But brining a weapon to your shoulder to fire it is not just about stability, it's also about firing a weeping in a straight line from eye to target via the weapon, you do't get that when shooting from the hip.

As someone who knows something about weapons and martial arts I always found it irritating when people who write about it has no idea, if you write about combat know something about it, don't just think cool. It's like when there is no science in sci-fi.

UncleArkie said:

Space Marines do. As I've mentioned at least twice in this thread alone, Astartes ranged weaponry incorporates auto-sense links that allow the warrior to see from the gun's perspective via his armour's in-built Autosenses… before you consider any other targeting-aid systems within the armour.

This is the point of all the genetically-enhanced warriors the Emperor created - to exceed the limitations of human soldiers, to fight in a manner that mere mortals cannot.

As someone who knows a little about fiction, I always find it irritating when people ***** and whine about realism when dealing with settings where reality is a vague suggestion at best. It's like when there's no fiction in sci-fi.

I deal with reality on a daily basis, and it's boring and annoying and frequently inconvenient. Why would I want to emulate that?

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Because if fiction doesn't in some way related to reality, let us take something with us, teaches us something then it has very little validity as fiction. Escapism can really only carry you so far and I am saying that it has to be absolute, but have to be realistic and consistent. The best sic-fi like Arthur C. Clarke, Charlie Stross and Ray Bradbury all had elements of realism, they knew something about tech, about the way it functions. Even the magical realism of Allende or the full-blown fantasy of Meville or Gaiman invokes lessons that can be applied to real life, gives us something to aspirer to because there are kernels of truth and realism in there, things that we can relate to. If all you do is escape then you're not developing as a person or as a writer.

There is a massive difference between "realistic" and "believable". My group prefers to keep our game "believable" (im an 8ft warrior god who can cleave through thousands of normal men without breaking a sweat) rather than "realistic" (I could not physically exist).

What No-1 has said over and over again is Space Marines are not normal people who need to bring a gun up to eye level to shoot it properly. They basically look out the barrel of their weapons all the time due to technology. That is why the don't need to bring a weapon to their shoulder. They also don't have any concern over controlling the weight or recoil of their weapons.

The best part about your argument is that the tech to hold a gun around a corner and shoot it relatively accurately exists and is in use around the world. The problem people have is that humans are not strong enough to keep a weapon from moving due to recoil, whereas an Astartes is.

Stop trying to ascribe human frailties to Astartes and just sit back and enjoy the madness that is 40K.

FailTruck said:

Most Space Marines are only a bit over 7 ft actually.

I don't suggest these things because I think they are realistic. I suggest them because I think they look really, really cool.

+++++Bringing a weapon up to your shoulder and holding it with both hands for stability is made irrelevant by the strength of a space marine and the stability his armour imparts. Aiming down the sights is made irrelevant by the autosense links in the weapons that allow the firer to see from the weapon's perspective.+++++

Sure, but the trick is to make this look as cool as Mr. Costa running through some drills, which is going to be hard.

I mean, you could probably justify not having an external trigger at all, but I don't see anyone rushing to implement that! Same thing with shell casings - if you can get not having a line of spent brass ejecting out the side of the gun to look as cool as having a line of spent brass ejecting from the gun we can stop drawing it in!

Believable was probably more of the word that I was looking for, sorry about that, internally consistent.

Question, doesn't the link-to-weapon tech sound more like Signums and MIU's?

Much though the artwork and model stances don't really give it away but how Marines fight has been considered in the past. The Mark 6 Corvus armor has the re-enforced left shoulder because that's what they present to the enemy.

Still kind of assume's they are shooting from the hip but I imagine training plus some ubiquitous laser sighting (from the pictures this seems to be on and off) could account from that and allow them to be moving all the time.

AluminiumWolf said:

I think the Emperor's Warbringers would take exception to that.

AluminiumWolf said:

I can see Space Marine Scouts doing that kind of tactical maneuvering.

AluminiumWolf said:

Definitely.

As far as remoddeling spacemarines, the answer should be NOOOOO. It goes against the Codex

The reason space marines dont need a stock is because they are so bulky, especially in power armor, that they can hold a basic weapon in one hand with no penalty and still fire full auto. They don't even need to brace for using a heavy bolter. They are that big and strong.

As for all other things, I would like to see many cool pictures of marines using cover, as THEY DO. One thing I remember hearing about the space marine game, although kinda cool, was the phrasing along the lines that "space marines never use cover". Ok, granted I could see that applying to Space wolves a lot of the time (though even they use cover) or the World Eaters before they fell. But most marines use cover as much as possible.

Sure, if facing a bunch of tiny imperial guardsmen with lasguns, that probably wont penetrate their armor, yeah, they wont stay behind cover for that. But heavy weapons, tanks, bigger groups and so on YES they will. Space marines arent stupid, not even Space wolves.

That guys unusual way to wield weapons seems like it would probably reduce recoil a bit more, but honestly I don't think it seems like a good idea anyway. It would, it seems to me at least, be more unbalanced to run around like that. In CQC you cant punch or do anything with that arm either as its already at its full length and if youre in a trench or other such thing, you can probably just lean the weapon on something else to get more stability.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

What irritates me is when people ignore the explanations built in to the setting, for the existence of all (or even just some) of the wild and fantastic stuff found within it.

At running up to 30 years now, there have been so many pop and doritos (or cheesie, since those are relatively new) fueled brainstorming sessions that they've virtually hammered out all the nooks and crannies of the 40K universe. They have an explanation for most everything (almost). Because it's probably come up before. And it's still quite believable, despite how completely over the top it frequently becomes.

AluminiumWolf said:

Yeah… not really, they don't. I doubt even /k/ would agree with you on that.

Also, Marines probably also know Point Shooting like it's second nature.

Also, sighting down the length of your weapon, in practice, narrows your field of vision. Yes there's nothing there to actually obstruct you, but focusing all your attention down this one narrow corridor limits your awareness of what's going on around you, which is one of the great advantages of the Asartes in combat. They don't have to think about what's going on, they just react because it IS second nature to them, leaving their higher thought processes able to focus on the bigger picture (namely tactical and strategic planning).

Blood Pact said:

You reckon?

I'd swear, for instance, that sticking accessories on your AR15 is a bigger hobby than all of wargaming ( http://www.ar15.com/ ). Youtube is full of people out on the range more or less cosplaying with tactical vests and plate carriers and whatnot. Call of Duty and similar 'military shooters' are the biggest thing in gaming.

People love this stuff. Don't they?

I thought we were talking about the way they were all holding their weapons? Which doesn't look cool, no.

As for the general love of tacticool crap, no not everyone, and they excessively mock the ones that do. Part of the popularity comes precisely from all those those video games, and the dumb kids that play them and think they're realistic approximations of the military, and firearms.

Sometimes, oftentimes, it really deserves to be mocked too. Yes, that's real. Ivan Chesnokov would have had an anuerism over it, if not for being crushed in that tragic accident with the printing press.

Oh this place just links, I suppose bandwidth would get eaten up if it uploaded pictures… very well, that'll teach me to be lazy…

+++++As for the general love of tacticool crap, no not everyone, and they excessively mock the ones that do.+++++

A lot of people do uncomplicatedly love it though. And I suspect even the people who mock it have a bit of a love hate relationship with it. I suspect they would love to put on a plate carrier and go to a Chris Costa training session - they just don't want people to think they are the kind of guys who want to put on a plate carrier and go to a Chris Costa training session.

So I guess my approach here, as with Marine awesomeness in general, is to play to the first group and try to convince the second that it is okay to indulge a bit.

I've always imagined marines would be hunching when moving and/or shooting to present a smaller target for enemy. However, I don't think the bolters need stocks as the power armour itself should be able to 'lock' itself for any conceivable shooting position and compensate for recoil. its not like they are holding their weapons under their own power as the power armour exoskeleton is holding them. So I would imagine the shooting positions of the marines would be far more dynamic than any tacticool stuff and change case-by-case as dictated by circumstances.

P.S. Professionally I've always thought Costas way of using his supporting hand is pretty strange. It does protect his left arm a bit in case he would be shot at from front angle (the bulletproof vest can take a bullet, left arm usually can't), but it looks pretty awkward and unnatural so it must take plenty of additional hours of practice to master.

AluminiumWolf said:

Man, why do you even bother discussing things when you categorize all people as either agreeing with you or secretly agreeing with you but being afraid to admit it?

I still admire your talent for taking anecdotal evidence and turning it into an argumentum ad populum. Why settle for one fallacy when you can make two for the same price?

Morangias said:

Because I want to ensure the people who agree with me are represented, and try to get the people who secretly agree with me but are afraid to admit it to loosen up and let themselves enjoy life.

:0)

I do think that what we profess to like or dislike has a lot to do with the image we want to present to the world, and trying to figure out what you actually like is difficult and requires Admitting Things To Yourself.

(FWIW, I like to pretend there is an ironic hipsterish slant to me enjoying this stuff. So, like the Three Wolf Moon shirt I think it is Awesome and Hilarious at the same time:-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Original-Three-Adult-T-Shirt-Small/dp/B002DGEOCY/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1344240192&sr=8-2

Now, there may come a time when you find yourself humming Rebecca Black's Friday to yourself AGAIN that you may need to accept that you actually have a sort of fondness for this that doesn't have as much irony as you would like, but it is a defence mechanism that may help you Lighten Up.

The thing is, you can never re-evaluate your position on anything if you assume people actually agree with you but feel obliged to voice disagreement for arbitrary reasons.

Take this discussion for an example. You think tactical marksmanship and related poses are ******* awesome. I respect that. In fact, I kinda agree. Taking cover, presenting a smaller target and holding a gun in a way that facilitates fast aiming are the things that help you survive a firefight, and in the end, a guy walking away from the battlefield is more awesome than the coolest looking corpse.

But there are many brands and flavors of awesomeness, and I sincerely don't think this one fits the Space Marines in any way. Their awesomeness stems from the fact that they transcend the need for such behavior.

Consider this as a comparison. Let's say you have a kung fu master. He can strike awesome poses, punch through a wooden wall and jump so high he might as well be flying. Then, you have a telekinetic, who stands seemingly disinterested, can punch through a wooden wall with his mind, and actually can fly.

Which image is cooler? That's a subjective matter. But which image projects more power? One guy can kill you with a fist, the other can kill you without even lifting a finger. It's pretty obvious who's more powerful of the two.

In the galaxy of warriors, the Space Marines are the equivalent of the psychic guy. They don't position themselves to present a smaller target, because they are immune to small arms fire anyway. They don't position themselves to stabilize their weapon, because it's perfectly stable in their augmented, power armor-clad hands. They don't look down the sights, because between their perfect muscle memory, millions of bolts shot during decades of daily drills, and their mind and body directly interfacing with advanced targeting systems of their armor, they can fire from the hip with perfect accuracy. Ultimately, they don't do any of that because every second spent positioning yourself and raising your weapon to look down the sights is a second you're not killing your enemies. That's right - all the things normal warriors do to survive and win in a firefight are nothing more than a waste of time when you're a Space Marine.

I find that context is crucial in determining whether something is cool or not. A bazooka is an awesome weapon - it can take out a vehicle or a flyer, or it can take out an entire nest of opposition with one good shot. But if you use it to shoot a single guy standing out in the open, suddenly it's not cool - you've just wasted a precious rocket on something you could have done much more easily with a single shot from a side weapon.

I feel the same way about Astartes and tactical marksmanship. It's wasteful, indulgent and doesn't serve any purpose. These are two great flavors that don't taste great together.

Morangias said:

This is quite a good example, because to me at least, a fight between two psychics will then tend to look like two guys standing around disinterestedly, and then after a bit one of their heads explodes (or hell, maybe even one of them just collapses and a little blood drips out of their nose!).

But if you say they have to channel their power by doing Kung Fu moves, you can start to have fights that look like:-

I think that is a much easier sell. (You can presumably do stuff like have enormous property damage raging around the psychics as they fight, but still)

Similarly, while you can justify it, it is very easy to end up with Marines who stiffly walk forwards under fire like Robocop, and I just think we can do better than that.

You're missing the point. I'm not debating whether the psychic looks cooler than the kung fu master or not. That's subjective.

The point is, a psychic can kill the kung fu master without lifting a finger, which makes him objectively more powerful. Why? Because in a fight, the real winning factor is the economy of action. That kung fu master may be able to perform a quadruple spin kick, but if he has to fight for his life? He'll stand firmly on the ground and keep punching you in the face, because a punch in the face is superior from the perspective of action economy. If he could defeat the enemy by just standing there, he would, because that'd be even better, every single time.

The same principle applies to Space Marines and tactical marksmanship. Is tactical marksmanship cool? Yes. No. Maybe. Sometimes. Your answer is as good as any, because coolness is a matter of personal preference.

Now, is tactical marksmanship optimal? I'm sure many experts would debate various fine points, but the general principle of developing battlefield awareness, keeping a low profile and having a firm grip on your gun for steady aiming is definitely sound.

But is it optimal for a 6'11" giant clad in augmented armor that can stop small arms fire outright, with reflexes and hand-eye coordination so good he can sustain accurate full-auto fire while shooting from his hip? No, because he's already better protected and able to aim better than the best unaugmented tactical marksman. When enemies can't hope to hurt you, any motion you make to avoid enemy fire is a waste of time. When you know you will hit the enemy anyway, every second spent looking down the sights is wasted.

Astartes are some of the most powerful fighters in the galaxy, mixing robust physiques with iron discipline and decades, if not centuries of combat experience. As such, they shouldn't do what's cool - they should do what's optimal, like any experienced warrior worthy of his name.

Due to that, I find the notion of Astartes fighting the way you propose distinctly, utterly uncool. I have my highly drilled IG regiments for that kind of action, thank you very much. When I play a Space Marine, I want to feel like a proper god of slaughter, not a glorified commando in a bulky suit.

+++++I'm not debating whether the psychic looks cooler than the kung fu master or not.+++++

To an extent I am.

It isn't exactly about looking cooler, but selling it to the audience. You can sell a psychic who does stuff while looking bored and without moving much far more easily in text than in a visual medium. It is a tell, don't show thing.

Take, for instance, Gandalf vs. Saurman in the Jackson LOTR movies:-

I remember people being unhappy that the fight featured 'martial arts' moves and people being blown across the room. But if it didn't, how would you know there was a fight going on? They look stenly at each other for a bit and then one falls over?

+++++But is it optimal for a 6'11" giant clad in augmented armor that can stop small arms fire outright, with reflexes and hand-eye coordination so good he can sustain accurate full-auto fire while shooting from his hip? No, because he's already better protected and able to aim better than the best unaugmented tactical marksman. When enemies can't hope to hurt you, any motion you make to avoid enemy fire is a waste of time. When you know you will hit the enemy anyway, every second spent looking down the sights is wasted.+++++

But that looks like Robocop - walking slowly forwards with bullets pinging off your armour while picking off targets with well placed shots! You are going to have to explain why they are doing this and why it makes them awesome, and in a visual medium you won't have a chance.

Okay we are talking principally talking about roleplaying games here, but I tend to think of things in terms of movies and video games. And art.

(Also, I would suggest that while Marines may be immune to small arms, the battlefields of the dark future are absolutely swimming with heavy weapons, and even they will need to take cover.)

+++++Due to that, I find the notion of Astartes fighting the way you propose distinctly, utterly uncool. I have my highly drilled IG regiments for that kind of action, thank you very much. When I play a Space Marine, I want to feel like a proper god of slaughter, not a glorified commando in a bulky suit.+++++

Fair enough, but how are you going to sell this concept in a visual medium?

(Course, there is also no getting around the fact that there is very little I wouldn't think could be improved by adding Tacticool - for instance, you know how the last couple of Harry Potter video games were, bizarrely, cover shooters?

Tacticool.

Two handed wand stances. Tactical vests for fetishes and spell ingredients, knee pads, and plate carriers holding tablets etched with protected sigils. Tactical wand holsters. Room Entry with wands. Wands with Picatinny rails and red dot sights. Using wizards staffs with a Costa grip…)

AluminiumWolf said:

I wasn't very happy with that scene, it looked too much like two old guys beating each other up with sticks.

AluminiumWolf said:

1. The Marines explicitly are fast and agile, so I fail to see the problem.

2. Explaining that in a visual medium is as simple as showing a Marine casually shrugging off small arms fire. That huge-ass armor is pretty self-explanatory, you know?

3. In case of anti-armor weapons, of course they will evade and seek cover. But that's distinctly different from keeping a low profile all the time. Also, they never really have to stabilize their aim.

AluminiumWolf said:

How about just like it's already shown in Ultramarines movie and games Space Marine and Kill Team?