Gokerz said:

From what I have gathered, the Codex approach is a combined arms tactic of applying the right kind and amount of pressure to the situation as it dictates. Hence why, many times the Ultras make use of all assets they have at there disposal including using the guardsmen and their armor on the front, in addition to theirs. This allows for the pain of losses to be spread and no one single way of fighting be given to the enemy keeping them off guard. Hence also, by spreading the pain the Ultras keep the Emporer's machine of divine destruction going at maximum effectiveness. Because when you get down to it, thats what the Holy Angels of Death are there for right?

My thoughts, take em or leave em

-J

I'd agree with that, JKilla. There was also a recent short story about the codex which showed Gulliman winning over his own marines with the efficacy of the Codex during the heresy: apparently following its doctrines to the letter seems bizarrely counter-intuitive to the troops on the ground, but it all seems to miraculously come together with a victory when all seemed impossible minutes before.

Hello Auris Terribus!

(Zap works, but Mr. Piel is what they call my dad, so, not that one, pls! )

My only response to d'nd alignments is an example posited by others many years ago, and which I now borrow here: let us take for example the historic Hundred Years' War between France and England...both powers regarded themselves as lawful good, having the divine sanction of Holy God to purge from the earth their heretical opponents...but how could this be? Lawful good cannot, by definition, wage total war upon lawful good; lawful good's enemy is chaotic evil. But if both sides see the other as chaotic evil, how can this be? If I'm LG, I see you as CE; regardless of how you see yourself, you're CE, aren't you? Or am I CE, only I think I'm LG? How can we decide? Who's right? Who's LG?

And Robin Hood would be chaotic evil or neutral evil from the Sheriff's perspective (and perhaps pure neutral from his own perspective, as he's simply bringing more balance to the world). The god-fearing peasants thought he was lawful good, as he obeyed scripture by being charitable to the poor.

D'nD alignments don't work because it's not an absolute system - it's a system based on perception; it's relative. Can morality be relative? (woops! that might be too heavy a question for simple marines like us to tackle! ) (No, actually, I guess the point of morality is that it isn't supposed to be relative...but, in real life, it seems that it is...geah! morality too ambiguous for marine...must kill for Emperor...)

Let us take 40k: space marines, all, would say they're lawful good; but anyone who's seen them in action would doubt that...anything non-human would know for a fact that marine's are all chaotic evil monsters from their worst nightmares...most citizens might agree that Ultramarines are lawful good; but could the same be said of Space Wolves? Black Templars? Pain-loving Imperial Fists? What is lawful or good about self-mutilation? Such acts reflect an intense fear or hatred of the self; nothing very lawful or good about fear or hatred...

But (to get back on topic), self-mutilation does make for good story, or can, especially when the other marines in the kill team wonder aloud just what their brother is doing to himself and why. Perhaps it's a practice the Ultramarine finds useful in his own quest to trust the Codex above all. Or maybe it's something the Dark Angel takes a liking to, perhaps to atone for the tortures he's inflicted on others in the past. Certainly the Ultra and the Dark would be drawn closer to their Imperial Fist brother - wouldn't it be poignant for an Imperial Fist to be moved to tearful grief by the death of his friend, an Ultramarine who was once his bitter rival? There's a few stories in that little scenario, and there are lottsa scenarios that could develop from just this one little hook.

Or, to take up Lightbringer's point, several stories could be driven by the fanatical Ultramarine who is hellbent to prove to his kill team that the Codex can be trusted to the letter in all circumstances. What if he's right? What if he's wrong? Lots can happen.

you have too factor in SW great battle hunger and unwillingness to stand aside for good fight

the blood angels natural agressive nature wanting too atack his enemy

the dark angels need for secrecy even if it would or could help the mission they will(might) keep info for themselfs

the barly suprest holy rage of the black templar against any he sees as heretic

the storm wardens prideful honor

ultras need/want too be in command, and use there leaderschip to do everything even if there are those better suited too it (maybe)

and the imp fist stubornness to atmit that sometime things are just that bad and they cant win every fight

just things that might come up

good points, Redhead222!

So, I guess we solved the 'boring' debate with a firm 'no'...yay us!

I have been entertained!

it thats the only thing this tread has been good for that more power too it wish most of the other where just as good and simpel

I never played the tabletop Warhammer 40k game (though I have played Warhammer Fantasy TT), so I wasn't really up on all the lore until I started running my friends in a Deathwatch campaign and started doing some research.

As a result, at first I thought the Ultramarines were pretty boring, although I immediately was fascinated by the Imperial Fists due to their serious emotional damage and masochistic streak. After reading up on the WH 40k lore, I gotta admit I'm really liking the UM alot better now; they have a great role as the "Shining Knights" of the Space Marines.

I still really find IF fascinating, although I agree with someone else's post on this thread that the IF's rules in RoB weren't real impressive. I'm hoping FFG gives them some love in the upcoming First Founding book. The only thing I really don't like about the IF is their colors. Yellow? I ask you, Yellow?? Real men don't wear yellow, and any men as hard as the IF are should NEVER wear yellow! Ah well, they're still cool, even if they dress like big sissies.

Hehateme said:

Yellow and gold are heraldic equivalents in case you don't like yellow.

Alex

Hehateme said:

Real men are comfortable and confident in anything they wear.

Those who find certain colors beneath them are sad and insecure in their masculinity. <--even he's rocking the yellow.

ItsUncertainWho said:

Whether real or unreal, comfortable or uncomfortable, having confidence or lacking it, in the end it all amounts to the same.

Alex

I, for one, find the rules-mongering, empire-building, arrogant, revisionist, self-important, and self-aggrandizing Ultramarines to a be a perfect source of frustrating NPC superiors for my players, as well as good fodder for a growing investigation into their self-serving ways, and a suitable scapegoat for all manner of numbskulled heavyhandedness. The Ultramarines are not boring, they are the perfect source for examples of 10,000 years of tradition and propaganda creating a legend out of lies. I love my interpretation of Ultramarines and my players love to hate them. They are anything but boring.

I think the issue is more that both of them are very stuck in their ways, they don't really respect radical, free-thinking and don't have any particularly unique options open to them - they are the base-line by which all other Astartes are judged. As such, in any roleplay games where players want to be ubarrrrrr and be all unique and edgy, they aren't an obvious choice.

Personally i really like them, in fact i'm playing a hammers of Dorn Librarian in a game at the moment, which is great fun as not only is there a Black Templar who hates me for being a psyker, theres also an Ultramine i have a rivalry with.

Ultimately it's about good roleplayers who have good ideas and stories they wish to craft, and not about chapters that hand you all of your ideas on a plate and require no input (Blood Angels or Spacewolves much?)

I like Ultramarines and Imperial Fists because, being the most "generic" Chapters, they are wide open for roleplaying potential. The other, more superficially "colorful" Chapters actually narrow your opportunities for individuality, rather than expanding them. i.m.o...

Adeptus-B said:

I agree with Adeptus-B in this sense. Starting off in Warhammer 40k, my two friends were Space Wolves Players and Tyranids/ Chaos Nurgle Plague Marines. They wondered how I became a smurf. I personally love playing the a typical marine. Incidentally Ultramarines, Salamanders and Raven Guard are my favorite SM chapters. Depending on your interpretation of the chapter, eg Cato Sicarius vs Uriel Ventris (2 examples where characters in the same chapter maybe different). In fact none of the SM are boring, from the perspective of potential. The sons of Dorn are also like a galaxy away from boring I.M.H.O.

So, it seems we now have two more candidates for 'boring'...space wolves and blood angels...anyone care to take the field in their defense?

Honestly, the idea that Space Wolves are in any way boring or straight-jacketed into any particular personality is just bunk. Every single Great Company has a different from all the others as it can be. The true schtik of the Wolves is their highly individualistic nature. I can't really speak to the nature of the Blood Angels, but I will say that I've been impressed by all the Blood Angels characters that have been played by folks of games I've been in.

But I must contend that the Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are boring and bland, specifically because their whole schtick is in being bland and generic without any real personality to them. But that's just what I think about them. Feel quite free to ignore my opinions on that subject.

just too be clear on this are we talking fluf wise or game wise?

becaus fluf wise none of them are boring. they just have other ways of being badass.

i`m big enuf too say i have a fondess for the space wolfs but that becaus they general don`t take any **** from anyone (imperial or otherwise)

blood angels have this hole strugeling againt the rage thing. (curse for sangues or a khornit deamon lord take your pick). that has a intresting hook if you think about the buetiful ppl with beastial nature that want too be the excampel for humanety but are slowly losing that humanety them selfs

ultra marines are the take charge guys want too be in command, want too follow there rules but also find out that the rules they believe in arn`t always the best things too follow

ditto with IF but there problem is they want too go beyond whats expected of them even and have too be reminded sometime that. ya oke you might have won that battle but it just cost you the war too do it becaus you don`t have the men anymore

too talk about the dark angels seem redunded. and we all know what the black templars problem are or would be

Ultras tend to provide some order, structure and stability to the cacophonia that can exist in a kill-team. Imperial Fists are stubborn and so unrelenting that it even makes Dark Angels look like quitters.

Alex

redhead222 said:

Both. While the game rules do enforce the leaders being different, it is also reflected in the fluff. Each Wolf Lord has a unique personality different from all the others, and they gather those around them that most mesh with their particular outlook and approach to battle. Even those that appear similar have quirks that set them apart.

hey, Redhead222: there's a thread in here (ummm, called 'the Fallen' or some such) that goes into the 'boringness' of the Dark Angels, much like this thread...might be worth a look if you need some alternate views or interpretations of the Lion's Sons.

And this whole Imp Fists thing...not overly familiar with their fluff, but, yeah, from what I can glean, they seem to not have much head for strategy (favouring tactical victory; i.e. short-term view, not overall view). So the 'even stubborner than a Dark Angel' seems to fit...but, in game terms, this does not seem born out by the I.F.'s access to ALL tactics skills at rank 1....what I mean is, it seems to me that someone with such dominant tactical expertise (compared to the other sm chaps) should NOT be such a moron when it comes to grand strategy...not to siderail things too much, but are there any thoughts on this? Have I missed something? Game-wise, it seems the I.F.'s don't quite feel right....but as I say, they are not a chap with which i am overly familiar...

ak-73 said:

Not unless you're in a party consisting of a Dark Angel, a Blood Angel, a Space Wolf and a Storm Warden. I think I am the voice of the "disorder" in the party. Hehe

As far as the Ultramarines and their Codex traditions...if there is one thing that really bugs me about their constantly being presented as limited by the Codex, it's that there is no Codex . Much like lots of the bickering in Marvel during Civil War a few years ago, it seems like (just like the Superhuman Registration Act) the Codex is presented as whatever a given author, writer, or GM wants the Codex to be, rather than being consistently anything. No one knows what the Codex actually says, so it's up to each person to decide if the Codex is full of dumb advice, or an awesome book worth quoting and using all the time.

In some fluff it's a nit-pickingly specific tactical manual that causes Ultramarines to work with insufferable inflexibility, showing how herp-derp stupid they are so that some brave rogue Ultramarine can save the day by thinking outside the box. In some fluff it's presented like Sun Tzu's Art of War (in fact, a lengthy quote from the Codex is FROM the Art of War , in one of the McNeil novels), which makes it a more philosophical text, free to be interpreted in various ways in order to make it applicable to a wider variety of strategic situations.

Without knowing what's in the Codex, as such, I think it's unfair for folks to judge any individual Ultramarine too harshly for following it (or not). If the Codex was as stupid and worthless as it's made out to be in some fluff (so that, invariably, ever major Ultramarine character, ever, has to go against the Codex to win a fight), then the Ultramarines and the majority of other Chapters wouldn't still be using it after 10,000 years, because they'd all be friggin' dead, you know? Doing things "by the book" has to work more often than not, or no one would ever do anything "by the book" any more. "The book" would have to be full of some good ideas, for the Ultramarines and their progenitor Chapters to have the successes they've had over the last ten millenia.

I tried to reply to this once, but the internet seems to have eaten my post (maybe new members aren't allowed to quote posts? I dunno). I'll try it again, and apologize in advance if it's already sitting somewhere and I just can't spot it.

Zappiel said:

I think you're exhibiting a fundamental misunderstanding of the D&D alignment system. I agree that it doesn't work (outside of D&D), but you've got the why all backwards; it isn't a system based on perception or relativity, and D&D's alignment system very much is a system of absolutes. That's why it doesn't work anywhere but in D&D, because in real life (or the grim darkness of the far future) morality is all about shades of grey and perception and relativism and differences in culture, ethics, you name it. In D&D, though? In D&D, as presented, it's very much not.

There are groups of people out there (paladins, for instance) that know they are Good, capital g. They don't think they're good. Outside perceptions of them don't believe them to be good. They aren't kind of maybe convinced on a personal level that they do things for the right reasons. They are Good , in an absolute, supernatural, impossible-in-the-real-world sense. They are blessed with powers to see and smite Evil (another supernatural absolute), and they only have their powers while they are Good . They are granted those powers by extraplanar beings of nigh-infinite power, who are, themselves, Good (in a certain, not relative, way), and people in D&D universes are all convinced of all this not through simple faith or holy texts, but because it's all stuff that works, day in and day out, and they can bring people back from the dead, they can summon and speak with angels and devils and everything in between, or they can go visit those other realms if they want to.

You can like and agree with and be loyal to a high-priest of Bane or Cyric or Tiamat or something, and you won't think they're good (you'll know they're evil because they know they're evil and they revel in being evil, because it's being evil that grants them their powers as favors from an overtly, openly, evil god!). Likewise, a Paladin can be kind of rude to you, or can be mistaken about something and be wrong...but he cannot, will not, be "evil" without there being obvious changes in what he can and can't do with his holy powers. There's no relativism there. There are perceptions of right and wrong, perceptions of liking someone or disagreeing with someone...but no meaningful perceptions of good and evil, because Good and Evil are very, very, real, tangible, forces.

D&D alignment systems are a core part of high fantasy, and there's absolutely no mistaking them for anything but (kind of silly) moral absolutes. Whole monster manual pages are dedicated to creatures whose alignment is presented not only as cultural norms and ethics, but a supernatural part of their makeup (vampires used to just become Chaotic Evil over time, for instance, regardless of their alignment prior to being bitten, I'm not as up on current edition fluff, and Drow had ingrained, natural, tendencies towards evil and manipulation, right alongside their unique appearance, as part of their race's magical curse for betraying the elven pantheon). There are the occasional exception, of course (invariably a player character, or the protagonist of a novel)...but alignment is a very real , very certain, matter in D&D.

Not so much, in real life, or the 40k universe.

Fine and good, Critias; but here's the situation: two good nations in d'nd go to war with each other (foul manipulations of chaos and evil have done their wicked work); both good nations sport armies of paladins; these armies face-off on the field of battle to protect their respective nations' peoples; now what?

We know what happens if, say, Ultramarines and Imperial Fists go at each other: one f@ck of a good fight! But what happens when two armies of lawful good paladins fight each other for the sakes of their people?

Relativism is everywhere ; it's a fundamental function of reality. Can't even escape it in fantasy, darnit...because situations can be imagined wherein lg paladins must fight lg paladins...and then what!?

Now, don't get me wrong: I feel your idealism, i do; and, by all means, maintain this idealism in d'nd (or, indeed, in whatever game you please); I'm not even saying it's not appropriate (in fact, morality does by necessity require teaching; it's too easy to countermand our instinctive morals with convenience or expedience); I'm just saying that the d'nd alignment system is logically inconsistent - an absolute system is flawed, inherently.

And as fer yer Codex point...Indeed!! I too am tired of lazy-arsed writers simply assuming a 10,000 year-proved tactical and strategic treatise is conveniently wrong and their main characters are all conveniently right...sigh...lazy writing, sad...Now, I still appreciate the rules-lawyering nature of the Ultramarines...perhaps we should accept that the novels illustrate those rare few instances when the Codex breaks down...we only write about the Ultras when they hafta break their rules cause that's when the Ultramarines are at their most...interesting...truly, having faced down Behemoth, the only thing that might bother an Ultramarine would be a faith-shattering failure of the Codex...so, maybe not lazy writing after all (depending on how the author executed it, i s'pose).

The flaw in mindlessly following the Codex, though, is that yer enemy knows exactly what yer gonna do....Patton had quite a time making Rommel run through hoops cause he read his book. That didn't take anything away from Rommel's brilliance; but, his mind was in his enemy's hands; the same couldn't be said of unpredictable Patton...