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.

Simple, and this is for the sake of curiousity -- this is a 'community hall' thread for asking and answering choice-options.

My questions are:

these are mostly intended as fluff, not as 'because It's not rule-fair.'

Why can't tactical marines/devastators take assault cannons?
Why can't they take auto-cannons?
Why don't marines get mortars? -- (I just think this would make an awesome infantry support option.)
Why don't marines get any LONG range artillery? (confined to 72"?)
stressing the note: these aren't 'my army is so weak and pathetic, improovements please' questions, these are "so, is it too heavy or somthing?"

I'll answer the mortar question at least (or try to).

SM are not infantry, they are the shockiest of shock troops, designed to blitz the enemy through sheer force and speed and fear. Their existing weapons are precision weapons, couples with enhanced senses of the SM them selves each round should be delivered on target. Mortars do not fit that pattern, taking time to set up, aim and that extra time to lay a barrage down, all time that could be spent putting bolter rounds in th enemies chests and eviserating them with chainswords.

Their existing heavy weapons load outs fit their flexible role far better than mortars and the effectiveness of a mortar round is below that of a boltgun shell (which is essentially an RPG shot).

The same goes for long range artillery fluff wise and game wise think of The SM force dropping into the battle zone after prelim bomardment has taken place (negating the use of cumbersome artillery) Artillery doesn't fit into the elite style of the SM (fluff wise).

I shall answer why they can take assualt cannons, as said before an assualt cannon is and extremely heavy weapon specicficly designed to lay down a torrent of fire to protect the marines, also the ammo would have to be carryed by a seperate marine limited their combat effectiveness It would make sense to the marines to be suppresing the enemys their supposed to be getting close to and blasting their faces off.

why? they can fit the ammo for a heavy bolter in, but not for an assault cannon?

they seem to do fine on the Land speeder...

Captain Solon wrote:Simple, and this is for the sake of curiousity -- this is a 'community hall' thread for asking and answering choice-options.

My questions are:

these are mostly intended as fluff, not as 'because It's not rule-fair.'

Why can't tactical marines/devastators take assault cannons?
Why can't they take auto-cannons?
Why don't marines get mortars? -- (I just think this would make an awesome infantry support option.)
Why don't marines get any LONG range artillery? (confined to 72"?)
stressing the note: these aren't 'my army is so weak and pathetic, improovements please' questions, these are "so, is it too heavy or somthing?"

Assault cannons:
Barrels rotate at highspeed and send out a stream of small bullets. It may get hot and standard servo armor and its systems may not provide enough capacity to cool it down.
Remember the TDA and vehicles get assaultcannons but those have superior power and coolant systems.

( IMO TDA should allow to field plasma-weapons without "gets hot" )

Autocannons:
Were used pre-heresy. Seems the traitors kept them, but the loyalists decided to go with the assaultcannons instead.

Mortars:

Marines have thunderfire and whirlwinds to barrage a position. And both seem to be less likely fielded because they can't
move and shoot.
Plus, most marines prefer to tear apart their opponents face to face, to make sure the job is done.
Mortars would reduce the onrushing numbers and therfore reduce the glory too. It would stain their honor to kill halfdead enemys..

long range artillery:

Why should they tread on the IG's toes?
Space marines are made for the decisive fight, not a war of attrition.
Fast in, deal out the punishment and move on.

The IG and ad mech may also do a better job at this, cause they have the numbers to provide enough guns and ammunition to shell anything to pieces. Space marines would field only a few guns and crew them with servitors ( low BS ) and precious Techmarines. I think the decision is clear, the slower but massive forces ( IG and ad mech ) do the basics and the marines care for the mission.

Marines did carry Assault Cannons during the Heresy.

And they don't use Autocannons because they're 'lower tech'. Notice that CSMs don't get MM's or Plasma Cannons, and that their Termies have the lower-tech Reaper AC (the precursor to the Assault Cannon).

They don't have artillery because they're not a standing infantry force, they're Marines, and shock-troopers. They are not sent to fight wars, they are send to fight battles - specific battled with very specific objectives. They only fight conventionally (hold the line!) in situations that call for it (the route on Taros being a good one).

actually, thinking about it, an autocannon is a gakky plasma cannon, isn't it?

Captain Solon wrote:actually, thinking about it, an autocannon is a gakky plasma cannon, isn't it?

No?



They have nothing in common.

Both strength 7 heavy weapons, but otherwise, yes, completely different. Also, autocannon is better in many situations.

There's one easy asnwer:

The Codex Astartes tells them so.

why? they can fit the ammo for a heavy bolter in, but not for an assault cannon?

they seem to do fine on the Land speeder...

Space marines have enough of an issue of ammo as it is, a gun like that IRL shoots around 50 bullets every second. Im sure the most a terminator can manage is about a 5 second burst and the same with speeders.

Probably why they limited the turns in this edition. Would be embarrassing to go into a ninth turn and the marines had to throw their pauldrons at the enemy.

ah, fail c:

Captain Solon wrote:Simple, and this is for the sake of curiousity -- this is a 'community hall' thread for asking and answering choice-options.

My questions are:

these are mostly intended as fluff, not as 'because It's not rule-fair.'

Why can't tactical marines/devastators take assault cannons?
Why can't they take auto-cannons?
Why don't marines get mortars? -- (I just think this would make an awesome infantry support option.)
Why don't marines get any LONG range artillery? (confined to 72"?)
stressing the note: these aren't 'my army is so weak and pathetic, improovements please' questions, these are "so, is it too heavy or somthing?"

1. No idea, they should be able to...
2. I think an AC is too big and impractical to downsize (assuming that the handheld lascannon variant is a downsized version of one you'd find mounted on a vehicle... Since a laser can be downsized without the same ill effects as changing the caliber of ammunition).
3. In the fluff I imagine marines rely on the Guard for artillery support... cowering behind the lines lobbing shells is hardly "Mariney"
4. Again, the Marines coordinate their actions with the Guard... They'd rely on them for long-range support as the marines are so few that they focus their resources on the frontline to make maximum use of their manpower and speed... Artillery is also far too slow (hence why the marines use Rhino-based vehicles rather than Leman Russes).

Try take IG as allies and collect an "Imperial Force"?

In space crusade the marines could have assault cannons, still got them painted up as Ultramarine Vets (except the asscan is a heavy bolter)