, though ... or, no, perhaps the US Marines might be an even better fit, given that the Adeptus Astartes also has its own air assets, as well as (historically) a focus on amphibian operations and rapid response. The Waffen-SS was more like a traditional army of infantry and armour for prolonged ground operations, and this is something that in 40k is the job of the Imperial Guard.

The only reason GW made power armor susceptible to lasguns 33.33% of the time is because they 1) wanted a game everybody could play with a box of 6-sided dice, and 2) they wanted there to be a difference between power armor and terminator armor. Really, it's just a matter of game balance and playability.

In earlier editions of the game, power armour was only effective against lasgun fire 50% of the time, while terminator armour was effective far far more than that (terminators used to have a 3+ save on 2d6...). The removal of save modifiers meant that 3+ was appropriate because it meant anti-tank missiles wouldn't allow the armour to provide any armour save at all. I think you're confusing cause and effect here.

Because the Core Rulebook is the core document of the 40K world. Here, the game world gets described to beginners in context.

It's also the place where armies get advertised ("buy me!") and nobody is presented with notable weaknesses or flaws, in case you've looked solely at the Marine entry. Does that mean that no-one in the setting has them? Are you actually saying the Space Marines in other GW sources are not part of their vision, rather than simply complementing it - as should be assumed when looking at background material from a single source describing one and the same setting? The notion of the Index Astartes - a prime source of Astartes fluff - being "invalidated" this way seems really strange to me.

That is not the same as saying "X is this or that powerful" when in truth they are not. Do the Core Rulebooks falsely claim that the Battle Sisters can do this or that? Am I to disbelieve the quotes I presented because the rulebooks don't also state "The Space Marines had trouble winning on Armageddon?" You have clear statements from the Core Rulebooks that strongly suggest that Space Marines are more than just Special Forces+1. The capabilities of DW Marines conform to those described in the Core Rulebooks - from 4E onwards at least. You can claim that other interpretations are possible based on other published material, that's fine.

Wiggle room and all that.

I also think you are underestimating the significance of only the Marine entry ending on the notion that they are shrouded in a layer of myth and legend - but then again, that may be just because I now tend to look at anything GW publishes with a "read between the lines" attitude.

Naturally, because you don't like what the books say explicitly. The ending you are referring to just introduces wiggle room. It does not invalidate what has been said before. We have "canon" GW sources that explicitly give impressions of just how resilient Space Marines are.

No, definitely not. From all I've read on this forum and elsewhere, what seems to carry the most weight are the popular Black Library novels. The 40k fanbase cannot even get the Space Marines' height (as provided by GW) "right", as proven again and again by (ironically) ardent Space Marine fans.

I actually think it's sad that GW's own fluff is so underrated and (when thinking about the Index Astartes) comparatively unknown to the bolter porn novels - but this applies to all of 40k's armies, and is in part also the fault of GW for failing at distribution.

Well, I disagree. If GW introduces new units, expect them to show up in BL novels. If a BL novel invents a new unit, don't hold your breath waiting for it to appear in a GW codex. Same with the fluff - if there is a retcon in the Core Rulebook, I'd expect new publications to pretty much adhere to it.

Also, there is simply much more people who have read the fluff in the Core Rulebook than those who read BL novels. It's way more influential.

There is no consistency because different authors have different ideas of how their protagonists perform - especially when it comes to Black Library novels and the concept of plot armour. One could indeed say this is wiggle room. All I'm saying is that the version of Space Marines presented in the complete collection of GW's core material is on one end of the spectrum, whilst DW is on the other, somewhat close to the Space Marine videogame.

Well, that is a claim that is hard to falsify. If you say it's on the other end of the spectrum, you seriously have to back that up with explicit statements that go counter to DW Marines, not drawing inferences from lost battles or quotes that say that Marines can't win every battle and sometimes need the IG's help. None of that goes counter to DW Marines. Marines on DW's power level could very easily lose battles and require the help of the IG. In fact, they do in Oblivion's Edge.

Which makes sense, because GW's material as a whole is not intended to cater only to the fandom of a single faction but rather intends to create a breathing, living setting, whereas both DW as well as the video game are clearly aimed at Marine fans, putting the player into the role of their heroes and letting them do stuff you'd otherwise only get to see in an action movie. Both the video game's "gain health by killing enemies" as well as DW's "negate lascannon shots by sharing the damage" could be described as elements of plot armour in that they clearly wouldn't work in a more realistic environment.

Sure but the Soak Fire Squad Mode Ability does not define the power level of DW Marines. Particularly not in the context of us debating whether TB 8 versus TB 3 is a gap too wide. Based on what has been said by GW (see above), this wide gap seems fully justified.

And I'm not really hand-picking my sources in that manner. What I do is looking solely at GW material as a whole (a single source = the studio). It's you who is looking solely at their Codex and the Core Rulebook whilst ignoring contradictory material from the same source, whilst simultaneously adding your preferred material from other authors.

Which you are absolutely free to do, but I'd be saying that this may not be exactly what one half of the writers of your "customised collection" may have had in mind, as it damages the integrity of the rest of their material.

Hold on. I provided passages from Codices. You said: "Ah, this doesn't count, every Codex is geared towards their faction."

I went: "Okay, then let's go for the Core Rulebooks are more neutral territory." And now you're like: "Ah, they just wanna sell [never mind that one could always claim this about any GW source which confirms DW Marines, if one just didn't want to accept DW Marines]. You have to look at the published material as a whole."

Well, you could claim that. However, the fact remains that DW Marines conform to Core Rulebook fluff Marines. And your above claim would be countered by pointing out that these authors have merely made use of the wiggle room that GW allows for - for example, when they needed to squeeze Marines into the context of the Inquisitor game? (Never played that game, basing it on your statements only.)

Also there is no integrity, there is only the question if they are within the wiggle room GW provides or not. Lynata Marines probably are, DW Marines certainly are as evidenced in this thread.

... I think we're talking past each other here.

By your own admission, these trials are done by Aspirants before they become Space Marines. That means when they are still human. In a human tribal culture. Like all the other Feral World backgrounds in Dark Heresy.

What exactly makes you think that such customs exist solely on those Feral Worlds controlled by a Space Marine Chapter instead of any place settled by barbaric humans? What about the Space Marines recruiting from Hive Worlds? Does this mean the Black Templars are less cool because they recruit gangers from, say, Necromunda, who grow up experiencing "only" the normal life of intense gang warfare and brutality?

I don't think that. I think that all chapters have means to filter out the best and brightest and most talented (wrt becoming a warrior) young men. I think that their standards go beyond being a Feral Worlder or a Hive Ganger. Passing these selections makes you a champion and a hero at that. Especially if your body later survives all the implantations. Being selected and making it through all of this is a heroic feat . That's what I am saying.

Alex

The only reason GW made power armor susceptible to lasguns 33.33% of the time is because they 1) wanted a game everybody could play with a box of 6-sided dice, and 2) they wanted there to be a difference between power armor and terminator armor. Really, it's just a matter of game balance and playability.

In earlier editions of the game, power armour was only effective against lasgun fire 50% of the time, while terminator armour was effective far far more than that (terminators used to have a 3+ save on 2d6...). The removal of save modifiers meant that 3+ was appropriate because it meant anti-tank missiles wouldn't allow the armour to provide any armour save at all. I think you're confusing cause and effect here.

It doesn't invalidate the argument that there is a glaringly obvious inconsistency between crunch and fluff which cannot be but intentional. Which in turn means that if you want to interpret your TT battles in the Core Rulebook fluff sense, one guardsman mini must stand for multiples. Which in turn means one lasgun attack in the game world would stand for several lasgun attackers. See my above quotes from the Core Rulebooks.

But, again, GW explains nothing and leaves enough wiggle room for everyone to pick their own favourite interpretation.

If Lynata however claims that her interpretation is more the real GW fluff and DW Marines are kinda a deviation, yeah, it seems not very credible. She'll need a stronger counter than in her last post, refering to "published material as a whole" and "Oh, btw, it's all myth, they only want to sell minis".

A few explicit quotes from GW material that describe the Marines clearly less resilient than in the aforementioned Core Rulebooks would be a good start. Preferably not from 1E, we all know Marines were much weaker back then, noone's disputing that. And, yeah, 4E and 5E Rulebooks hold weigh more weight than the Inquisitor game.

Alex

Hold on. I provided passages from Codices. You said: "Ah, this doesn't count, every Codex is geared towards their faction."

I went: "Okay, then let's go for the Core Rulebooks are more neutral territory." And now you're like: "Ah, they just wanna sell [never mind that one could always claim this about any GW source which confirms DW Marines, if one just didn't want to accept DW Marines]. You have to look at the published material as a whole."

Oh, no. Hold on indeed. I have never talked about "Codex Marines" or "Core Rulebook Marines". I was always talking about "Games Workshop Marines", that means the complete studio vision of the setting, not a few excerpts published in a narrow selection of books you are picking from.

Now you make it sounds as if I'm jumping back and forth between arguments, supposedly backed into a corner. I am and always have been pointing at GW material as a whole ("the bigger picture"), which has in the past presented clear and obvious limitations to their capabilities, some of whom I have provided here - and which clearly conflict with what you are sticking to, at least on the level you apparently wish to focus on.

Now, I don't even doubt that a Chapter "can decide the fate of an entire sub-sector" - yet this sentence is not the proof you think it is, for it does not offer us the detail necessary for a full assessment. The quote is compatible with other published material in that, for example, the fate of a sub-sector may indeed be decided in one or two important battles, where said Chapter might deploy as a critical element in the plan of an Imperial Guard Battle Group.

That is how I'm reading it, because I don't want to ignore other fluff from the very same origin if I there's a way to have both sources be compatible to each other. So I am employing the concept of Occham's Razor here.

Ultimately, it's you who has on page 1 still been talking about "GW Marines", and now shifted to "Core Rulebook Marines". Because you agree that GW has indeed published material that contradicts your preferred interpretation?

Either way, with this shift in the debate, I don't think we'll get anywhere.

Do the Core Rulebooks falsely claim that the Battle Sisters can do this or that?

Actually, yes.

An example from the 5E Core Rulebook that springs to mind: "Wherever there are foes of the Emperor, the Sisters of Battle will be found fighting to the last."

If I were to take these sentences as literal as you do, I'm now supposed to assume that the Battle Sisters are more numerous than the Imperial Guard, and apparently found even deep inside the Eye of Terror and within the realms of the Chaos Gods, as well as in cult-infected Underhives, on Eldar Craftworlds or Necron Tombworlds. I hope you see why I'm cautioning against getting caught up in what often seems suspiciously like metaphorical glorification.

There's also a Codex quote referring to a force of 1.000 Battle Sisters liberating a hundred worlds, but in my opinion this either leaves the rest of a significant crusade force unmentioned or actually says more about those hundred worlds than it does about the Battle Sisters. Exactly like with the sub-sector quote you plucked from the Core Rulebook.

Sure but the Soak Fire Squad Mode Ability does not define the power level of DW Marines. Particularly not in the context of us debating whether TB 8 versus TB 3 is a gap too wide. Based on what has been said by GW (see above), this wide gap seems fully justified.

Not with the way TB works here - based on what GW said as well (the 50-85% injury chance). Also, how does Soak Fire not define the power level of DW Marines? It's part of their arsenal, and nicely demonstrates how over the top Deathwatch can be.

Well, I disagree. If GW introduces new units, expect them to show up in BL novels. If a BL novel invents a new unit, don't hold your breath waiting for it to appear in a GW codex. Same with the fluff - if there is a retcon in the Core Rulebook, I'd expect new publications to pretty much adhere to it.

Also, there is simply much more people who have read the fluff in the Core Rulebook than those who read BL novels. It's way more influential.

I actually agree that more people have access to the Core Rulebook, so one should assume it's a common ground, yet in reality this does not fit the debates I have witnessed. Far more often, people present incidents from their favourite novel.

Perhaps it's because they only glanced at the fluff section, thinking it's uninteresting. Perhaps they did not expect the Core Rulebook to actually contain this information. Either way, for an example just look at how many people still think Space Marines cannot die of old age, though it says it right in the book. Whenever the discussion pops up, what do people present as material? The Horus Heresy novels.

And I swear, if I'd get a dime every time I post "7 feet according to GW", I would have had enough cash for the Complete SM Chapter deal by now.

I don't think that. I think that all chapters have means to filter out the best and brightest and most talented (wrt becoming a warrior) young men. I think that their standards go beyond being a Feral Worlder or a Hive Ganger. Passing these selections makes you a champion and a hero at that. Especially if your body later survives all the implantations. Being selected and making it through all of this is a heroic feat . That's what I am saying.

Then I don't get what the problem is. This is the same sort of people growing up on the places that many Dark Heresy and Only War characters are recruited from (as the quotes should have shown), with many the same challenges and trials. If a young Feral World warrior making it through a trial on an Astartes fief world is considered a "heroic feat", then the same applies if it happens on a normal Imperial Feral World for a different occasion*. Same for the (Under-)Hives, etc. These selections are not a monopoly of the Adeptus Astartes, they are the way of life of the native inhabitants on that world - adopted , not introduced by the Chapter that settled there.

*: "On some of the more savage frontier worlds, these competitions can escalate into affairs that claim as many lives as a small war."

- Codex:IG, Recruitment

Oh, no. Hold on indeed. I have never talked about "Codex Marines" or "Core Rulebook Marines". I was always talking about "Games Workshop Marines", that means the complete studio vision of the setting, not a few excerpts published in a narrow selection of books you are picking from.

Yeah but anybody can claim anything about that complete studio vision. Nobody disputes that lasguns can hurt marines in the TT. Nobody disputes that Marines lose battles or get killed. Nobody disputes that the Astartes occasionally need the IG.

Also it's hard to see how the quotes you have provided are a less narrow selection, you're not quite convincing here.

Now you make it sounds as if I'm jumping back and forth between arguments, supposedly backed into a corner. I am and always have been pointing at GW material as a whole ("the bigger picture"), which has in the past presented clear and obvious limitations to their capabilities, some of whom I have provided here - and which clearly conflict with what you are sticking to, at least on the level you apparently wish to focus on.

Sure. Wiggle room. I'm not disputing that.

Now, I don't even doubt that a Chapter "can decide the fate of an entire sub-sector" - yet this sentence is not the proof you think it is, for it does not offer us the detail necessary for a full assessment. The quote is compatible with other published material in that, for example, the fate of a sub-sector may indeed be decided in one or two important battles, where said Chapter might deploy as a critical element in the plan of an Imperial Guard Battle Group.

That is how I'm reading it, because I don't want to ignore other fluff from the very same origin if I there's a way to have both sources be compatible to each other. So I am employing the concept of Occham's Razor here.

Which brings us back to CSM 3E, page 3. Which you put off as propaganda/exaggeration before. Yet it's consistent with the quotes from the rulebooks. Chapters operate on their own and they wage and win wars on their own. Some campaigns they can't win on their own, so they need to help of the Imperial Guard and vice versa.

Codices and Core Rulebooks are not written with fluff bunnies in mind that seek to find loopholes to justify their preferred interpretation. They provide a basic introduction to the setting. You have been given an explicit description of the Astartes toughness. As long as you can't find a description that is both conflicting and more valid, this one seems to stand.

Ultimately, it's you who has on page 1 still been talking about "GW Marines", and now shifted to "Core Rulebook Marines". Because you agree that GW has indeed published material that contradicts your preferred interpretation?

How is stating that GW has left substantial wiggle room for differing interpretations not implication that there is contradicting material? Surely, there is such. That doesn't mean that Core Rulebook Marines aren't at the heart of GW fluff Marines.

Actually, yes.

An example from the 5E Core Rulebook that springs to mind: "Wherever there are foes of the Emperor, the Sisters of Battle will be found fighting to the last."

If I were to take these sentences as literal as you do, I'm now supposed to assume that the Battle Sisters are more numerous than the Imperial Guard, and apparently found even deep inside the Eye of Terror and within the realms of the Chaos Gods, as well as in cult-infected Underhives, on Eldar Craftworlds or Necron Tombworlds. I hope you see why I'm cautioning against getting caught up in what often seems suspiciously like metaphorical glorification.

There's also a Codex quote referring to a force of 1.000 Battle Sisters liberating a hundred worlds, but in my opinion this either leaves the rest of a significant crusade force unmentioned or actually says more about those hundred worlds than it does about the Battle Sisters. Exactly like with the sub-sector quote you plucked from the Core Rulebook.

LOL, I don't take the Astartes quotes that literal at all. When it says "thrice as tough as a normal man", it means to me just "zoggin' lotz tougher". Not merely "Special Forces+1".

Again, one can always claim "This is myth/propaganda/exaggeration". Always. But this is by itself no argument. It's tantamount to merely saying: "I don't buy it." Which is fine but GW stated it in a central publication nonetheless.

You can either try to override that with another as explicit quote.

Or you can point out that there are inconsistencies in comparison to ither publications. Of course there are. Because there is wiggle room. However, you would probably find it hard to gain credibility if you were to claim my inferences taken from the Index Astartes and Codex IG and the Inquisitor game are more valid than this quote from the Core Rulebook.

I might be wrong but I think you're not going to convince an awful lot of people.

Not with the way TB works here - based on what GW said as well (the 50-85% injury chance). Also, how does Soak Fire not define the power level of DW Marines? It's part of their arsenal, and nicely demonstrates how over the top Deathwatch can be.

Because you can only do this if a number of significant conditions are met. Also, noone here disputes that this isn't over the top. Noone disputes that DW doesn't go over the top at higher ranks. Noone disputes that in a complex game as DW there aren't mechanics (talents/abilities) that make no sense/are exploitable/make PCs too strong. I can find such in DH and RT too, I guess.

But the basic Rank 1 DW Marine as can be found in my group or in the online group I am playing in is just fine and consistent with the Core Rulebook fluff which I consider to be GW fluff, as does FFG, as do many BL authors, as do many gamers.

In short: GW has created their setting intentionally so that there is no consistency. A PC game studio needs epic marines because their game features a single marine fighting against huge odds? No problem! Another studio has a squad based game and need Lynata Marines to make the game feel properly balanced? No problem either!

But within the wiggle room there is, GW chose to adopt pretty epic marines for their central publication: the Core Rulebook.

I actually agree that more people have access to the Core Rulebook, so one should assume it's a common ground, yet in reality this does not fit the debates I have witnessed. Far more often, people present incidents from their favourite novel.

Perhaps it's because they only glanced at the fluff section, thinking it's uninteresting. Perhaps they did not expect the Core Rulebook to actually contain this information. Either way, for an example just look at how many people still think Space Marines cannot die of old age, though it says it right in the book. Whenever the discussion pops up, what do people present as material? The Horus Heresy novels.

And I swear, if I'd get a dime every time I post "7 feet according to GW", I would have had enough cash for the Complete SM Chapter deal by now.

About 8 feet in armour, right? That's what I remember from the top of my head.

Anyway, there's probably a lot of people who play 40K TT and don't read any novels. Not everyone is a 40K (fluff) enthusiast.

Those people will almost certainly not read any Index Astartes or Inquisitor rules.

Then I don't get what the problem is. This is the same sort of people growing up on the places that many Dark Heresy and Only War characters are recruited from (as the quotes should have shown), with many the same challenges and trials. If a young Feral World warrior making it through a trial on an Astartes fief world is considered a "heroic feat", then the same applies if it happens on a normal Imperial Feral World for a different occasion*. Same for the (Under-)Hives, etc. These selections are not a monopoly of the Adeptus Astartes, they are the way of life of the native inhabitants on that world - adopted , not introduced by the Chapter that settled there.

*: "On some of the more savage frontier worlds, these competitions can escalate into affairs that claim as many lives as a small war."

- Codex:IG, Recruitment

Well, I am under the assumption that the elite fighting force of the IoM has elite requirements for selecting Aspirants. You seem to disagree.

I have a feeling we're still talking past each other on some level. I don't disagree with the resilience described in the Core Rulebook. I just don't interpret it in the same way you do.

"Against most small arms the armour reduces the chance of injury by between 50-85%, and it provides some form of protection against all except the most powerful weapons encountered on the battlefields of the 41st Millenium."

- 2E C:AoD

^ This alone is clearly way, way more vulnerable than Deathwatch. Not because power armour works differently there, but because that system employs a game mechanic that lets bodies be tougher than armour, thus preventing injury entirely.

Objection, you're assuming that your interpretation of Toughness is correct, I am disputing that. In fact when a DW Marine gets 7 armour penetrating damage, this is a wound that would be heavy wound for a normal TB3 man. It might not be a wound as heavy for the Astartes but it is likely to be a visible, bleeding wound - which has no tangible effect on his performance or durability. That's how I interpret it and it keeps the whole thing consistent enough with GW fluff.

The above quote seems to refer to the 2E crunch. Which save did PA have back then again? 3+? So sounds a fair description of how the crunch worked back then.

Why?

As I said, they are central documents to the 40K game world. Right now, 6E is central. Inquisitor is a legacy spin-off. It's like claiming the Doctor Who series is more canon than The Adventures of Sarah Jane. I mean... that's kinda a given.

Alex

The only reason GW made power armor susceptible to lasguns 33.33% of the time is because they 1) wanted a game everybody could play with a box of 6-sided dice, and 2) they wanted there to be a difference between power armor and terminator armor. Really, it's just a matter of game balance and playability.

In earlier editions of the game, power armour was only effective against lasgun fire 50% of the time, while terminator armour was effective far far more than that (terminators used to have a 3+ save on 2d6...). The removal of save modifiers meant that 3+ was appropriate because it meant anti-tank missiles wouldn't allow the armour to provide any armour save at all. I think you're confusing cause and effect here.

It doesn't invalidate the argument that there is a glaringly obvious inconsistency between crunch and fluff which cannot be but intentional. Which in turn means that if you want to interpret your TT battles in the Core Rulebook fluff sense, one guardsman mini must stand for multiples. Which in turn means one lasgun attack in the game world would stand for several lasgun attackers. See my above quotes from the Core Rulebooks.

Actually it does invalidate it to an extent. Its not that the fluff and the mechanics are inconsistent, its that the CURRENT fluff is slightly inconsistent with the mechanics. The edition I am referring to is specifically 2nd edition, and the fluff from that time was consistent with this depiction. However when third edition came along and the rules changed so that now an anti-tank missile was required to deny a space marine an armour save (whereas previously they dropped fairly easily to bolter fire, with bolters having a -2 save modifier) a lot of the fluff writers started to depict them as being nigh invincible, much closer to the demi gods you prefer to see them as. Accurate in the current interpretation, but a depiction that would have seemed laughable before. The problem is more that the current fluff has depicted them TOO highly, and the table top rules don't match up.

While we're on it, another point worth noting from the 2nd Edition depiction of Space Marines is that they were the only unit capable of rapid firing their weapons, and didn't have the immunity to moral checks they have now ('And they shall know no fear' wasn't introduced until 3rd Edition) meaning that for a long time in the game it was perfectly feasible to see a tactical squad get hosed by a group of orks, taking large casualties and then fall back off the table. According to the contemporary fluff, it was their training that allowed them to do that. Their damage OUTPUT was higher, but their resilience was nothing to write home about (although still "better" than the average save of 'sweet F.A' after armour modifiers). I think thats a really important difference in the depiction between editions. In early editions of the game power armour was special because it usually let you take a save AT ALL against most incoming fire, not that it was especially good at doing so. For someone playing the game as long as me, this had the effect of making the universes guns feel weaker, not making space marines feel stronger.

The 2nd Ed fluff was, as a whole, less concerned with Space Marines than the later Editions have been, and there are far more examples in it of them taking losses. This was fitting for that edition of the game.

AK-73: "The above quote seems to refer to the 2E crunch. Which save did PA have back then again? 3+? So sounds a fair description of how the crunch worked back then."

This is a misinterpretation on your part from not understanding (or not remembering) the 2nd edition rules. Lynata's quote is actually far to generous in practice.

To demonstrate the difference, in 2nd edition 20 ork boys firing at 10 space marines will reliably kill 3.5 marines a turn (a turn representing a few SECONDS in game time). In the 3rd edition they will kill 1 if they're lucky.

Heavy weapons skew it further. An imperial guard auto cannon squad (3 teams) might kill two space marines these days. It could reliably kill 5 or 6 back when.

Actually it does invalidate it to an extent. Its not that the fluff and the mechanics are inconsistent, its that the CURRENT fluff is slightly inconsistent with the mechanics. The edition I am referring to is specifically 2nd edition, and the fluff from that time was consistent with this depiction. However when third edition came along and the rules changed so that now an anti-tank missile was required to deny a space marine an armour save (whereas previously they dropped fairly easily to bolter fire, with bolters having a -2 save modifier) a lot of the fluff writers started to depict them as being nigh invincible, much closer to the demi gods you prefer to see them as. Accurate in the current interpretation, but a depiction that would have seemed laughable before. The problem is more that the current fluff has depicted them TOO highly, and the table top rules don't match up.

The fact that the gap is so glaringly obvious shows that this isn't an accident. This high gap has been created intentionally. Apparently GW thinks that fluff is more interesting/sells better this way. Which in turn means again: this is the universe that GW wants to sell to gamers as the background setting.

And this is the universe DW runs in. Not the crunch universe.

While we're on it, another point worth noting from the 2nd Edition depiction of Space Marines is that they were the only unit capable of rapid firing their weapons, and didn't have the immunity to moral checks they have now ('And they shall know no fear' wasn't introduced until 3rd Edition) meaning that for a long time in the game it was perfectly feasible to see a tactical squad get hosed by a group of orks, taking large casualties and then fall back off the table. According to the contemporary fluff, it was their training that allowed them to do that. Their damage OUTPUT was higher, but their resilience was nothing to write home about (although still "better" than the average save of 'sweet F.A' after armour modifiers). I think thats a really important difference in the depiction between editions. In early editions of the game power armour was special because it usually let you take a save AT ALL against most incoming fire, not that it was especially good at doing so. For someone playing the game as long as me, this had the effect of making the universes guns feel weaker, not making space marines feel stronger.

The 2nd Ed fluff was, as a whole, less concerned with Space Marines than the later Editions have been, and there are far more examples in it of them taking losses. This was fitting for that edition of the game.

They were even weaker in 1E. What's your point? The crunch and the fluff have obviously evolved since then. DW doesn't try to recreate 40K 2E.

Actually it does invalidate it to an extent. Its not that the fluff and the mechanics are inconsistent, its that the CURRENT fluff is slightly inconsistent with the mechanics. The edition I am referring to is specifically 2nd edition, and the fluff from that time was consistent with this depiction. However when third edition came along and the rules changed so that now an anti-tank missile was required to deny a space marine an armour save (whereas previously they dropped fairly easily to bolter fire, with bolters having a -2 save modifier) a lot of the fluff writers started to depict them as being nigh invincible, much closer to the demi gods you prefer to see them as. Accurate in the current interpretation, but a depiction that would have seemed laughable before. The problem is more that the current fluff has depicted them TOO highly, and the table top rules don't match up.

While we're on it, another point worth noting from the 2nd Edition depiction of Space Marines is that they were the only unit capable of rapid firing their weapons, and didn't have the immunity to moral checks they have now ('And they shall know no fear' wasn't introduced until 3rd Edition) meaning that for a long time in the game it was perfectly feasible to see a tactical squad get hosed by a group of orks, taking large casualties and then fall back off the table. According to the contemporary fluff, it was their training that allowed them to do that. Their damage OUTPUT was higher, but their resilience was nothing to write home about (although still "better" than the average save of 'sweet F.A' after armour modifiers). I think thats a really important difference in the depiction between editions. In early editions of the game power armour was special because it usually let you take a save AT ALL against most incoming fire, not that it was especially good at doing so. For someone playing the game as long as me, this had the effect of making the universes guns feel weaker, not making space marines feel stronger.

The 2nd Ed fluff was, as a whole, less concerned with Space Marines than the later Editions have been, and there are far more examples in it of them taking losses. This was fitting for that edition of the game.

AK-73: "The above quote seems to refer to the 2E crunch. Which save did PA have back then again? 3+? So sounds a fair description of how the crunch worked back then."

This is a misinterpretation on your part from not understanding (or not remembering) the 2nd edition rules. Lynata's quote is actually far to generous in practice.

To demonstrate the difference, in 2nd edition 20 ork boys firing at 10 space marines will reliably kill 3.5 marines a turn (a turn representing a few SECONDS in game time). In the 3rd edition they will kill 1 if they're lucky.

Heavy weapons skew it further. An imperial guard auto cannon squad (3 teams) might kill two space marines these days. It could reliably kill 5 or 6 back when.

That depends on what is meant by small arms fire. And it provides some protection against all but the heaviest of weapons.

Yeah, sorry, this quote seems like a description of 2E crunch. And not of 4E onwards fluff which is totally decoupled from crunch mechanics. I don't think that DW should have been modeled against 2E crunch.

Alex

I give up - we clearly won't be able to convince one another.

Which brings us back to CSM 3E, page 3. Which you put off as propaganda/exaggeration before.

Correction: What I have been saying is that this world apparently must not have been offering much resistance (as opposed to, say, the rebel warlord in my counter-quote) - the fact that, according to your own source, that planet had only a single armoury lends some credence to this thought.

Not at all. Contrary to you, I just fail to see what elevates one "elite requirements trial" above another if the one and only difference is that one is held on a Marine homeworld. It doesn't get much harder than "there's a high chance of dying".

About 8 feet in armour, right? That's what I remember from the top of my head.

I rest my case.

My point is that the fluff and mechanics were consistent at the time the fluff was written, a point you concede despite your efforts to be condescending.

Its not that the fluff and the mechanics are inconsistent, its that the CURRENT fluff is slightly inconsistent with the mechanics. The edition I am referring to is specifically 2nd edition , and the fluff from that time was consistent with this depiction . However when third edition came along and the rules changed so that now an anti-tank missile was required to deny a space marine an armour save (whereas previously they dropped fairly easily to bolter fire , with bolters having a -2 save modifier) a lot of the fluff writers started to depict them as being nigh invincible, much closer to the demi gods you prefer to see them as. Accurate in the current interpretation, but a depiction that would have seemed laughable before. The problem is more that the current fluff has depicted them TOO highly, and the table top rules don't match up.

Yeah, sorry, this quote seems like a description of 2E crunch. And not of 4E onwards fluff which is totally decoupled from crunch mechanics. I don't think that DW should have been modeled against 2E crunch.

Alex

That is seriously the most long winded and aggressive way anyone on this forum has said 'yes, I agree, thanks for your input'

However let me be clearer about the 'crunch' issue. Those rolls include toughness negating hits as well, which is not tied to the armour the unit wears. In second edition power armour grants a 3+ save, but a boltgun has a -2 save modifier, ergo power armour was only effective against boltgun fire 33% of the time. Not the higher numbers Lynata quoted.

The higher numbers are actually more concurrent with the current table top depiction, where a bolter does not have the power to have any effect on the protection provided by power armour. Before you dismiss this, remember there is a large portion of the TT community arguing for the reintroduction of save modifiers, and the game has been creeping slowly back towards 2nd edition with every new edition since 4th.

My point is that the fluff and mechanics were consistent at the time the fluff was written, a point you concede despite your efforts to be condescending.

That is seriously the most long winded and aggressive way anyone on this forum has said 'yes, I agree, thanks for your input'

Jesus.

However let me be clearer about the 'crunch' issue. Those rolls include toughness negating hits as well, which is not tied to the armour the unit wears. In second edition power armour grants a 3+ save, but a boltgun has a -2 save modifier, ergo power armour was only effective against boltgun fire 33% of the time. Not the higher numbers Lynata quoted.

The higher numbers are actually more concurrent with the current table top depiction, where a bolter does not have the power to have any effect on the protection provided by power armour. Before you dismiss this, remember there is a large portion of the TT community arguing for the reintroduction of save modifiers, and the game has been creeping slowly back towards 2nd edition with every new edition since 4th.

I took the expression "small arms" to refer in this specific context to refer to weapons that have a save modifier of +1,+0,-1. You will see that probabilities line up very nicely to that.

I give up - we clearly won't be able to convince one another.

We seem to be reading different things out of the same sentences, we are obviously using different material to form our vision, and we cannot agree on when one quote conflicts with another one. Apparently, we cannot even agree on whether GW's vision of the setting would entail all of their books, or just a few specific ones.

I am saying that GW doesn't have one fixed vision. It seems to have a rough idea of marines around which there is the aforementioned wiggle room

Which brings us back to CSM 3E, page 3. Which you put off as propaganda/exaggeration before.

Correction: What I have been saying is that this world apparently must not have been offering much resistance (as opposed to, say, the rebel warlord in my counter-quote) - the fact that, according to your own source, that planet had only a single armoury lends some credence to this thought.

Otoh, they were advanced enough to maintain orbital platforms of substantial size. So no feral worlders with axes only.

Well, the question is which planets the Marines can actually conquer and which not. Would they have been unable to defeat the planet if it had 5 armories? 10? 25? Where do we draw the line?

Personally, I think the existence of crusading chapters proves that Space Marines can take on most planets on their own. Very well defended planets require assistance though, no doubt. What exactly constitutes "very well defended"? Unknown, GW seems to be vague here, leaving wiggle room.

Not at all. Contrary to you, I just fail to see what elevates one "elite requirements trial" above another if the one and only difference is that one is held on a Marine homeworld. It doesn't get much harder than "there's a high chance of dying".

Survivability might not be the only trait required, right?

I consider it kinda heroic to get selected by a chapter, pass the trials of an Aspirant, survive the implantation process, etc. But then again Astartes have a higher standing in my game world than in yours, so that might be where the difference in perception comes from.

I rest my case.

It has never an issue of particular interest to me. Marines are large and in PA even larger.

Alex

I took the expression "small arms" to refer in this specific context to refer to weapons that have a save modifier of +1,+0,-1. You will see that probabilities line up very nicely to that.

"Small arms" is actually a fairly established term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/small%20arm

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/549308/small-arm

For example, las pistols, boltguns, autorifles are all small arms.

I am saying that GW doesn't have one fixed vision. It seems to have a rough idea of marines around which there is the aforementioned wiggle room

And I'm saying your interpretation of "GW's wiggle room" is different from mine if you limit your perception to two of GW's books rather than everything the studio have published.

The more detail you add to something, the more you narrow things down. I like things being narrowed down, because the less wiggle room there is, the more common ground you have.

Survivability might not be the only trait required, right?

I consider it kinda heroic to get selected by a chapter, pass the trials of an Aspirant, survive the implantation process, etc. But then again Astartes have a higher standing in my game world than in yours, so that might be where the difference in perception comes from.

Depends on the Chapter, yes. Some - such as the aforementioned Salamanders - look for good blacksmiths. I'd see this the same way as I view the backgrounds of DH/RT/OW characters, though, in that this just means that some characters had to go through dangerous trials, whilst others just had to show aptitude and skill.

Though for the Space Marines, of course genetic compatibility is another factor limiting the pool of recruits. Fortunately for them, what makes them Astartes would pretty much make any physical differences between individual Aspirants insignificant - the trials that some Chapters force upon them are a matter of native culture/tradition (hence my repeated insistence that you'd find similar rituals and trials on non-Marine worlds), not necessity.

Which is why the Salamanders are not worse than other Chapters just because they look for kids who make good blacksmiths rather than those who were strong fighters. Both perks are similarly useless once they become Astartes. They are essentially "reborn" into their new role.

Ultimately ... yep, seems to be a difference in perception yet again.

Incidentally, Marines are not only, what's the word the kids use nowadays, epic in fluff, they are in TT as well by any "realistic" measure.

At range, a marine has an over 7 times higher chance in TT to kill a trained soldier (= a guardsman) than the other way around, an 11 times higher chance to kill an untrained soldier, and is over twice as likely to kill a power-armoured warrior nun, albeit she can get up to near-parity briefly if she cheats and uses her girly faith ability. (Amusingly, guardsman are actually better off in melee with an Astartes than at range if we abstract out the falling-back mechanic.) That's a pretty impressive differences.

They model for model are the best troops in the game by a significant amount, if we discount genetically engineered killing Tyranid machines and ancient zombies. Not just ancient zombies, but ancient military veteran zombie warriors.

I'll just ignore that derogatory, rather sexist remark and say: "good point".

Personally, I've always been of the opinion that the TT is a fairly good benchmark (in that it's the best we have), as it offers a crystal-clear classification into what beats what, using actual numbers and thus leaving considerably less room for interpretation, and being one of the very few sources where every faction is treated equally.

This mathematic analysis only serves to underline how powerful the Space Marines actually are even if you use TT standards, which are usually frowned upon for "not being epic enough". And, coincidentally, it nicely fits to that Rogal Dorn quote with the 1:10 ratio.

Look, I wanna make this simple:

You have obviously contradictory stuff in GW's lore. Can't deny that. Which means you cannot create an interpretation that is 100%ly consistent with everything that has been published. You can now do two things:

a) You can try to minimize inconsistencies. Which has only a point if the resulting interpretation has significant less contradictions than other interpretations. Maybe you claim that for your interpretation but I don't see it.

b) You can try to scrap the whole notion and settle for an interpretation you like or which fits your game's needs (what I think happened with the Inquisitor game).

I choose b) and I think FFG chose b) too. The RPG is deemed for fun if the PC KT is not under the constant thumb of an NPC Inq and can operate more or less freely? Alright, we make the Marines and the Inquisition partners. (Incidentally, I believe that their not being partners would be GW core fluff but that GW has given FFG behind the scenes the okay and the wiggle room to deviate from what has been published before.)

In fact, I am certain sooner or later a game or two featuring Lynata Marines is bound to appear again. It won't be proof that your interpretation is better or more faithful, it will only be proof that content creators make use of the GW wiggle room to try to keep the experience of the setting fresh. Lynata Marine games will then be followed by Movie Marines games, etc.

That's my take on the situation.

Alex

Maybe you claim that for your interpretation but I don't see it.

I suppose that depends on what qualifies as a contradiction for you.

But like I said, the way we perceive the material is incompatible. And that's about as simple as it can get.

Incidentally, I believe that their not being partners would be GW core fluff

Now I'm puzzled. Even though it doesn't say so in the Core Rulebook or the Codex?

Incidentally, I believe that their not being partners would be GW core fluff

Now I'm puzzled. Even though it doesn't say so in the Core Rulebook or the Codex?

Well, not Core Rulebook fluff. But unless there is a source in a recent GW Core Rulebook that violates it, the original articles about the Deathwatch would still have to be considered the center around which GW allows content creators wiggle room. Without an update by GW itself, it's not clear if there is continuation of it or if the FFG material actually signifies a retcon.

Alex

I was just confused because you have previously defined "core GW fluff" differently.

Probably a misunderstanding.

The original Deathwatch fluff from Index Astartes has recently been reprinted in the Warzone Damnos Apoc supplement.

Not that this must mean a lot, mind you. From what I have seen of the most recent books, GW has unfortunately indeed become somewhat more prone to retconning stuff. I'm actually considering "locking down" my interpretation of the setting as opposed to my present stance of sticking to anything they publish.

The "wiggle room" you allude to has always seemed to be primarily concerned with tone and atmosphere rather than detail - although there are a some very few things that need to be universally consistent, such as the Ultramarines wearing blue. Gav Thorpe talked a bit about this concept on his blog . Everything else? Possibly true. Or just a myth/legend/propaganda/hearsay, depending on how you want to perceive it and to which vision you want to subscribe.