Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Gert wrote:
Outside of tongue-in-cheek stuff like the Regimental Standard and raw recruits, every Guardsman knows you don't get into combat with the things trying to kill you.
Even a Grot is as strong as a baseline human and they bite as well.

Yes, melee combat happens but that is not the purpose of the Guard. They stand in a position and shoot the enemy, not run at them with swords and shields.
And to focus more on that, the primary combat weapon of the Guard is a bayonet, a last resort option.
If bayonets are fixed, gak has hit the fan and that line is probably getting swamped by bugs, sentient shrooms, or 7-foot-tall demigods with a passing fancy of excessive violence.

And again, all of this "women aren't as strong as men" doesn't hold weight when the requirement for being recruited into the Guard is "Alive (optional) and Human (also partially optional)".

These are broad generalizations again. We know that there are regiments that favor melee combat, and we also know that different regiments can have different recruiting standards.

That whole "lots of variation" thing again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That's not disputed AFAIK, the point of friction would still be the male/female ratio of frontline combat troops.

Seeing as the initial question of this thread was "Can there be all women Regiments" and not "Are there women in the Guard", I'm still entirely unsure why this point has ever been picked as the driving factor in this thread beyond people randomly needing to have the ratio of women be less than men for "reasons".
The only explanation anyone can ever give is "cos real life" which has been roundly ripped apart as it rightly should be when discussing a fictional setting.

I think the existence of guardswomen and female regiments was agreed upon pretty much instantly. People claiming that there must be way fewer women than men was just the follow-up discussion that had the most staying power after that.

Yeah, this. What we actually know is pretty little, and honestly this is a better policy than too much explicit information *ahem HH novels, cough cough.

I am a bit wary of the "humanity is thoroughly physically outmatched by aliens" angle. It is mostly off-topic for this thread, but I think it has been the intention that Tyranid Gaunts, Tau, Eldar, and even Ork boys are broadly the same strength as Guardsmen. For many editions of the game, they were all strength 3. Orks obviously have a lot of advantages over Guardsmen in combat, but a disciplined, well-trained Guard unit can stand in melee against Orks if they are not being overwhelmed through weight of numbers. No (sane) Guard commander wants to enter melee with Orks, but it isn't automatically a death sentence.

Also, melee within the context of the game doesn't just mean hitting people- it also encompasses point-blank shooting.

Game stats are a bit of a fudge though. 1 Model on the table doesn't really translate to 1 living creature in the setting.

1 Strength 3 Guardsman might represent 20 actual lore guardsmen whilst the 3 strength Termagaunt could represent 1, 20, 50, 100 etc..

 Overread wrote:
Game stats are a bit of a fudge though. 1 Model on the table doesn't really translate to 1 living creature in the setting.

1 Strength 3 Guardsman might represent 20 actual lore guardsmen whilst the 3 strength Termagaunt could represent 1, 20, 50, 100 etc..

Oh I desagree heavily with that. There's no evidence to suggest models aren't 1-1 representative outside of the typical "movie marine fever dream" mindset brought about by certain players.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Game stats are a bit of a fudge though. 1 Model on the table doesn't really translate to 1 living creature in the setting.

1 Strength 3 Guardsman might represent 20 actual lore guardsmen whilst the 3 strength Termagaunt could represent 1, 20, 50, 100 etc..

Oh I desagree heavily with that. There's no evidence to suggest models aren't 1-1 representative outside of the typical "movie marine fever dream" mindset brought about by certain players.

Almost every single faction has heroes, characters and powerful units that are lore wise designed to scythe through whole regiments of foes. The Swarmlord is not supposed to be taken down by a couple of guardsmen who make lucky shots; A Primarch doesn't come down to do battle against a handful of Gaunts; Tyranids don't send a bunch of warriors, hive tyrants and tergivons to oversee just 60 gaunts on the battlefield. The Avatar of Khaine is supposed to tear into whole armies; Greater Demons are much the same. Heck what about Knights? They are massive and supposed to take on way bigger weapons of war.

The only way the numbers on the table can be realistic is if every single character is Ramb.... Sly Marlbro

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Game stats are a bit of a fudge though. 1 Model on the table doesn't really translate to 1 living creature in the setting.

1 Strength 3 Guardsman might represent 20 actual lore guardsmen whilst the 3 strength Termagaunt could represent 1, 20, 50, 100 etc..

Oh I desagree heavily with that. There's no evidence to suggest models aren't 1-1 representative outside of the typical "movie marine fever dream" mindset brought about by certain players.

I am very much in agreement with Insectum7 on this.

 Overread wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Game stats are a bit of a fudge though. 1 Model on the table doesn't really translate to 1 living creature in the setting.

1 Strength 3 Guardsman might represent 20 actual lore guardsmen whilst the 3 strength Termagaunt could represent 1, 20, 50, 100 etc..

Oh I desagree heavily with that. There's no evidence to suggest models aren't 1-1 representative outside of the typical "movie marine fever dream" mindset brought about by certain players.

Almost every single faction has heroes, characters and powerful units that are lore wise designed to scythe through whole regiments of foes. The Swarmlord is not supposed to be taken down by a couple of guardsmen who make lucky shots; A Primarch doesn't come down to do battle against a handful of Gaunts; Tyranids don't send a bunch of warriors, hive tyrants and tergivons to oversee just 60 gaunts on the battlefield. The Avatar of Khaine is supposed to tear into whole armies; Greater Demons are much the same. Heck what about Knights? They are massive and supposed to take on way bigger weapons of war.

The only way the numbers on the table can be realistic is if every single character is Ramb.... Sly Marlbro

Unfortunately I don't have the proper time to reply to this, but I don't agree with this premise at all. We know a single Genestealer can carve up a Terminator, we know a Lascannon can blow through a Marine Captain, and we know that Kn8ghts can be brought down via concentrated combined-arms. The tabletop situation given in 40k represents a horrible strategic catastrophe where somehow roughly even forces face off in roughly symmetrical circumstances. The staging of the game is the artifice, less so the models themselves.

Heroes "supposed to" do heroic action X requires "right place right time", but the game is specifically structured as "wrong place wrong time".

I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this. Especially when its very abnormal in a wargame to start with. Historical Wargames also fudge the numbers to recreate real world battles on the tabletop. They have a relative strength (made easier by the fact everyone is human); but they don't 1:1 the models on tabletop to reality. The only ones that might get close are full skirmish games like Infinity where its built around a tactical squad as opposed to "armies"

Warhammer has long range artillery and strike aircraft on the same board as close combat events. To say its a catastrophe is an understatement. A basilisk should be miles away; strike craft should be flying through at 100s of miles an hour. Most of the buildings on the board are little more than a garden shed in size if taken at 1:1 scale to the models.

Trees are also really tiny.

Everything is not really to scale to everything else; distances are not a prefect 1:1 recreation; buildings aren't so I don't see why models suddenly should be. The numbers just don't add up right for any of the factions. It's not just "marine fever dreams"; its every other faction that has any tough hero character; or larger model or even just a machine gun style weapon.




Now I agree there are some relativities going on - fewer marines to more guardsmen and gaunts. But it just doesn't make sense to me at all that it would be 1:1 numbers. The lore, artwork, even the side games like Epic, don't line up with the 40K army structure. Even that has changed over the years considerably. At one time a "force" of gaunts might be only 8 or 16 models; in the past we've had units up to 40 and now we are at 30 for a single unit. Which edition is correct? 2nd? 6th? 10th?

The table can be highly abstracted while the models still represent 1:1, and the idea that a Swarmlord can't be killed by typical tabletop weapons seems silly once you start comparing units, weapons and stats. If theres a story about a Marine Captain or Chaper Master defeating a Swarmlord . . . and a Captain can also be easily killed by heavy weapons fire . . . then a Swarmlord being killed by heavy weapons fire is expected. It's a bit muddy because of constantly game mechanics and statlines, but in aggregate it works out.

Except that being a game not reality there are some fudges for playability. Such as the way that air units can be targeted by things other than dedicated anti-air systems (which changed from a previous edition where it was set AA only).

There are many units, like hormagaunts, that shouldn't really be able to hurt something like a Leman Russ Battletank. They shouldn't be able to scratch through the armour panels and they don't carry grenades to push through small holes. Yet in the game they can threaten tanks.

This is partly there because otherwise you'd have things like tanks that only counter-units could take out; which can make skewed tank lists overpowered against everything that isn't a dedicated anti-tank army.

 Overread wrote:
Except that being a game not reality there are some fudges for playability. Such as the way that air units can be targeted by things other than dedicated anti-air systems (which changed from a previous edition where it was set AA only).

There are many units, like hormagaunts, that shouldn't really be able to hurt something like a Leman Russ Battletank. They shouldn't be able to scratch through the armour panels and they don't carry grenades to push through small holes. Yet in the game they can threaten tanks.

This is partly there because otherwise you'd have things like tanks that only counter-units could take out; which can make skewed tank lists overpowered against everything that isn't a dedicated anti-tank army.

Lol. I think that's more an argument for a return of AV system/better to-wound table, rather than evidence that models aren't 1:1 representatives.

Yes there are abstractions and fudges for playability, but much of the interacting relationships still check out. Aiming for non 1:1 relationships is still the bigger leap in logic, especially when earlier versions of the game solved those problems and there hasn't been a significant change in model count.


Edit: This is pretty off topic though.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Except that being a game not reality there are some fudges for playability. Such as the way that air units can be targeted by things other than dedicated anti-air systems (which changed from a previous edition where it was set AA only).

There are many units, like hormagaunts, that shouldn't really be able to hurt something like a Leman Russ Battletank. They shouldn't be able to scratch through the armour panels and they don't carry grenades to push through small holes. Yet in the game they can threaten tanks.

This is partly there because otherwise you'd have things like tanks that only counter-units could take out; which can make skewed tank lists overpowered against everything that isn't a dedicated anti-tank army.

Lol. I think that's more an argument for a return of AV system/better to-wound table, rather than evidence that models aren't 1:1 representatives.

Yes there are abstractions and fudges for playability, but much of the interacting relationships still check out. Aiming for non 1:1 relationships is still the bigger leap in logic, especially when earlier versions of the game solved those problems and there hasn't been a significant change in model count.


Edit: This is pretty off topic though.

True thus new thread time: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/812665.page#11629906

^Nice. Will respond later, busy.

 Haighus wrote:
I am a bit wary of the "humanity is thoroughly physically outmatched by aliens" angle. It is mostly off-topic for this thread, but I think it has been the intention that Tyranid Gaunts, Tau, Eldar, and even Ork boys are broadly the same strength as Guardsmen. For many editions of the game, they were all strength 3. Orks obviously have a lot of advantages over Guardsmen in combat, but a disciplined, well-trained Guard unit can stand in melee against Orks if they are not being overwhelmed through weight of numbers. No (sane) Guard commander wants to enter melee with Orks, but it isn't automatically a death sentence.

Also, melee within the context of the game doesn't just mean hitting people- it also encompasses point-blank shooting.

Orks are established as brutes that can easily rip a man in half with their bare hands. The beast series has several occasions were guardsmen are pretty much toast once boyz come close (when they're not in return saved by Marines).
I'd give you Tau in CC, even their codex states that they're physically weaker than humans, but their weapons are much better of course.
Eldar? I know too little about them but from my understanding every eldar has several lifetimes of training behind them so whatever they might lack in pure muscles is being offset by more experience and training a normal human could ever achieve.
If we follow your reasoning of taking the rules as orientation a Catachan man (and woman no less) would be as strong as a Space Marine.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
I am a bit wary of the "humanity is thoroughly physically outmatched by aliens" angle. It is mostly off-topic for this thread, but I think it has been the intention that Tyranid Gaunts, Tau, Eldar, and even Ork boys are broadly the same strength as Guardsmen. For many editions of the game, they were all strength 3. Orks obviously have a lot of advantages over Guardsmen in combat, but a disciplined, well-trained Guard unit can stand in melee against Orks if they are not being overwhelmed through weight of numbers. No (sane) Guard commander wants to enter melee with Orks, but it isn't automatically a death sentence.

Also, melee within the context of the game doesn't just mean hitting people- it also encompasses point-blank shooting.

Orks are established as brutes that can easily rip a man in half with their bare hands. The beast series has several occasions were guardsmen are pretty much toast once boyz come close (when they're not in return saved by Marines).
I'd give you Tau in CC, even their codex states that they're physically weaker than humans, but their weapons are much better of course.
Eldar? I know too little about them but from my understanding every eldar has several lifetimes of training behind them so whatever they might lack in pure muscles is being offset by more experience and training a normal human could ever achieve.
If we follow your reasoning of taking the rules as orientation a Catachan man (and woman no less) would be as strong as a Space Marine.

Rules are a rough approximation. For most editions of the game, an Ork boy was considered closer in strength to a Guardsmen with a bayonet (S3) than to a Space Marine (S4). Typical orks are stronger than typical humans in the lore, but not by enough to make them in the same ballpark as Marines. Getting into melee with Ork boyz is bad news for humans, but not an automatic death sentence. We see this in, for example, Gunheads, where it is noted that Cadians are likely to be overrun by superior Ork numbers, but the Kasrkin units could hold their own longer to allow other units to disengage and set new firing lines. In the Last Chancer series, humans defeat Orks in brawls with equal numbers (these humans are very skilled, but not in good physical condition due to recent deprivation).

I think the Beast Arises series is a poor comparison to Orks in 40k- it was the largest Waaagh! ever seen with considerably more advanced Ork society than otherwise observed. The average Ork boy was likely to be significantly bigger than in most Ork forces as a result, more like typical skarboyz or nobz.

The main advantage of Eldar in combat is their speed.

For the record, Catachans have rarely been considered S4 (even Codex: Catachans uses S3), but they are noted as being so freakishly strong as to be approaching abhuman status (yet still S3 for most editions). Consider Ogryns, at S5 (above Space Marines). There is some great artwork of a Catachan holding an Ork in a headlock and dispatching them with a knife.

We have seen individual humans trying to take on a Tyranid hormagaunt in Dan Abnett's The Curiosity short story. They are badly outclassed.

Also Kaskrin aren't regular guardsmen, being the elite of the elite of the already quite elite Cadians.

And for the record there are female Kaskrin, IIRC the current kit even has female heads.

 Tyran wrote:
We have seen individual humans trying to take on a Tyranid hormagaunt in Dan Abnett's The Curiosity short story. They are badly outclassed.

Also Kaskrin aren't regular guardsmen, being the elite of the elite of the already quite elite Cadians.

And for the record there are female Kaskrin, IIRC the current kit even has female heads.

Agreed, although still encompassed by S3.

I think my point is being lost (partly my fault), which is that a bunch of basic troops in 40k have broadly similar strength, which is often not the determining factor even in melee (because there isn't enough discrimination between their relative strength). Hormagaunts, for example, are very quick and will kill most humans by being quicker.

If you have skilled humans, they can hold or even win against Ork boyz despite being weaker, because the strength disparity is not huge. Less so for Ork nobz or Ork Warbosses...