I don't know if this discussion is still open but I have burned a few brain cells thinking about this. Admittedly it's only in conceptual stage but this is where I'm at.

1.) The basic idea is to quantify the nature of an Astartes before they get to the level of DW.

2.) An Initiate Space marine (Scout/Bloodclaw/Neophyte) is the equivalent of a RT starting character so ~ 5000 xp.

3.) A full fledged Battle brother is the equivalent of a BC CSM so ~8000 XP.

4.) A Veteran SM is the equivalent of a DW marine.

5.) Space Marines would not have comrades per se. Instead I would recommend purchasing solo and squad modes in a similar manner to comrade xp advances.

6.) As I understand the fluff, All SM start out as fairly generic combat marines and do not actually specialize until they reach the veteran stage. As such there is only one SM "Class". They will progress from Initiate, Devastator, Assault and Tactical Marine assignments in whatever order is dictated by their specific Chapter. Their choices of skills/feats will determine their specialization when they reach Veteran level.

7.) Equipment: SM Initiates start out with either Scout Carapace or Powered armor.

All Space Marines are equipped with a bolt pistol, Astartes combat knife, 3 Astartes Frag grenades and 3 Astartes Krak Grenades.

8.) Advancement: I am no expert at dissecting the aptitude system so I will leave that to others who understand it better.

That's as far as I got for now. hope it helps.

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/126278-sons-of-the-emperor-adeptus-astartes-conversion-for-only-war/

Feel free to follow progress here.

I think its probably fair of me to say that I don't actually care what the established convention is with regard to FFG's existing marines. There has always been massive disparity between their capabilities here and their capabilities in the table top.

People keep telling me that they're meant to be unstoppable juggernauts, which they aren't. The fluff is intrinsically a narrative backdrop to the table top rules and most of it is subject to in-universe interpretation and gushing fanboyism from authors and gamers alike.

A Space Marine is more than a man, but he remains less than a god, and I want my marines to feel like a single pulse rifle has the potential to be a threat. The average Deathwatch marine has in TB almost double the Toughness score of Malneus Calgar on the table.

Nonethless I appreciate when people take the time to post with the best of intentions. So I thank you for that.

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/126278-sons-of-the-emperor-adeptus-astartes-conversion-for-only-war/

Feel free to follow progress here.

I think its probably fair of me to say that I don't actually care what the established convention is with regard to FFG's existing marines. There has always been massive disparity between their capabilities here and their capabilities in the table top.

People keep telling me that they're meant to be unstoppable juggernauts, which they aren't. The fluff is intrinsically a narrative backdrop to the table top rules and most of it is subject to in-universe interpretation and gushing fanboyism from authors and gamers alike.

A Space Marine is more than a man, but he remains less than a god, and I want my marines to feel like a single pulse rifle has the potential to be a threat. The average Deathwatch marine has in TB almost double the Toughness score of Malneus Calgar on the table.

Nonethless I appreciate when people take the time to post with the best of intentions. So I thank you for that.

Yea, table top has rules for balance, SM and CSM are both nerfed heavily from all of the fluff to make them work as an army on TT. If you want a TT experience with actual SM, use the Movie Marines rules that got printed up in White Dwarf. WH40K Roleplay has SM and CSM much closer to the backstory of the universe.

Yea, table top has rules for balance, SM and CSM are both nerfed heavily from all of the fluff to make them work as an army on TT. If you want a TT experience with actual SM, use the Movie Marines rules that got printed up in White Dwarf. WH40K Roleplay has SM and CSM much closer to the backstory of the universe.

A bit OT, but as I see this article being referenced in exactly the wrong way time and time again ...

#1 There is no such thing as a 100% consistent version of "The Fluff" - you will find contradictions on a great many topics, including Space Marine power levels. Hence, the definition of what an "actual SM" is would have to be very flimsy indeed.

#2 Games Workshop wrote its fluff for the game, not its game for the fluff. The idea that they would intentionally write the fluff in a way that would not fit the game seems weird to me.

#3 Said fluff includes a number of instances of Marines getting pwned by anything from Orks to IG to rebellious PDF, up to and including a Marine Commander getting strangled to death by a human officer. Said instances just seem to get ignored by their most vocal fans, or more likely they don't bother to do the research (in their defense, this stuff is usually "hidden away" in the codices of other armies, or issues of White Dwarf - reading Marine stuff alone will only show you one side of the coin).

Indeed, a number of things in the "backstory of the universe" would be impossible using the rules from FFG's interpretation (where Astartes can solo Bloodthirsters).

#4 If GW had wanted to portray SM as tougher in the TT, they could have easily chosen to do so with a simple points adjustment and still maintain gameplay balance. I posit that the tabletop achieves its balances not by nerfing or buffing individual units, but by using points values resulting in numerical differences.

#5 The Movie Marines rules you are referring to specifically point out that they are based on, and I quote, "the concept of dramatic license, an amusing little technique that involves exaggerating or ignoring facts, physical laws, and general plausability to keep things entertaining. Space Marines are embellished in fiction, where their heroism and invincibility are accentuated."

So the Movie Marines rules are actually evidence against this idea. It is ironic that, most of the time, they are posted as an argument for better Astartes. The rules are called Movie Marines, what do people expect?!

There is no "right" or "wrong" here - Space Marines are as strong as you, the individual reader, want them to be. That's how 40k fluff works . Careful reading in GW's own material would result in noticing that they are a lot more vulnerable there than what I have seen of most 3rd party material, be them Black Library novels, videogames, or the Deathwatch RPG.

Ultimately it depends on which origin of sources you as an individual consider most important. For me, it's GW, as that's the stuff "I grew up with". And for this reason I just can't get used to the more powerful interpretations from various novels or FFG's RPGs. For this reason I applaud ideas and projects such as the one from SgtLazarus here that aim to cater to the more "classic" version of Marines, which I maintain fits better into a setting where the Astartes are just one piece of a puzzle, instead of the shining star around which everything else is supposed to rotate.

Currently looking for ideas for suitable talents on becoming a Librarian Dreadnought, and then I'm planning to begin making advances.

I'll probably borrow heavily from Deathwatch for said advances, but here lies an opportunity for community input.

Yea, table top has rules for balance, SM and CSM are both nerfed heavily from all of the fluff to make them work as an army on TT. If you want a TT experience with actual SM, use the Movie Marines rules that got printed up in White Dwarf. WH40K Roleplay has SM and CSM much closer to the backstory of the universe.

A bit OT, but as I see this article being referenced in exactly the wrong way time and time again ...

#1 There is no such thing as a 100% consistent version of "The Fluff" - you will find contradictions on a great many topics, including Space Marine power levels. Hence, the definition of what an "actual SM" is would have to be very flimsy indeed.

#2 Games Workshop wrote its fluff for the game, not its game for the fluff. The idea that they would intentionally write the fluff in a way that would not fit the game seems weird to me.

#3 Said fluff includes a number of instances of Marines getting pwned by anything from Orks to IG to rebellious PDF, up to and including a Marine Commander getting strangled to death by a human officer. Said instances just seem to get ignored by their most vocal fans, or more likely they don't bother to do the research (in their defense, this stuff is usually "hidden away" in the codices of other armies, or issues of White Dwarf - reading Marine stuff alone will only show you one side of the coin).

Indeed, a number of things in the "backstory of the universe" would be impossible using the rules from FFG's interpretation (where Astartes can solo Bloodthirsters).

#4 If GW had wanted to portray SM as tougher in the TT, they could have easily chosen to do so with a simple points adjustment and still maintain gameplay balance. I posit that the tabletop achieves its balances not by nerfing or buffing individual units, but by using points values resulting in numerical differences.

#5 The Movie Marines rules you are referring to specifically point out that they are based on, and I quote, "the concept of dramatic license, an amusing little technique that involves exaggerating or ignoring facts, physical laws, and general plausability to keep things entertaining. Space Marines are embellished in fiction, where their heroism and invincibility are accentuated."

So the Movie Marines rules are actually evidence against this idea. It is ironic that, most of the time, they are posted as an argument for better Astartes. The rules are called Movie Marines, what do people expect?!

There is no "right" or "wrong" here - Space Marines are as strong as you, the individual reader, want them to be. That's how 40k fluff works . Careful reading in GW's own material would result in noticing that they are a lot more vulnerable there than what I have seen of most 3rd party material, be them Black Library novels, videogames, or the Deathwatch RPG.

Ultimately it depends on which origin of sources you as an individual consider most important. For me, it's GW, as that's the stuff "I grew up with". And for this reason I just can't get used to the more powerful interpretations from various novels or FFG's RPGs. For this reason I applaud ideas and projects such as the one from SgtLazarus here that aim to cater to the more "classic" version of Marines, which I maintain fits better into a setting where the Astartes are just one piece of a puzzle, instead of the shining star around which everything else is supposed to rotate.

I will address more points when I get more time, but on #2 and #4, GW only does rules changes for one thing, to drive sales. You can't make money if your most popular army requires 10 figures that costs a person $50. Much better to sell them 50 + vehicles for $400+.

#1 and #3 Fluff varies, but you go with the most common and likely. Genetically engineered, indoctrinated, superhuman warrior monks are going to be significantly more powerful than Guardsman.

Rogue Trader (TT wargame) dropped out of the fluff a long time ago. Sadly Marines are no longer convicts strapped into power armor with augments and let loose on the enemy. Of course, it TT, the standard human is only 16% less tough than an Ork, and equally as strong...I don't think basing fictional units power levels on tabletop balance for a game based around marketing more miniatures is the best way to go. Hell, they remake entire editions just to sell things that either aren't selling, or to introduce a new mechanic just to sell more.

#5 Movie Marines: Yes, they are following the marines of the fiction over the tabletop rules, or anything involving reality. Marines are 7-8 foot tall monsters that spit acid (Dependent on chapter, this gland may not function), have massive skeletons with a fused ribcage forming a plate of bone, and can eat their enemies brains to gain some of their knowledge. They also have the standard 2 hearts, 3 lungs, etc. Combined with the other implants I am going to go out on a limb here and say they should be significantly faster, stronger, tougher, than a Guardsman.

In the end he can do his Marines any way he likes. But we are all free to discuss them.

I will address more points when I get more time, but on #2 and #4, GW only does rules changes for one thing, to drive sales. You can't make money if your most popular army requires 10 figures that costs a person $50. Much better to sell them 50 + vehicles for $400+.

#1 and #3 Fluff varies, but you go with the most common and likely. Genetically engineered, indoctrinated, superhuman warrior monks are going to be significantly more powerful than Guardsman.

I see this as more in-line with what Lynata has said than what you originally posited. If they change rules to drive sales, then by nature the fluff is maleable and whatever people want it to be. Because GW wants to make a higher profit margin doesn't change how I personally want to run and interpret my game.

Your second point is entirely subjective and reliant upon the first - and only - point: people go with what they WANT to. If there is a majority in agreement upon something, that still does not silence the minority who want to run it a different way. That is why forums like these exist, so that we can make new house rules based on interpretations.

I personally love the movie marines, but I get what Sgt.Laz is trying to do and I am more inclined than not to agree with Lynata's well thought out and sourced explanation of ambiguity.

Edit: And you are right, we are definitely free to discuss it! Absolutely. But Sgt. Lazarus has stated multiple times that he is building his Marines a specific way and those who don't agree can eat a ****, thus this is not the right place to discuss it. Other places, absolutely! Let's talk!

I will address more points when I get more time, but on #2 and #4, GW only does rules changes for one thing, to drive sales. You can't make money if your most popular army requires 10 figures that costs a person $50. Much better to sell them 50 + vehicles for $400+.

#1 and #3 Fluff varies, but you go with the most common and likely. Genetically engineered, indoctrinated, superhuman warrior monks are going to be significantly more powerful than Guardsman.

Rogue Trader (TT wargame) dropped out of the fluff a long time ago. Sadly Marines are no longer convicts strapped into power armor with augments and let loose on the enemy. Of course, it TT, the standard human is only 16% less tough than an Ork, and equally as strong...I don't think basing fictional units power levels on tabletop balance for a game based around marketing more miniatures is the best way to go. Hell, they remake entire editions just to sell things that either aren't selling, or to introduce a new mechanic just to sell more.

#5 Movie Marines: Yes, they are following the marines of the fiction over the tabletop rules, or anything involving reality. Marines are 7-8 foot tall monsters that spit acid (Dependent on chapter, this gland may not function), have massive skeletons with a fused ribcage forming a plate of bone, and can eat their enemies brains to gain some of their knowledge. They also have the standard 2 hearts, 3 lungs, etc. Combined with the other implants I am going to go out on a limb here and say they should be significantly faster, stronger, tougher, than a Guardsman.

Most notably, Marines being stronger and tougher still doesn't mean they have to be laserproof.

I'm always up for a chat about Marines and their different interpretations! They were my very first 40k minis and I've read a lot of their (GW) fluff.

I'm not sure if SgtLazarus still "needs" this thread, though, as he has posted his rules in a separate feedback thread in the house rules forum now...? I'd be okay with a new thread or private messages, too, though more opinions and readers are always more fun.

Everyone gets into the setting in their own way, and the type of sources they are exposed to will shape their first impression of everything

This is spot on. I am currently re-reading (literally, my kindle is right next to me on my desk) "Nightbringer" by Graham McNeill. This was the very first piece of material I ever picked up that introduced me to the 40k universe. I didn't even know it existed before reading this back when I was 15. So, naturally you can assume I was pretty confused getting into it and by the end I had my fingers crossed just HOPING that there was something more out there to shed some light on this wonderful universe - and the rest, of course, is history.

However, being my first exposure to the Astartes, this book has shaped how I view them. In many ways, McNeill's Astartes are the Movie Marines we are talking about and I love that aspect of them. But I also appreciate and enjoy they less buffed - more realistic version of them that Sgt.Laz is taking upon himself to create.

And when/if I ever use an Astartes in my OW game, I will no doubt be using his nerfed version just to make it all make a little more sense technically in-game.

My first exposure to Astartes was gunning them down in Dawn of War using their traitor counterparts, after my friend showed me his collection of Chaos Marine Minis. It showed me that Marines were very much mortal and able to be killed en masse with the right tools for the job.

Thanks for the support for the project though, guys, and I fully endorse people going put and buying the Deathwatch books for the Movie Marines feel.

As for this project, its intended to cater to a niche that isn't already filled per se. What's the point in reinventing the wheel by duplicating Deathwatch after all? For those of you who just want Deathwatch with aptitudes, I've already laid the groundwork for you.

As I figure it, discussing which is the correct interpretation of marines is a load of bollocks because of the sheer number of inconsistencies in portrayals. I'm an engineer of a sort by vocation, and I deal with numbers. Table top offers me the closest thing to a universal set of numbers.

Eventually I'm planning to do Only War conversions of literally everything from table top if only as a unified bestiary / armoury.

Given I'm going to be unemployed soon at this rate, free time will likely skyrocket and FFG is welcome to take on a pair of idle hands lol.

Edit - I prefer feedback in this thread so as not to clog the other one with unnecessary debate and suggestions - it's intended as a reference document for said rules.

Going to start work on advances in the coming days.