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.

BrainDeleted wrote:No, it does not just take a precise application of force.

Yes, that is in fact all it takes.

BrainDeleted wrote:They need to make sure they aren't detected and evaded or destroyed

Throw a few more high caliber explosive munitions in it then.

Strength in number-- of explosions.

BrainDeleted wrote:Also, their ambush need to be perfectly executed.

No it doesn't. It just needs to go off well enough that the marines would prefer to tactically retreat over continuing to advance.

Thank you for ignoring most of my post and the context of my sentences.

Please take the time to read through the entirety and construct a response to all of my points or, at least, some of my points in context. It makes for a much better debate.

BrainDeleted wrote:Thank you for ignoring most of my post and the context of my sentences.

You're welcome. I didn't consider them particularly relevant.

And you realize of course that ATSKNF doesn't mean they're mad berserkers, right? This is why in-game the special rule combat tactics allows them to retreat by choice. If they think it's the best decision. Upon getting ambushed to the point where half their squad is incapacitated, it's safe to assume that they'd realize that staying in that area is a bad idea, not out of fear, but out of a simple decision of "hey, we just got effed up, we should move to more defensible ground".

Which of course could also be trapped.

No, that isn't a safe assumption. Once ten guardsmen have revealed themselves, they are not much of a threat to the marines, especially in close proximity where a marine is at his absolute peak of combat proficiency. Point, shoot, apply force (Sound familiar?). Sounds logical to me. Besides, if they're surrounded as in most proper ambushes, retreat isn't viable. I didn't say anything about them being berserk at all though quite a few marines would fall into that category. Please don't put words in my mouth.

You ignored everything I said about how they would go about ambushing marines. Sure, ignoring all of that and assuming they've achieved complete surprise greatly increases their chances of success...But what's the point of debating that? 90% of the effort has to go towards achieving that surprise.

BrainDeleted wrote:No, that isn't a safe assumption. Once ten guardsmen have revealed themselves, they are not much of a threat to the marines

... unless of course they give the marines reason to believe they're just a diversion, or just the tip of the iceberg.

Where there's ten guardsmen there's bound to be a few thousand more not too far away. The Marines would realize that the best solution is to reconnoiter rather than blindly press forward and potentially get slaughtered.

Really, you also make a bunch of asinine assumptions. "Well the marines are going to detect this and counter it without fail." to everything. It's like listening to a kid saying "omg batman would beat everyone because he's always prepared for everything everywhere everytime!" But even batman got his back broken by Bane (oh sure he got better).

And Marines ain't as good as Batman.

Ok? Now it's an ambush backed by a regiment. How'd they do that again?


I'm trying to have something like a constructive debate. I never said Marines are infallible, I am just stating traits that are commonly attributed to them. Every marine comes equipped with power armor. All power armor has autosenses. Autosenses are good at...Sensing things? I'm sorry if that makes you angry.

You are the one cherry picking at my posts and there is no need to be rude.

Melissia wrote: But even batman got his back broken by Bane (oh sure he got better).

That was after Bane broke out everybody from Arkham. He effectively fought a badly weakened and tired Bruce. It's not a good example.

Batman's outsmarted Darksied remember?

BrainDeleted wrote:
You are the one cherry picking at my posts and there is no need to be rude.

That's kind of what you get when you argue with Melissia. She got banned on Bolter and Chainsword for that kind of behavior.

Melissia wrote:No it doesn't. It just needs to go off well enough that the marines would prefer to tactically retreat over continuing to advance.

Actually, you said "any level of competent planning," would allow an Imperial Guard squad to defeat a Space Marine squad. You've refused to walk back from that quote a couple times.

That means, of course, you firmly believe the bare minimum level of command competency in an Imperial Guard squad would defeat any Space Marine squad out there.

As wild-ass, evidence-free, hilariously biased assertions go, that ranks up there.

Melissia wrote:

BrainDeleted wrote:Thank you for ignoring most of my post and the context of my sentences.

You're welcome. I didn't consider them particularly relevant.

And you realize of course that ATSKNF doesn't mean they're mad berserkers, right? This is why in-game the special rule combat tactics allows them to retreat by choice. If they think it's the best decision. Upon getting ambushed to the point where half their squad is incapacitated, it's safe to assume that they'd realize that staying in that area is a bad idea, not out of fear, but out of a simple decision of "hey, we just got effed up, we should move to more defensible ground".

Which of course could also be trapped.

'Retreating when it's the best decision' is not the same as 'scatter randomly into a minefield'. You also initially said that a single marine is killed in the initial trap. Unless it's a squad of two, I can't really see why they'd instantly run away after (assumedly) getting through the minefield, avoiding the fire of an entire regiment and the artillery they have backing them.

BrainDeleted wrote:Ok? Now it's an ambush backed by a regiment. How'd they do that again?

For someone who complained about people not reading, you're really not doing a good job following your own advice...


Yes, most of the effort of an ambush does go in to making sure you get the element of surprise. So... just like real life Even human vs human or hell human vs animal the most important part of an ambush is... making sure you aren't detected until it's time to spring the ambush.


As for "autosenses", let's look at what those actually do now, shall we?

Deathwatch RPG lists the autosenses bonus as-- darksight (night vision), Heightened Senses (Marines already have this without the armor; it's certainly helpful to be sure... buuut veteran guardsmen can have basically the same level of tactical awareness), immunity to flashbangs and stun grenades, and helps them slightly with aiming (they can aim at a specific body part faster than un-augmented, as opposed to simply shooting at someone).

Of these, only augmented aiming speed is something that the Marine helmet has over, say, a stormtrooper helmet. The Marine's own natural senses are more of a help to them, especially for chapters such as Space Wolves.

BrainDeleted wrote: Every Astartes comes equipped with highly attuned autosenses aimed at preventing...Ambush? They need to avoid thermal detection, be utterly quiet and motionless, have next to no scent, ect, ect.

Not quite. An Astartes Autosenses merely enhances his senses. Ultimately the Space Marine must act in the way he interprets his surroundings, so he chooses to assume if there's an ambush or not.

If his autosenses were on par with that of a machine, Genestealers wouldn't have their nasty reputations of surprise on Space Hulks no?


On the same subject, an ambush to disarm a Space Marine squad has to be, regardless of size, quite heavy. Charged explosives and Autocannons would definately surprise Marines, but you better keep an eye on all of those Marines still standing.

Melissia wrote:
Heightened Senses (Marines already have this without the armor; it's certainly helpful to be sure... buuut veteran guardsmen can have basically the same level of tactical awareness),

So your claiming that humans have the same tactical awareness and senss of a Space Marine?

Gree wrote:

Melissia wrote:
Heightened Senses (Marines already have this without the armor; it's certainly helpful to be sure... buuut veteran guardsmen can have basically the same level of tactical awareness),

So your claiming that humans have the same tactical awareness and senss of a Space Marine?

Of course not. That'd be ridiculous.

He's claiming they have more.

Gree wrote:

Melissia wrote:
Heightened Senses (Marines already have this without the armor; it's certainly helpful to be sure... buuut veteran guardsmen can have basically the same level of tactical awareness),

So your claiming that humans have the same tactical awareness and senss of a Space Marine?

No.

I said veteran guardsmen can. That is, combat veterans whom have been in, survived, and probably won many engagements and possibly wars. A random guardsmen recently out of boot camp isn't likely to have that level of tactical awareness barring some stroke of luck.

Gree wrote:
You did, or rather you implied it.

Uh huh. Except for that one bit where I pointed out an example from Fallen Angels where a heavy bolter round survives, or where I was talking about how real life armour works for protection (which would give more than ample explanations as to how armor can provide protection in some cases but not others, as well as explaining how a bolter can damage power armor even if it shows resilience against heavy bolters.)

Of course. If it’s written down then it’s indicative of their capacities. I see no reason to doubt said source.

... you're seriously arguing that unarmored space marines can tank HMG fire now?

How?

By claiming on one hand a Space Marine moves so fast its nigh impossible to hit them with concentrated heavy weapons fire... yet at the same time dismissing my examples as cases where Space Marines are hit with concentrated heavy weapons fire. Do you really need that pointed out?

Because in most of those cases the Astartes are standing still or in confined spaces. If they were moving the it would be unlikely they would be hit.

So, no contradiction.

Except you claim a Space Marine would never do that. Remember? They're supposed to be so agile that it's virtually impossible to hit them. You yourself said it was silly for a Space Marine to stand still.

I never claimed they are immune to bolter fire. Nice to construct strawmen isn’t it?

Sure it is. You have claimed on one hand it needs sustained, concentrated fire for heavy weapons to breach a Space Marine's armor, and on another that they would be constantly moving to avoid that. As you yourself claimed "why would a space marine stand still?"

It makes all the difference, he lost only a kidney.

No he didn't. Read again:

Force Commander Lamnos lay in a coma, his primary heart and his oolitic kidney ruptured by an autocannon blast..

One heart down, one kidney down, and he's in an effing COMA. C-O-M-A. I don't think I need to tell you what a coma is or what it means, do I?

You don’t have to be faster than the bullets, just the aim.

You do realize that there is an element of chance to gunfire, right? They have to spin the rounds via rifling or other means to give it a semblance of stability, as well as the drop in gravity, etc. They can predict the aim, they can out react it, but it does not guarantee they will be missed. Hence why I mentioned things like oh, rate of fire.

That’s either in confined spaces or the Marine is distracted or simple Plot induced stupidity.

Oh good, you're invoking the "it doesn't count because I say it does" excuse, like you did with that outlier crap. Please tell me you are not deliberately being dishonest by cherrypicking what evidence is valid and is not.

Proof?

Because there's a limit to how many heavy weapons a company can field? I mean you could probably assume they went with nothing but autocannon but how likely is that? Going by the 5th ed codex there's up to five infantry squads (each of which can have a heavy weapon) and 5 heavy weapons squads.) That's what, 60 weapons possible for a company? We could call it a hundred if you still think I'm being unfair, but I'm also ignoring the fact they had missile launchers.

Considering your claims about space marine agility, it doesn't seem likely that many hits would land because "a space marine wouldn't stnad still and would be nearly impossible to hit".

Maybe you'd like to assume that an entire company's worth of autocannons were just focused on a handful of men for some odd reason (its not like the rest of Ventri's forces could be a threat, after all.)

If it’s an entire company’s worth of autocannons then by sheer weight of fire some must hit. Notice only a few were hit.

So my point still stands.

Oh? And how many autocannons are you claiming they have? Since you demanded proof, I want to see some from you. And I suppose you are also claiming they ignored the vast majority of marines to concentrate on just a few guys with all their heavy weapons.

Into the body of course. It just wouldn’t be enough to affect an Astarte, like my kid cousin charging into my knee and bouncing off.

If your cousin bounces off of you, they're not transferring all their momentum into the target. You're basically arguing LEarchus suffered glancing hits that ricochet off.

Oh and just so you know, a 25-30MM autocannon IRL has around 150-200 kg*m/s (for a 25mm like you might find on some military vehicles) to ~300-400 kg*m/s (for a 30mm autocannon like the A-10's avenger cannon.) Care to tell me how much you think a Space Marine weighs if they can absorb all that without even budging? Especially since they're taking hits from an airborne target from behind?

[quoteI’m not the sole arbiter, it’s just that your examples and arguments have flaws in them I point out.

Space hulks and gene stealers bring about a whole slew of problems that guardsman and a typical, terrestrial battle field don't. I am not trying to say Marines are immune to ambush. I am trying to say that it is (very) unlikely that in a squad vs. squad scenario, a squad of veteran guardsman would be able to achieve a successful ambush against a squad of marines. That is, surprise them and kill them or force a retreat.

Melissia wrote:For someone who complained about people not reading, you're really not doing a good job following your own advice...

Yes, most of the effort of an ambush does go in to making sure you get the element of surprise. So... just like real life Even human vs human or hell human vs animal the most important part of an ambush is... making sure you aren't detected until it's time to spring the ambush.


As for "autosenses", let's look at what those actually do now, shall we?

Deathwatch RPG lists the autosenses bonus as-- darksight (night vision), Heightened Senses (Marines already have this without the armor; it's certainly helpful to be sure... buuut veteran guardsmen can have basically the same level of tactical awareness), immunity to flashbangs and stun grenades, and helps them slightly with aiming (they can aim at a specific body part faster than un-augmented, as opposed to simply shooting at someone).

Of these, only augmented aiming speed is something that the Marine helmet has over, say, a stormtrooper helmet. The Marine's own natural senses are more of a help to them, especially for chapters such as Space Wolves.

Maybe I'll have to reread your posts a few times, I haven't seen where you described the scenario that allows veteran guardsmen (Or are we talking stormtroopers now?) achieve a successful ambush against a squad of Marines but I guess I'm a little late to the party in this thread...Is it on one of the earlier pages?

I'm using autosenses as a catchall term for a Marines enhanced awareness, somewhat incorrectly, I guess. It's less cumbersome than decades of battle field experience, extremely intense training, enhanced biological senses that are enhanced further by power armor, and a brain completely focused (Beyond the point of what we'd consider psychopathic) on nothing but the art of war though.

All I am saying is that guardsmen would have a quite low success rate when attempting to ambush marines. These guys commonly achieve Kill : Death ratios <100:1. I'll cite sources if you want. There are some extremely outrageous ones when the fight is against regular humans. The Exorcists achieved a ratio of something like 97:1 against Daemons.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Uh huh. Except for that one bit where I pointed out an example from Fallen Angels where a heavy bolter round survives, or where I was talking about how real life armour works for protection (which would give more than ample explanations as to how armor can provide protection in some cases but not others, as well as explaining how a bolter can damage power armor even if it shows resilience against heavy bolters.)

And then for all those others bits you did imply it.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
... you're seriously arguing that unarmored space marines can tank HMG fire now?

Yes, I am.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Except you claim a Space Marine would never do that. Remember? They're supposed to be so agile that it's virtually impossible to hit them. You yourself said it was silly for a Space Marine to stand still.

It is, that is exactly why your examples are silly.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
One heart down, one kidney down, and he's in an effing COMA. C-O-M-A. I don't think I need to tell you what a coma is or what it means, do I?

Once again, he’s not dead.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Sure it is. You have claimed on one hand it needs sustained, concentrated fire for heavy weapons to breach a Space Marine's armor, and on another that they would be constantly moving to avoid that. As you yourself claimed "why would a space marine stand still?"

Once again, I did not claim they were immune to bolter fire. Find me a quote of me saying that please.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

You do realize that there is an element of chance to gunfire, right? They have to spin the rounds via rifling or other means to give it a semblance of stability, as well as the drop in gravity, etc. They can predict the aim, they can out react it, but it does not guarantee they will be missed. Hence why I mentioned things like oh, rate of fire.

I would assume a Space Marine, with their enhanced cognitive abilities and senses would have a much easier time of calculating that angle than a normal human would.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Oh good, you're invoking the "it doesn't count because I say it does" excuse, like you did with that outlier crap. Please tell me you are not deliberately being dishonest by cherrypicking what evidence is valid and is not.

I’m not.

I am however pointing out the flaws in your argument and examples.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Because there's a limit to how many heavy weapons a company can field? I mean you could probably assume they went with nothing but autocannon but how likely is that? Going by the 5th ed codex there's up to five infantry squads (each of which can have a heavy weapon) and 5 heavy weapons squads.) That's what, 60 weapons possible for a company? We could call it a hundred if you still think I'm being unfair, but I'm also ignoring the fact they had missile launchers.

How does this contradict my point again?

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Considering your claims about space marine agility, it doesn't seem likely that many hits would land because "a space marine wouldn't stnad still and would be nearly impossible to hit".

I’m pretty sure sixty autocannons could put out quite a bit of lead.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Maybe you'd like to assume that an entire company's worth of autocannons were just focused on a handful of men for some odd reason (its not like the rest of Ventri's forces could be a threat, after all.)

Again, it’s quite a bit of fire put out.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Oh? And how many autocannons are you claiming they have? Since you demanded proof, I want to see some from you.

I don’t believe I ever gave a concrete number on the amount of autocannons. But since Pavonis is an industrial planet I would assume they are well-equipped.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
And I suppose you are also claiming they ignored the vast majority of marines to concentrate on just a few guys with all their heavy weapons.

Not at all.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
If your cousin bounces off of you, they're not transferring all their momentum into the target. You're basically arguing LEarchus suffered glancing hits that ricochet off.

So if my cousin charges directly into my knee that’s a glancing hit?

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Oh and just so you know, a 25-30MM autocannon IRL has around 150-200 kg*m/s (for a 25mm like you might find on some military vehicles) to ~300-400 kg*m/s (for a 30mm autocannon like the A-10's avenger cannon.)

After seeing that stream of technobabble I have no idea what you just said. Plain English please.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Care to tell me how much you think a Space Marine weighs if they can absorb all that without even budging? Especially since they're taking hits from an airborne target from behind?

Evidently as the example shows, all of it.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
No you claim they have flaws, and then pretend you've dealt with them.

No, I point out the flaws and I deal with them.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
I could do the same and declare your examples outliers with just about the same effect.

You could and I would point out why you are wrong.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Because your judgement on these matters is so much superiro to everyone else.

Never said that. I just point out the obvious.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Why should your opinion have greatre weight than others

Why should it?

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Because your judgement on these matters is so much superiro to everyone else? Why should your opinion have greatre weight than others? I ask you this because you're the one who insists my evidence must either be ignored, flawed, or an outlier based on your own judgement.

Based on common sense.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
If you're going to keep insisting that the only opinion which has any validity is your own, there's no point arguing this because you won't listen to any other opinion BUT your own.

So in other words you are going to ragequit then right?

BrainDeleted wrote:These guys commonly achieve Kill : Death ratios <100:1

So basically like the Valhallans against Tyranids and Orks in the Cain series. Or Gaunt's Ghosts against superior equipped grenadiers who turned against them. Or any guard unit really-- when led by a competent commander.

The Imperial Guard wins more often than not. If they didn't, the Imperium wouldn't exist. Not saying they'd kill the marines every time in such an ambush, only that it's certainly a distinct possibility, and that no, marines are not omniscient, infallible gods of the battlefield like people in this thread constantly say. Movie marines are a lie.

Melissia wrote:

Gree wrote:

Melissia wrote:
Heightened Senses (Marines already have this without the armor; it's certainly helpful to be sure... buuut veteran guardsmen can have basically the same level of tactical awareness),

So your claiming that humans have the same tactical awareness and senss of a Space Marine?

No.

I said veteran guardsmen can. That is, combat veterans whom have been in, survived, and probably won many engagements and possibly wars. A random guardsmen recently out of boot camp isn't likely to have that level of tactical awareness barring some stroke of luck.

And chances are you average Space Marine wil still be older and more experianced. And being a veteran does not improve your sight, hearing or smell.

Melissia wrote:

BrainDeleted wrote:These guys commonly achieve Kill : Death ratios <100:1

So basically like the Valhallans against Tyranids and Orks in the Cain series-- or any guard unit really, when led by a competent commander.

Proof that they achieve said kill rates?

Gree wrote:Proof that they achieve said kill rates?

They came off relatively unscathed despite fighting off a Tyranid horde in the fourth Cain book. They destroyed entire swaths of heretics with almost no casualties in the first Cain book. In Caves of Ice, they did much the same, destroying tons of Orks and even a gargant with very few casualties-- and that was before Cain set off his little fireworks show. In the second (I think?) Gaunt's Ghost book, a segment of Ghosts were left behind as rear guard, and fought off a group of heavily armored grenadiers to a very high kill ratio before they were overtaken. In plenty of other Ghosts books, they take on far larger numbers and still manage to achieve victory without crippling losses in most cases (though their constant wars are wearing their numbers down).

Melissia wrote:

BrainDeleted wrote:These guys commonly achieve Kill : Death ratios <100:1

So basically like the Valhallans against Tyranids and Orks in the Cain series. Or Gaunt's Ghosts against superior equipped grenadiers who turned against them. Or any guard unit really-- when led by a competent commander.

The Imperial Guard wins more often than not. If they didn't, the Imperium wouldn't exist. Not saying they'd kill the marines every time in such an ambush, only that it's certainly a distinct possibility.

The problem with that is that Marines achieve completely insane kill ratios against the 'Nids and Orks. I should specify that I'm saying against humans. What ratios do Valhallans net against Marines? That's more important to the topic at hand. Who cares how they do against hordes. The Guard wins a lot of their battles. Marines win most of their battles or else their chapter ceases to exists. The Imperium continues to exist thanks to both forces though one could argue that it only began in the first place largely because of the efforts of Marines.

Melissia wrote:

Gree wrote:Proof that they achieve said kill rates?

They came off relatively unscathed despite fighting off a Tyranid horde in the fourth Cain book. They destroyed entire swaths of heretics with almost no casualties in the first Cain book. In Caves of Ice, they did much the same, destroying tons of Orks and even a gargant with very few casualties-- and that was before Cain set off his little fireworks show.

Proof? Give me casualty rates of each engagement and the size of the forces they went up against and the tactical conditions.

BrainDeleted wrote:I should specify that I'm saying against humans. What ratios do Valhallans net against Marines? That's more important to the topic at hand.

In the third Cain book it was seven Marines killed, zero Valhallans lost (one more was killed by the PDF using, I think, a lascannon, then gibbed with a couple krak missiles just to be sure-- but how many of the PDF the marine took down first is not stated).

You're entirely unreasonable to the point of trolling, Gree. She gave you examples, don't expect numbers. Those are rare in fluff.

Gree wrote:Proof? Give me casualty rates of each engagement and the size of the forces they went up against and the tactical conditions.

No, I will not fall for that logical fallacy.

To be fair though, the marines in the Cain book were khornate crazies, not loyalists. They had the tactical sense of a rampaging bull.

Melissia wrote:In the third Cain book it was seven Marines killed, zero Valhallans lost (one more was killed by the PDF using, I think, a lascannon, then gibbed with a couple krak missiles just to be sure-- but how many of the PDF the marine took down first is not stated).

You are taking that out of context. The World Eaters were mostly fighting against the Slaanishi cultists and the last of them were killed by the daemon at the end.

The Vahallans only fought two as I recall, one was enagaged by Cain and distracted so Jurgen could kill him and the other was already badly wounded.

BrainDeleted wrote:You're entirely unreasonable to the point of trolling, Gree. She gave you examples, don't expect numbers. Those are rare in fluff.

She made a claim I expect her to back it up. The examples were vague and out of context.

Melissia wrote:url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#As_logical_fallacy]No, I will not fall for that logical fallacy.[/url]

In other words you made a false claim you can't back up.

BrainDeleted wrote: I am trying to say that it is (very) unlikely that in a squad vs. squad scenario, a squad of veteran guardsman would be able to achieve a successful ambush against a squad of marines. That is, surprise them and kill them or force a retreat.

If you were to remove the (very) from that statement I would be inclined to agree. While veteran Guardsman would probably perish in most cases, Space Marines in general suffer from a dibilitating case of hubris, believing that they're enemy too weak to make it successful. But remember that Ambushes can be considered successful as a stalling tactic, so while the Marines might lose one or two Brothers, they change their pacing and overall demeanour more conservitively, which might be considered as a successfull stall.

BrainDeleted wrote:All I am saying is that guardsmen would have a quite low success rate when attempting to ambush marines. These guys commonly achieve Kill : Death ratios <100:1. I'll cite sources if you want. There are some extremely outrageous ones when the fight is against regular humans. The Exorcists achieved a ratio of something like 97:1 against Daemons.

Pretty much, however, we have two posters on opposite sides of the Space Marine spectrum. Melissa believes that Space Marines are around the equivalent of glorified Guardsmen while Gree makes them out to be unstoppable juggernauts with speed akin to the Eldar, when in reality most Marines are in that middle.

Killing a distracted opponent is a perfectly valid method of war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KplKeegan wrote:Melissa believes that Space Marines are around the equivalent of glorified Guardsmen

No I don't, and I've already specifically said otherwise several times in this thread, so screw you.

My position is that "they are not infallible gods, they're supremely competent soldiers with biological enhancements".

Melissia wrote:Killing a distracted opponent is a perfectly valid method of war.

But not something normall indicative of actual combat performance in normal situations.

So you have a ratio of one, and the no Vahallan losses were due to Cain being specifically stated as being the best swordsman in the sector.

Gree wrote:But not something normall indicative of actual combat performance in normal situations.

Yeah it is. Covering fire for a flanking maneuver. Completely normal tactic. Though usually it's not a third party providing covering fire, but that's not really a relevant fact.