PDA

View Full Version : Do you play Space Marine vs. Space Marine battles?



Venerable_Bede
10-07-2008, 19:46
Not that I think there's anything immoral about it, but I really don't like SM vs. SM battles.

I just can't think of any circumstance that would fit the 40k story which would see the Emperor's finest fighting each other.

And don't talk to me about mutinous SM. Can't happen, unless they're touched by Chaos like the Soul Drinkers, and then I think they're better represented by some quasi-chaos force.

Are there any other matchups that just don't seem right to you?

MemphisMark
10-07-2008, 19:50
Consider them "paintball" games. They are just practicing with each other, not using live ammo.

kairous
10-07-2008, 19:50
I will play them, no problem playing them in fact, but, i would much rather play SM vs. another army.
Just because the whole everything in both players armies has at least a 3+ save, i find that just gets boring and tedious real quick.
That was why all those years ago i did CSM instead of an SM army, just becuase i wanted to be different, and have some more variety in my army, if that makes sense:confused:
Fluff wise though, i don't really think there would be a problem in creating a suitable scenerio.

Ranger S2H
10-07-2008, 19:50
SM vs SM does happen regularly with dark angels and space wolves.
though this is only with champions, I think the space wolves wont like it when they lose, escalation guaranteed!

Move Fast Hit Low
10-07-2008, 19:57
SM vs SM does happen regularly with dark angels and space wolves.
though this is only with champions, I think the space wolves wont like it when they lose, escalation guaranteed!

Yeah but they dont kill each other...

PondaNagura
10-07-2008, 21:00
conflict of interest

ThousandPlateaus
10-07-2008, 21:07
There's plenty of good fluff reason for SM on SM battle - someone has just mentioned in the 40k Background section the case of the Dark Angels slaying the Black Templars who had discovered some of the Fallen (and ergo the Dark Angels treachery).

Differences of opinion and conflicts of interest often turn in to slow boil grudges, look at the Dark Angels and the Space Wolves, as mentioned. Or why would a loyalist Chapter not try and take down Death Company or those Space Wolf were-dog mutant things?

Perhaps one Chapter is under the command of an Inquisitor who has higher knowledge of things afoot and convinces them to hunt another Chapter.

There's loads of reasons!

Royal Tiger
10-07-2008, 21:07
its only a game remember

Emperor's Grace
10-07-2008, 21:13
Their training cages/exercises are "Danger Room" style lethal.

Why wouldn't their "brotherly" brawls/wargames be?


Also, causalties in-game are just removed from effecting the battle, not necessarily dead. (and SM can cure/replace just about anything short of dead)

Venerable_Bede
10-07-2008, 21:29
its only a game remember

You're obviously a heretic!! Expect a visit from the Inquisition shortly. :)

Hey, why the photo of General Winfield S. Hancock as your avatar?

rev
10-07-2008, 21:40
sometimes I feel like thats all I play...

Master Jeridian
10-07-2008, 21:43
I just can't think of any circumstance that would fit the 40k story which would see the Emperor's finest fighting each other.

Are you kidding me? Because Space Marines have never turned against each other in huge civil wars...

Because Space Marine Chapters haven't turned from the Emperor and required purges to hunt them down...

Because the Imperium hasn't been torn in two on multiple occasions (such as the Reign of Blood) with Space Marine Chapters having to decide which side is right...


Ok, ok, I'll stop now, breath.

Most people find mirror match-up's (IG on IG, Necrons on Necrons, etc) both boring and counter-intuitive, as you show with Marines on Marines.

I find them fascinating, because when you both have access to the same units and tools, then it comes down to who plays better- rather than the Rock/Paper/Scissors of different armies facing each other.

Ironhand
10-07-2008, 21:44
I always arrange it so that SM never play other SM in any games/leagues/campaigns that I organize.

Royal Tiger
10-07-2008, 21:44
You're obviously a heretic!! Expect a visit from the Inquisition shortly. :)

Hey, why the photo of General Winfield S. Hancock as your avatar?
after reading this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfield_Scott_Hancock
I thought he sounded pretty cool

Atomic Rooster
10-07-2008, 22:01
I always arrange it so that SM never play other SM in any games/leagues/campaigns that I organize.

so in other words, you maximize how often non-SM play against SM. Ya, that's fair. How about some veriety to everyone else?

Ronin_eX
10-07-2008, 22:03
The reason I tend not to like it is because most marine players in my area play Loyalists. Now if they played a renegade chapter using SM rules I'd be fine with it but when it comes down to two Loyalist chapters facing off against eachother it makes no sense in my mind.

Dark Angels and Space Wolves seem to have a bit of friendly competition going on. When allied they tend to fight a mock battle from the history of their chapter as part of their tradition. Other than that I can't see them fighting any kind of large scale combat against each other (especially not at the scale of the average 40k battle).

As for the destruction of the BT ship though it is implied that the DA may have done it but the DA ship got what they wanted without the BT knowing the nature of the Fallen and the DA left. The BT ship was then lost in the Warp afterwards. Thus this still doesn't make Marine on Marine combat any more likely to me.

"Training Exercise" is the only explanation I could ever find reasonable but it got muddied if a third, non-marine, player joined in for a three-player game (why wouldn't the Marines load up live rounds and just join in against the Xenos?). I especially had a hard time justifying attacking the other Marine player in our map campaign to myself since while I may conceivably see a rare one off battle of DA vs. BT I couldn't see either of us laying siege to the other's fortified foothold and driving the other off the planet.

To me it is one of the major weaknesses of 40k. First they have influenced the meta-game so one army becomes more popular than the others but it is the only army that has to really reach for explanations as to why it would attack itself en masse. Other games I play there is really no reason I can find for one faction not to attack something of the same faction (sometimes even the same sub-faction) but in 40k it is a struggle to do some of the battles while staying true to the background without the handful of explanations getting a little dull (i.e. training exercise).

I still play them from time to time but I never really enjoy them much because I can never think of an underlying narrative that is really interesting. But to each their own I suppose. *shrugs* ;)

Edit - Come to think of it a lot of 40k armies are hard to justify like that. Why would Eldar attack themselves being a dieing race and all? Wouldn't they seak to avoid that? I don't know I think a basic part of wargaming background is it should try to open up the possibility of a wide array of conflicts but 40k background as it currently is makes this fairly difficult from my perspective.

ex_idol
10-07-2008, 22:27
I will play them, no problem playing them in fact, but, i would much rather play SM vs. another army.
Just because the whole everything in both players armies has at least a 3+ save, i find that just gets boring and tedious real quick.
That was why all those years ago i did CSM instead of an SM army, just becuase i wanted to be different, and have some more variety in my army, if that makes sense:confused:
Fluff wise though, i don't really think there would be a problem in creating a suitable scenerio.

first off, not having a go at anyone at all, just wish someone would explain this thought process to me

1) every one in game has 3+ save creates boring game
2) i want it to be more interesting
3) i'll take something different
4) i'll take 'chaos' marines/necrons/crisis suit spam/any other army with 3+ sv

if it is the 3+ sv that makes the game boring for you, don't change to a diff MEQ army, if it's the bland smurfs don't complain about the saves

personally i dont use all 3+ sv armies often, very rarely, when i do it is rarely against another 3+ sv army, if both have 3+ sv it can produce a wonderfully balanced and fun game, if both gamers are of the right mindset to make it so

and sod the fluff, if i show up with my GK or space puppy army and i can only find marines to play against, line em up, cause i aint missin the chance for a game over that

if you want fluff play guard or ork, 2 most common armies in the 'verse and there can always be a reason for them to fight someone, more ppl should use em.... WAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sir_Turalyon
10-07-2008, 22:36
I just can't think of any circumstance that would fit the 40K story which would see the Emperor's finest fighting each other.

Due to administrative error / mistrust or rivalry among inquisitors, two Space Marine chapters have been separately requested to cleanse quarantined planet from heretics, without being informed of each other's presence. Both forces are certain that everybody else on the planet are chaos renegades; the heretics are known to use psykers with illusion / mind control / hallucination powers, so both forces have been ordered to trust no one and maintain strict communication silence.

Templar Ben
10-07-2008, 22:39
I play Marine on Marine and don't think twice. The Imperium is full of back biting so I would not be surprised if some Inquisitor or Lord got a chapter turned around so they attacked what would normally be considered a "loyalist" chapter.

tuebor
10-07-2008, 22:47
Most people find mirror match-up's (IG on IG, Necrons on Necrons, etc) both boring and counter-intuitive, as you show with Marines on Marines.

Actually, every IG player I know enjoys IG vs. IG games because then our lasguns and grenade launcher frag rounds actually do something :p

ex_idol
10-07-2008, 22:49
Edit - Come to think of it a lot of 40k armies are hard to justify like that. Why would Eldar attack themselves being a dieing race and all? Wouldn't they seak to avoid that? I don't know I think a basic part of wargaming background is it should try to open up the possibility of a wide array of conflicts but 40k background as it currently is makes this fairly difficult from my perspective.

it has been noted that farseers, while trying to preserve their whole race,will help their CW over another, i see it sacrificing your next door neighbour to save a family member, something like that :)

me and a staffer were hypothesisng about 6ed (bad i know) figure thatwith golden throne breaking down; in 6th (or sooner suppliment?) the emperor reborn and harder to justify marine on marine action OR he dies (yay) and all marines set up individual feudal empires and easrier to justify the encounter OR he reborn and imperium splits, easier to justify some

but that GW would do actually interesting stuff with fluff that solves why so much marine on marine action occurs IS only a pipe dream

Toe Cutter
10-07-2008, 23:00
I agree whole heartedly that guard on guard should be very good but as someone already mentioned; you have to be in the right mindset. If you've convinced yourself that marine on marine is dull then guess what? You'll probably find it quite dull. The same is true of guard on guard.

Happened to me recently when I was playing guard on guard. The bloke I was playing against had no interest in playing the game (quite irritating as I was really looking forward to the game), he played in a very boring fashion and then whinged about how boring guard on guard battles are. It was a boring game for him because he made it boring for himself because he'd convinced himself that guard on guard is boring. The fool.

I can't help feeling your role playing skills and imagination in general are a little lacking when, in a universe as dark, unpleasant and twisted as the 40k universe is, the best you can come up with for reasons why marines might be fighting one another is a training exercise.

Poisonpen
10-07-2008, 23:07
Whew, been a while since I last posted... :o

Anyway, no I do not mind Marine on Marine action. The games themselves can become pretty boring if you play against the wrong opponent, but assuming there are two interesting lists/players on the table it can get pretty interesting.

As for the fluff ramifications... well, I suppose that might be a problem if you play as one of the big chapters, though as mentioned above there is a host of in-game outs for just that situation. Non-codex Black Templar recruitment, Dark Angels' fallen, Blood Angel spastic fits, ect.

I myself like to think my chapter is accusing and attacking another chapter to make itself look more pious and cover up their own shady dealings, if but for a while. :p



...and yes, IG vs. IG is fun-fun-for-everyone!

Aeneas
10-07-2008, 23:14
Didn't GW Canada do a whole campaign of Salamanders vs. Blood Ravens? I don't know what the background was though.

I actually have an easier time finding a reason for space marines to fight other space marines than i do finding a reason why tyranids are trying to claim table quarters.

Master Jeridian
10-07-2008, 23:18
IG on IG is one of my favourites, weapons like Hellguns, Mortars and Grenade Launchers actually matter.

Again, with both sides having access to the same units and options, it's up to the player to use them better than his opponent- except with IG (rather than Marines) mistakes are fatal.

Ronin_eX
10-07-2008, 23:50
it has been noted that farseers, while trying to preserve their whole race,will help their CW over another, i see it sacrificing your next door neighbour to save a family member, something like that :)

me and a staffer were hypothesisng about 6ed (bad i know) figure thatwith golden throne breaking down; in 6th (or sooner suppliment?) the emperor reborn and harder to justify marine on marine action OR he dies (yay) and all marines set up individual feudal empires and easrier to justify the encounter OR he reborn and imperium splits, easier to justify some

but that GW would do actually interesting stuff with fluff that solves why so much marine on marine action occurs IS only a pipe dream

That I'd like to see. Imperial civil war would make things easier. I think that it also worked better in Rogue Trader as well (marines weren't conditioned for absolute loyalty and they each worked under different Rogue Traders who may have been fighting each other for a trade contract). It only started getting hard to do a lot of these battles since the move to 2nd edition when the boundaries were set in the rigid position we currently have.

But yes, if they evolved the background further and opened it up to civil war with many marine chapters becoming feudal states while other remain loyal to the Imperium and some gather under the battle of the reborn Emperor. It would mix things up to say the least but I think it would add in that extra step that would open up a wide array of narrative battles.

You are right, however, and GW likely wont get past the throne and the dimming of the Astronomicon (to me this seems to be another unneeded injection of grim-dark retcon rather than the storyline moving forward). But I suppose we can hope. :D

Grand Master Raziel
11-07-2008, 00:54
To answer the OP's question: I used to. Then, I had the bright idea that my Daemonhunters army with inducted IG could serve as a likely antagonist to any Imperial army with the addition of a psychotic, radical Inquisitor Lord and a trio of Daemonhosts. I justify my "good guy" IG units being in the army by stating that they got gulled by the psycho Inquisitor. Eventually, I figure I'll obtain some more IG stuff and paint it up with a darker, more renegadish color scheme, but for now I make do with what I have.

So, given that I often find myself squaring off against Space Marines, I play my Radical DH army quite a bit. I think Melchior the Apostate is probably the Hunters of Orion's number one enemy at this point (MtA is my Inqy Lord, the HoO are a gaming buddy's SM chapter), given how often they've experienced defeat at his hands recently.

Xenobane
11-07-2008, 01:13
Actually, every IG player I know enjoys IG vs. IG games because then our lasguns and grenade launcher frag rounds actually do something :p

Hear hear. I'd love to fight an IG v IG game - partly for the variety of facing an army as shooty as mine (that isn't Tau...), partly because I might actually win on the occasional charge, but mostly because I'd imagine it's a very common engagement throughout the galaxy, what with civil war, renegade guard etc. No problem worrying the lack of a believable back story there.

On topic, though there are reasonable explanations as to why SM v SM battles would happen, they would surely be a very rare occurrence in the 40k universe, and I think playing them often would be pretty wearisome both in terms of game variety and concocting a story.

kaimarion
11-07-2008, 01:26
Not really but I played a chaos+chaos VS marines+tau and we murderded them in the first turn(the SM & Tau) , they had placed all there unit close together so my 2 defilers and the other players Leman Russ made shot work of his army. The biggest disapointment was my Zeench squad that are ment to be anti-marine not killing anyone , the Zeenchies also too 5 casualties one of them being the chamo who blew his own head up trying to cast Bolt of Change :( .

StormWulfen
11-07-2008, 07:56
dark angels and space wolves fight all the time but usually because the dark angels are some where they should'nt be,also great battle: dark angels,space wolves and thousand sons.:chrome:

Eryx_UK
11-07-2008, 09:27
As mentioned previously, I always look at SM vs SM battles as nessecary war games that help two chapters hone their skills. Not every game played has to be part of a larger campaign against the Xenos or heretic skum.

Vesica
11-07-2008, 09:34
I always thought they would skirmish over important things (ala DoW:DA/SS) or they could suspect the other force of been traitor and deciede to pure them now ask questions later.

I agree though i prefer SM's fighting together

Maarten K
11-07-2008, 10:09
I believe that during the badab(IIRC) war loyal marines stood against each other. in the end a few chapters were send on a crusade as penance for the supporting a traitor

Ronin_eX
11-07-2008, 10:51
I wouldn't call Marines who threw in their lot with Huron "loyal" any more than I would those that sided with Horus instead of the Emperor. Marines protect the Imperium, they don't try to expand their power base and take over a world (even if some had good intentions by siding with a Marine Warlord instead of with the Imperium they went renegade).

Badab was essentially a mini Horus-heresy with a well respected marine commander using his charisma to turn loyal marines into renegades fighting against the Imperium (wasn't the war over how the High Lords had cut marines power a fair deal after the Heresy?).

Sir_Turalyon
11-07-2008, 11:16
Marines who sided with Huron have been declared loyal and given chance of redemption. They did not have full information about nature of the conflict and reacted to what they saw as unprovoked bullying of Astral Claws by Adeptus Terra.

Ranger S2H
11-07-2008, 11:16
i like playing IG vs IG as that is what their weapons were actually ment for, against rebellions, pirates, heretics. the other regular opponent would be orks as they're everywhere. personal favorite: IG vs IG with a touch of history like D-day, or operation market garden.

as with SM: you could say that one marine chapter stumbled on a relic from the other chapter, what would give the inquisition a reason to inspect that chapter. it would then launch a large suprise attack on the site, trying to capture the relic, get out, and deny everything.

nurgle_boy
11-07-2008, 15:05
Badab uprising- lamentors.
End of topic :p

marines on marines with pleantly of killing (ie, most of chapter)and no-one was chaos for that part.

qwertywraith
11-07-2008, 15:42
Not everyone is buddy buddy in the Imperium. Most chapters have territory, mission statements, and ambitious leaders. Also, there is the question of doctrine: not only how do the Adeptus Astartes perform their duties but how do they worship the emperor. It's not just the inquisition that polices these things. One chapter might decide a world was heretical in it's worship of the Emperor, while another might not. Conflict ensues.

How about the Black Templars? They are in violation of the rules as they have far more marines than chapters are normally allowed. Any other codex chapter would find this heretical and dangerous, and Space Marines don't complain to anyone, they take care of their own problems. One of the reasons the Marines are split into so many chapters is to prevent any one chapter from growing too powerful. They watch each other carefully not just for chaotic influence, but the influence of greed.

The 40K universe is one of distrust and extreme religious fervor. Space Marines are warrior monks. If you look at the history of Christianity, there are thousands of examples of Heretical sects that are based on very minor differences in scriptural interpretation. For example, some early Christians thought the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost could not be the same person and still 3, so they were accused of pantheism and persecuted. Why wouldn't it be the same in the 41st millennium (which is a medieval kind of universe).

Why wouldn't one chapter, who believes in "Faith and Justice", not spend thousands of years fighting a neighboring chapter who heretically believes in "Faith and Vigilance". They will not abide such blatant heresy, and in marines it is especially dangerous. They know better than anyone that heresy can lead to chaos. The inquisition might step in eventually, but it might go unnoticed, or be unimportant compared to other problems in the Imperium. It is a huge place ever on the brink of collapsing.

ThousandPlateaus
11-07-2008, 15:44
qwertywraith speaks the truth.