Which Legion dissapointed you the most?

[Imperialis_Dominatus]

And I would hardly call Saladin, one of history's greatest statesmen and generals ''a kurdish dude with large facial hair''.

 

Why would you hardly call him that? Everything I called him was a fact, he was in fact certainly a dude (as surgery had not advanced that far yet), certainly a Kurd, and certainly had large facial hair. Your statement on the contrary are but opinions, and opinions of the kind that can be neither true nor false due to the hazy definition of their content. To you sir I say good day.

 

Listen, Rain, I like a lot of your posts, but for Throne's sake. This is the equivalent of saying Ghandi was some skinny Indian dude who toppled British rule there, or the United States of America was founded and fought for against Britain by a bunch of farmers, or (dare I invoke Godwin's Law) all of Europe was nearly brought to its knees by a failed artist with a silly mustache (that no one can now have because of the stigma). Elementally you're saying something true but it's a daemon's truth- lying with the truth. If you focus on the purely cosmetic or ridiculous aspects of something that possesses far greater aspects you are clearly attempting to diminish that figure, and it's fallacious.

[Rain]

Ok let's just cap this off before this thread goes even more off topic. My post about the Crusaders was meant to be light hearted, hence the reference to the facial hair and all, but for some reason it got taken really seriously as did my follow up defending my joke by commenting on the lack of sex-change surgery in the 12th century. In any case, this has little to do anymore with legions disappointing anyone so let's just drop it.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

So yeah. How about them Iron Warriors? I mean, Perturabo didn't get enough hugs growing up, so he decides to stick it to Dad?

[Marshal Wilhelm]

So yeah. How about them Iron Warriors? I mean, Perturabo didn't get enough hugs growing up, so he decides to stick it to Dad?

 

Perturabo was one of the most head-kicking Primarchs out there.

If you look at the Heresy fluff, basically it was him doing much of the heavy lifting for Horus.

He didn't get the tallies that Horus, The Lion, Russ or Dorn did. Nor did he leave worlds ripe for helping the Crusade like Lorgar or Guilliman did.

But I'll wager that he put in more effort than any of them did in bringing his victories to pass.

 

Look at Desert Storm and look at WW1. The US rolled over the defence in the 90s. The Triple Entente [you might know them as the Allies] couldn't fully defeat the Central Powers [Germans, etc]. The Central Powers "lost" because their politicians saw the writing on the wall and surrendered. The German soldiers never felt they had lost. Which leads into WW2.

 

You can see a big difference between the two styles of fighting. The Iron Warriors constantly got the short straw with all the WW1 missions. Besides Dorn, the rest of the Primarchs didn't have to fight that knock 'em down, drag it out style of fighting, very often, if ever.

 

Very demoralising.

 

I guess if you treat any living thing with coldness, it too will grow cold. A little love goes a long way

 

Turbs was very devoted to the Emperor, and buddies with Rogal Dorn.

 

Being given all the hardest, dullest, most tedious jobs is wearing. Not being appreciated and recognised for doing the hard yakka that other Legions shy away from is poisonous.

 

If you look at one of the IA articles, Turbs plots the enemies fire courses and Jaghatai and Russ go in a take heads. The latter get the glory [both in the killing and in the fame that comes from it] whilst Perturabo is not even named, but a footnote. Something like "and a friend helped us get down safely". Those are not the words, but iIrc, that is the gist of it.

 

Just because he was a brainiac doesn't mean normal things were not dear to him.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Oh I know all that, I was just trying to get the conversation back on topic and decided snarkiness was my best defense.

[Marshal Rohr]

Aside from Pulse is anyone here actually a military historian? Or is everyone just fanbois with wikipedia in their favorites? :D

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Aside from Pulse is anyone here actually a military historian? Or is everyone just fanbois with wikipedia in their favorites? :P

 

You don't need to be a professional to know what is what ;)

 

+++

 

I have enjoyed all of them so far.

 

I would like to see the BA get some love, are they just Red Marines, or will not suffering from Sanguinius's death allow us to see something unique to them?

 

Fists and Warriors need some air time, to show 30K siege warfare in action. :)

[Pulse]

You don't need to be a professional to know what is what :)

Orly? If you going to be like.... i bet my knowledge is far deeper than anything you know about military history, and being a serving soldier i can back up talking about combat, with experience.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

You don't need to be a professional to know what is what :)

Orly? If you going to be like.... i bet my knowledge is far deeper than anything you know about military history, and being a serving soldier i can back up talking about combat, with experience.

 

QFT.

[Captain Idaho]

Remember that we do have to factor in the fantasy factor of 40K, making real life military events and technicalities purely inspirational, leading and part truths.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

You don't need to be a professional to know what is what ;)

Orly? If you going to be like.... i bet my knowledge is far deeper than anything you know about military history, and being a serving soldier i can back up talking about combat, with experience.

 

I think you have the wrong end of the stick.

 

M2C said "Aside from Pulse is anyone here actually a military historian? Or is everyone just fanbois with wikipedia in their favorites? :P "

The smiley on the end shows he was teasing and not being rude.

I said "You don't need to be a professional to know what is what ;)"

 

I never asserted my level of knowledge.

I never implied anything about your level of knowledge.

I only said you don't have be a professional to know what is what.

 

I know how to play basketball and Michael Jordan knows how to play basketball. We both know how to play basketball.

"You don't have to be a professional to know what is what." ~ this takes on a different context from what I think you think I meant. :)

 

I believe you have misunderstood what I have written.

You may read it like that, but it wasn't written like that :)

[Pulse]

Remember that we do have to factor in the fantasy factor of 40K, making real life military events and technicalities purely inspirational, leading and part truths.

From the descriptions of war in 40k, land wars have hardly changed apart from the scale of battles. That can either be due to the writers not having much imagination or because war as the writers know it as it is today, influences them to much. Either way combat knowledge of todays world stands me in good stead for combat in 40k.

 

I never asserted my level of knowledge.

I never implied anything about your level of knowledge.

I only said you don't have be a professional to know what is what.

 

I know how to play basketball and Michael Jordan knows how to play basketball. We both know how to play basketball.

"You don't have to be a professional to know what is what." ~ this takes on a different context from what I think you think I meant. :P

Historians have access to records and documents the public will never get a chance to read. Maybe some historians have quoted these works but when do the majority of the public know where to look to find the information? In most cases even if you found where these records are kept you wont be allowed to look at them.

 

Also that whole thing about basketball you can apply that to anything. Its like me giving you my rifle and saying "Here, is my rifle go and have fun" and i am sure you could fire it, but do you know how to strip it down, clearn it, put it back together? Do you know how to clear a jam? Do you know about windage and how to calcuate for it? Do you know how the rifle works in different conditions? etc etc, I doubt it. So you might know how to fire a gun but you don't know detailed knowledge of the subject in question.

[A D-B]

Bad Pulse, bad. No soup for you.

 

Remember that we do have to factor in the fantasy factor of 40K, making real life military events and technicalities purely inspirational, leading and part truths.

From the descriptions of war in 40k, land wars have hardly changed apart from the scale of battles. That can either be due to the writers not having much imagination or because war as the writers know it as it is today, influences them to much. Either way combat knowledge of todays world stands me in good stead for combat in 40k.

 

Or it could be something else - something that isn't a pointless insult that's unlikely to be true? Tsk.

[greatcrusade08]

ive jumped here several pages on, so i apologise if ive misread something..

 

40 battles are completely different from anything we have today, 40k has parrallels to historical battles with the hordes of enemies and prevelant close combat.. however the comparison stops there, the same with more modern warfare, it compares quite well to the 'shooty' aspect of 40k with squad organisation and smaller armies.. choosing battlefields is less important.

 

So we cant say that any knowledge we have of historical or modern warfare helps us determine how 40k works, it can tell us certain aspects sure, but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

the great thing is as a fantasy medium, 40k can be anything the writers want it to be.. get a decent writer (abnett, ben counter, and other writers who are watching and posting here) and its all good.

 

I have a keen interest in war and historical battles, but i have learned more in the last year as a WAB gamer than i ever did from docmentaries, films and t'interwebz etc.. im lucky to game with the guys who write and playtest the WAB rulesets, and everything that goes into the books (background, fighting styles etc) is spot on perfect.

[Pulse]

Bad Pulse, bad. No soup for you.

No soup? WHAT HAVE I DONE TO DESERVE THIS?? :P

[Brother-Chaplain Gaius]

I was most disappointed by the Word Bearers

[A D-B]

Bad Pulse, bad. No soup for you.

No soup? WHAT HAVE I DONE TO DESERVE THIS?? :D

 

You were a mean meaniepants!

 

I was most disappointed by the Word Bearers

 

Me, too. That was something I've tried to fix.

[Skirax]

I was most disappointed by the Word Bearers

 

Me, too. That was something I've tried to fix.

Which i have no doubt you've managed :D

[Guillermus of Eisenheim]

They're getting their own book soon, so you might like them a bit more. The ones in Battle for the Abyss aren't great.

[Marshal Rohr]

ive jumped here several pages on, so i apologise if ive misread something..

 

40 battles are completely different from anything we have today, 40k has parrallels to historical battles with the hordes of enemies and prevelant close combat.. however the comparison stops there, the same with more modern warfare, it compares quite well to the 'shooty' aspect of 40k with squad organisation and smaller armies.. choosing battlefields is less important.

 

So we cant say that any knowledge we have of historical or modern warfare helps us determine how 40k works, it can tell us certain aspects sure, but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

the great thing is as a fantasy medium, 40k can be anything the writers want it to be.. get a decent writer (abnett, ben counter, and other writers who are watching and posting here) and its all good.

 

I have a keen interest in war and historical battles, but i have learned more in the last year as a WAB gamer than i ever did from docmentaries, films and t'interwebz etc.. im lucky to game with the guys who write and playtest the WAB rulesets, and everything that goes into the books (background, fighting styles etc) is spot on perfect.

 

Combat and war is like sex. You can see it and read about it 1,000 times but until you do it, you will never really know :lol: you're talking about.

 

I read doctrine like its comic books, I spend tons of time pouring over FMs and AARs. I watch documentaries and read memoirs. I could read, watch, and study every piece of media about combat and war in the entire world and it still would not prepare me for it.

 

So to say the writers of 40K have envisioned a 'new' and 'different' type of warfare is absolutely ridiculous. If you got a Roman Legionnaire, a British Tommy, and a Cadian all in the same room and asked them to describe combat I guarantee it'll have more similarities than differences.

 

The key is to capture the feeling and some 40K writers are said to be better at it than others.

[Rain]

Wow a lot of uh, lascanon waving in this thread. In any case, I do agree with M2C on the point that at the end of the day combat is trying to kill the other guys without being killed yourself. This basic formula is the same from cavemen swinging clubs to modern special forces to imaginary 40k factions. Oh and how exactly is 40k "hardly changed" from modern war?

 

The elite troops use freakin' swords and hammers, there are races that are entirely biological or mechanical, using no armor whatsoever and most of the wars are ones of annihilation, as in, the loser is wiped off of the planet. Modern wars are just kind of a diversion, like football, but instead of making money it costs money. The main parallel is again combat, one side trying to kill the other without themselves dying, but that's pretty basic. In other words, can I have Pulse's soup ADB?!

[Pulse]

The elite troops use freakin' swords and hammers, there are races that are entirely biological or mechanical, using no armor whatsoever and most of the wars are ones of annihilation, as in, the loser is wiped off of the planet. Modern wars are just kind of a diversion, like football, but instead of making money it costs money. The main parallel is again combat, one side trying to kill the other without themselves dying, but that's pretty basic. In other words, can I have Pulse's soup ADB?!

So because "elite" troops use swords as well as guns that changes the whole complexion of war does it? No, it just means close combat is more frequent.

 

The fact remains that the Imperium of man's armies use everything we know in todays armies. Essentially tanks, aircraft, artillery, guns and of course men/women. Just because humanity is fighting alien races that have vastly different physiology does not change that fact.

 

Also yes your right, armies do tend to wipe each other of the face of a planet but as i said before in other posts in this thread, that is down to the scale of the wars (the fact some crusades/campaigns can have over a billion soldiers fighting in them, sometimes more if you add in Astartes etc) and the fact some technology like cyclone missles and such are vastly superior to anything any modern military has.

[Rain]

Ok, but if that's what you refer to as "scale" then that's an enormous difference. That's like saying that planes are the same as cars except that planes fly. I mean sure, but that's rather important. Oh and no, it has nothing to do with the amount of soldiers the Imperium mobilizes, it has to do with the ethos of the Imperium as a an entity. Current wars have a huge political component in which many things cannot be done. For example, if the US's current wars were executed with the Imperium's methods they would have been over in a month or so as all of the countries the US attacked would be carpet bombed (or nuked) and then all survivors would be shot by the mechanized infantry that would move in after. The area would then be declared purgatus.

 

That's how the Imperium rolls, there's no Geneva convention, no rules of engagement, no international opinion, just "Death to the enemies of the Emperor!". In other words, it's not that that current war cannot be executed in a similar manner, it's just that it isn't for political and humanitarian reasons which is an enormous difference. If anything, 40k is more like war in the Roman period when certain areas would have the earth salted after being burned to the ground just to prove a point, but really I don't think there's ever been a real human organization quite as bad as the Imperium.

[Pulse]

I meant the way in which war is fought as in militarily, as in tactics, proper tactics. Each squad, platoon, regiment, battlegroup or squad, demi company, company or chapter (if we are talking Astartes) will have objectives, they complete those objectives and move on. Also yes from the countless peices of fluff they do have the Imperium does employ rules of engagement when it is needed.

 

Also i am not talking about politics or anything i am talking actual fighting, war fighting. Soldiers killing and dying. ;)

[Rain]

...and politics has no bearing on how soldiers actually fight, right. Oh and please point me to a canon piece of fluff that describes the Imperium attempting to avoid civilian casualties on the side of the enemy like what modern militaries must do. Unless by "rules of engagement" you mean "it it moves, show it the Emperor's mercy" as RoE in which case sure. The closest thing I can think of to the Imperium caring about life is when the CM of the Salamanders had a shouting match with the Marines Malevolent for shelling a refugee camp to kill some orks, but those were Imperial refugees.

 

My point is just that you are looking at something that would obviously be similar (use of infantry with support assembled into units completing objectives) and then claiming that this is due to a lack of imagination on the part of the writers, but ignoring the huge differences that exist in the way that basic template is carried out which are by the way arguably the only differences that can exist as it's pretty tautological that land wars would be fought by units of some sort that are on land and fight wars.