Jump to content



Tacticool


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 August 2012 - 07:48 PM

+++++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.



#42 Polaria

Polaria

    Member

  • Members
  • 734 posts

Posted 05 August 2012 - 08:03 PM

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.
 



#43 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,508 posts

Posted 05 August 2012 - 09:30 PM

AluminiumWolf said:

+++++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.

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?

 


There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#44 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 August 2012 - 09:56 PM

Morangias 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?

 

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...44240192&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.

 

 



#45 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,508 posts

Posted 05 August 2012 - 11:32 PM

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.


There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#46 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:24 AM

Morangias said:

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.

 

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:-

 (Street Fighter 4 teaser trailer).

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.



#47 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,508 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 02:52 AM

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.


There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#48 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 August 2012 - 03:20 AM

+++++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?

 



#49 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 August 2012 - 03:32 AM

 (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…)



#50 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,508 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 05:58 AM

AluminiumWolf said:

+++++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?

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

AluminiumWolf said:

+++++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.)

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:

+++++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?

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

 


There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#51 Captain Ventris

Captain Ventris

    Member

  • Members
  • 302 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 07:39 AM

AluminiumWolf said:

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.

…are you trying to tell me that you didn't think Robocop looked awesome?



#52 Gaire

Gaire

    Member

  • Members
  • 348 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:01 PM

 I'm with Ventris on this one. Also, there's the intimidation factor. What's going to scare you more, a giant in armor with a fully-automatic micro-rocket launcher who's moving tactically, taking cover behind stuff and taking the time to line up his shots, or that same giant idly striding toward you, your shots glancing off and doing literally nothing to impede his movement, and not even looking when he points his gun off to the side and blows off your buddy's head? My personal disdain for Costa's method aside, I don't think Marines need that. Now, if they're going up against tanks or heavy weapons emplacements, sure, cover is essential. But then again, I don't think Costa would be pulling the same moves against a tank.



#53 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:09 PM

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

How would you stage it differently though?

 (and even the gurning is optional)

+++++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.+++++

I would argue that they could never know if the enemy has heavy weapons (and indeed the enemy will have heavy weapons most of the time) and so will have to operate as if they do.

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

I guess I just think if you took motion capture data from:-

and used it with Marine models, you would end up with something that looks cooler than:-

http://www.youtube.c...slICeS8#t=5m51s

+++++…are you trying to tell me that you didn't think Robocop looked awesome?+++++

Ah, dude, all he does is stand there and let bullets ping off his armour. That's no where near as cool as Tacticool!



#54 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:21 PM

Gaire said:

What's going to scare you more, a giant in armor with a fully-automatic micro-rocket launcher who's moving tactically, taking cover behind stuff and taking the time to line up his shots, or that same giant idly striding toward you, your shots glancing off and doing literally nothing to impede his movement, and not even looking when he points his gun off to the side and blows off your buddy's head?

What is more scary? A zombie lumbering slowly towards you giving you time to line up headshots or an Aliens Xenomorph that moves faster than you can follow?

Slow and lumbering is never awesome.



#55 Gaire

Gaire

    Member

  • Members
  • 348 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:24 PM

 No one is saying that Marines are slow! The whole point is that they're strong, durable, and fast. Comparing a Marine that moves without taking cover to a zombie that's shambling toward you is like comparing a cheetah to a glacier. It's wrong, it's dumb, and it wastes our time.

EDIT: Moreover, XENOMORPHS DON'T USE COVER IN COMBAT.



#56 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:33 PM

+++++No one is saying that Marines are slow!+++++

Then show them running, doing parkour, moving fast!

Not walking slowly towards the enemy letting gunfire ping off their armour!



#57 Gaire

Gaire

    Member

  • Members
  • 348 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:41 PM

 Poor choice of words on my part. Should've used advancing instead of idly striding. That said, I don't think Marines are slow, but nor do I think they should use traditional tactical movement. They'd have their own completely unique way of moving through a battlefield since, y'know, they're not really human any more. They wouldn't need to take cover like us squishy humans, they wouldn't need to line up shots quite the same way, and they sure as hell wouldn't practice gun kata- sorry, completely unrelated, but I watched Equilibrium the other night.



#58 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:48 PM

 I'd like to see Marines running full out - presumably in their armour they can maintain a pace that would leave Usain Bolt in the dust over long distances, and nothing is going to slow them down:-



#59 Gaire

Gaire

    Member

  • Members
  • 348 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:57 PM

 …Agreed. Although I don't think Marines would be jumping and ducking the branches. Just barreling right through.



#60 Seeten

Seeten

    Member

  • Members
  • 146 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 04:10 AM

On the Lords of the Rings point, its probably important to note that "Maiar" which is Demigods, of which both Saruman and Gandalf were, used up their "essence" to perform magical feats, which is why they almost never did anything magical, and mostly used others to get stuff done.

 

So, beating each other with words and sticks is fairly accurate to the books.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS