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.

Brother Coa wrote:
If Space Marine Battle Barge can do that to a planet from that distance then Imperial Navy can get us kicked with a press of a button.

Yeah, and Ultramarines battle barge also has weapons forbidden to SM in the Codex Astartes on it, if that lance hit is from it. Serous issue with canon there, as it's an Ultramarines battlebarge. (And, for those of you who are getting ready to scream but, but SEDITIO OPPRIMERE I might point out that it has since been retconned with extreme prejudice as of page 58 of FAQ 2010)

Brother Coa wrote:
TT rules =/= fluff.
In fluff Tau fleet suck against Imperial Navy.

Until FAQ 2010 they did. Now they're expressly equal to it in fluff.

Brother Coa wrote:
Like Imperial Navy can't equip their ships with weapons that can be used to devastate entire cities in one blow.

Yes, but that blow usually also involves blowing up the entire planet. A lance strike is absolutely lethal for a half km or so, and deals minor structural damage for another km. A city takes extensive bombardment to kill, with even SM strike cruisers, which are specifically designed for planetary bombardment, only do middling damage. (both in TT rules and in fluff)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

im2randomghgh wrote:
No. GW never gave figures for the yield of these weapons, to get solid numbers we have to use math and the size of the shells. 10 Gigatons. And this is auto-weaponry too. The starship equivalent of an autocannon.

No, FFG wrote it, GW said it was canon, and if you don't like that, take it up with GW.

im2randomghgh wrote:
#number he pulled out of his ass.

Using BFG scale, an Imperial torp travels at 60,000 kmph. Divide it by 60 twice. 16.666 km per sec

im2randomghgh wrote:
I acknowledge the linear accelerator part, but they have NOT been dropped to a small fraction of C. They are NOT 10m (Hell Forged used several dozen metre long nova cannon shells that critically damage a space hulk in one hit) it is only comparable to a broadside if you're using BFG rules.

Or any other space ships game they've ever made. And, again, read the NC section in BFK. Wasn't aware that they had a meter long version, but makes sense with the Jovian pattern. Each one is a Vortex warhead.

im2randomghgh wrote:
It doesn't make sense to me either, but I am fairly sure that the Phalanx has nova cannons, so yes, Space Marines can still blast your face off with nova cannons.

Yes, but since fluff does not agree on what the Phalanx even looks like, and no place does it mention nova cannons, I'm calling BS on that as you have no evidence they do, and I have the statements in the Codex Astates that they're not supposed to. Hell, in the section on the Nova frigate in BFG:A they talk about how the navy and Inquisition don't like they have a single lance armed frigate.

An atom bomb barage would maybe bruise one.

I would like to point out its probably not a good idea to be chucking around '-tons' of anything without some serious context and analysis of how it does damage. Considering that the Imperium uses focused beams as well as omnidirectional explosives as its weapons, you're not going to get the same effects. Nevermind that thermal effects and 'blast' effects won't behave the same either (how 40K gets blast effects in space is a mystery, but they do, and they're *persistant* effects. Which ranks right up there with their weird plasma.)

Fun fact: you could theoretically kill all life on the planet if you dumped enough HE fragmentation shells on it (a couple trillion to be exact.) Yet that same explosive payload in nukes would not necceesarily do the same thing (I think it was 100 million tons of composition B, which is.. 100 megatons)

Also as a counterpoint: we know they drop megaton range bombardments simply as tactical/planetary bombardments not designed to screw over the planet (Planetstrike, 3rd/4th ed. 'Nid codex I forget which - it was describing the land battle when BEhemoth attacked MacRagge.) And the FFG Rogue trader stuff describes orbital bombardment lances vaporizing square kilometers of land and/or water (which is far more than 'kilotons', particulariyl for water.) You get tons of stuff like that in the novels too.

BlaxicanX wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Long range nuclear weapons would be nowhere near powerful enough to destroy a strike cruiser, even the few hundred capable of leaving the atmosphere. I'll have to look for it, but I had found estimates putting macro cannon rounds at several tens of thousands of times more powerful than every nuke every made by humans, put together.

That seems highly unlikely, given that a single macro-cannon round would therefore be capable of wiping out all life on a planet, something all of those nukes could certainly do.

Not really.

Sorry, missed this earlier.
Does the article take into account the effects of radiation on the environment?
Nuclear blasts aren't what will deliver the deathblow, fallout will.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:
Like Imperial Navy can't equip their ships with weapons that can be used to devastate entire cities in one blow.

Yes, but that blow usually also involves blowing up the entire planet. A lance strike is absolutely lethal for a half km or so, and deals minor structural damage for another km. A city takes extensive bombardment to kill, with even SM strike cruisers, which are specifically designed for planetary bombardment, only do middling damage. (both in TT rules and in fluff)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

im2randomghgh wrote:
No. GW never gave figures for the yield of these weapons, to get solid numbers we have to use math and the size of the shells. 10 Gigatons. And this is auto-weaponry too. The starship equivalent of an autocannon.

No, FFG wrote it, GW said it was canon, and if you don't like that, take it up with GW.

im2randomghgh wrote:
#number he pulled out of his ass.

Using BFG scale, an Imperial torp travels at 60,000 kmph. Divide it by 60 twice. 16.666 km per sec

im2randomghgh wrote:
I acknowledge the linear accelerator part, but they have NOT been dropped to a small fraction of C. They are NOT 10m (Hell Forged used several dozen metre long nova cannon shells that critically damage a space hulk in one hit) it is only comparable to a broadside if you're using BFG rules.

Or any other space ships game they've ever made. And, again, read the NC section in BFK. Wasn't aware that they had a meter long version, but makes sense with the Jovian pattern. Each one is a Vortex warhead.

im2randomghgh wrote:
It doesn't make sense to me either, but I am fairly sure that the Phalanx has nova cannons, so yes, Space Marines can still blast your face off with nova cannons.

Yes, but since fluff does not agree on what the Phalanx even looks like, and no place does it mention nova cannons, I'm calling BS on that as you have no evidence they do, and I have the statements in the Codex Astates that they're not supposed to. Hell, in the section on the Nova frigate in BFG:A they talk about how the navy and Inquisition don't like they have a single lance armed frigate.

1. Imperial ships are consistently described as having continent-shattering weaponry.

2. If you don't like math, take it up with someone who is willing to not use math.

3. using TT scale, railguns have a range of about 300 feet when in reality, they have range closer to 30 nautical miles. That means it is about 1:630 in terms of range. 60,000Km/h x 630 = FTL. TT scale =/= in universe.

4. Again, you're using TT mechanics to argue against physics. And no, I did not say "several dozen, meter long" rounds, I said "several dozen meter long rounds" as in rounds that are several dozen meters long.

5.

Her foredeck is so large that it can dock a dozen large cruisers and has developed its own ecosystem, complete with unique species of animal life which have had their own evolutionary history aboard the ship

I can dock a dozen large cruisers, meaning grand cruisers, which can and do have Nova cannons. Therefore, nova cannons are a part of it's arsenal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Long range nuclear weapons would be nowhere near powerful enough to destroy a strike cruiser, even the few hundred capable of leaving the atmosphere. I'll have to look for it, but I had found estimates putting macro cannon rounds at several tens of thousands of times more powerful than every nuke every made by humans, put together.

That seems highly unlikely, given that a single macro-cannon round would therefore be capable of wiping out all life on a planet, something all of those nukes could certainly do.

Not really.

Sorry, missed this earlier.
Does the article take into account the effects of radiation on the environment?
Nuclear blasts aren't what will deliver the deathblow, fallout will.

With a fraction of a percent of the necessary nukes, I highly doubt it would be sufficient.





Those are pictures of present day Hiroshima.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Long range nuclear weapons would be nowhere near powerful enough to destroy a strike cruiser, even the few hundred capable of leaving the atmosphere. I'll have to look for it, but I had found estimates putting macro cannon rounds at several tens of thousands of times more powerful than every nuke every made by humans, put together.

That seems highly unlikely, given that a single macro-cannon round would therefore be capable of wiping out all life on a planet, something all of those nukes could certainly do.

Not really.

Sorry, missed this earlier.
Does the article take into account the effects of radiation on the environment?
Nuclear blasts aren't what will deliver the deathblow, fallout will.

It doesn't. It also doesn't take into account the effects on the infrastructure of the countries hit. It's a pretty flawed estimate of how many nuclear weapons are required for destruction of our race.

Realistically? If the marine wasn't in armor, any modern weapon could kill a marine. He may have a greater chance of surviving wounds and whatnot, but a rifle round to the skull would likely do him in just as much as a lascannon would. Astartes have highly enhanced bone structures, and healing mechanisms, but a bullet that would turn a human head into spaghetti sauce spread over a room would likely still kill a Space Marine even if it didn't totally annihilate the skull in the same way. Anything heavier likely wouldn't have much more difficulty either. If it'll kill an elephant or a gorilla, it'll likely kill a Space Marine as well.

In armor? well, that's different, because that varies highly depending on author and protagonist/antogonist standing. In some fluff lasgun blasts can crack the ceramite plate of an SM's chestguard and work their way through, in other fluff, it might as well literally be a flashlight.

A 40mm grenade likely wouldn't leave a Space Marine the happiest of campers on a direct hit, there's a good possiblity that he may sustain internal injuries or even death through the armor from kinetic shock even if it doesn't penetrate the armor (same reason you can still break ribs and rupture organs if hit by a buller while wearing a bullet proof vest), though a near miss or mere shrapnel probably wouldn't bother him much.

Realistically autocannon fire would probably kill him inside the armor even assuming it didn't penetrate (I tend to see SM armor saves against autocannons in game as saving against near hits from explosive rounds, and the failures as sustaining direct hits from autocannon shells). Many modern autocannons can pulp an Elephant with a direct hit through half a meter of concrete, an SM surviving a direct hit would be unlikely, though they may have little or nothing to fear from blast/shrapnel from near misses that would otherwise annihilate normal infantry.

Dedicated anti-tank weaponry of any sort would likely leave *very* dead (read: likely non-existent) unless his ceramite armor really is providing the functional equivalent of more than 260mm of hardened steel in the case of a 50 year old soviet RPG-7 or over a full meter (1000mm+) of hardened steel in the case of many modern 120mm anti-tank rounds, which I doubt.


One must remember that SM's quite often are written with a large amount of plot armor or not depending on author and circumstance, and the game is really much more Fantasy in Space than Science Fiction.


Too many people underestimate just how ridiculously capable modern day weaponry really is, especially when compared with 40k units/weapons. A modern MBT could put a shell capable of penetrating a meter of armor-grade steel through a 2.5m tall space marine (in armor) at 2,000m downrange while moving at highway speeds with a ~90% success rate about 10 times a minute.

Vaktathi wrote:Realistically? If the marine wasn't in armor, any modern weapon could kill a marine. He may have a greater chance of surviving wounds and whatnot, but a rifle round to the skull would likely do him in just as much as a lascannon would. Astartes have highly enhanced bone structures, and healing mechanisms, but a bullet that would turn a human head into spaghetti sauce spread over a room would likely still kill a Space Marine even if it didn't totally annihilate the skull in the same way. Anything heavier likely wouldn't have much more difficulty either. If it'll kill an elephant or a gorilla, it'll likely kill a Space Marine as well.

In armor? well, that's different, because that varies highly depending on author and protagonist/antogonist standing. In some fluff lasgun blasts can crack the ceramite plate of an SM's chestguard and work their way through, in other fluff, it might as well literally be a flashlight.

A 40mm grenade likely wouldn't leave a Space Marine the happiest of campers on a direct hit, there's a good possiblity that he may sustain internal injuries or even death through the armor from kinetic shock even if it doesn't penetrate the armor (same reason you can still break ribs and rupture organs if hit by a buller while wearing a bullet proof vest), though a near miss or mere shrapnel probably wouldn't bother him much.

Realistically autocannon fire would probably kill him inside the armor even assuming it didn't penetrate (I tend to see SM armor saves against autocannons in game as saving against near hits from explosive rounds, and the failures as sustaining direct hits from autocannon shells). Many modern autocannons can pulp an Elephant with a direct hit through half a meter of concrete, an SM surviving a direct hit would be unlikely, though they may have little or nothing to fear from blast/shrapnel from near misses that would otherwise annihilate normal infantry.

Dedicated anti-tank weaponry of any sort would likely leave *very* dead (read: likely non-existent) unless his ceramite armor really is providing the functional equivalent of more than 260mm of hardened steel in the case of a 50 year old soviet RPG-7 or over a full meter (1000mm+) of hardened steel in the case of many modern 120mm anti-tank rounds, which I doubt.


One must remember that SM's quite often are written with a large amount of plot armor or not depending on author and circumstance, and the game is really much more Fantasy in Space than Science Fiction.


Too many people underestimate just how ridiculously capable modern day weaponry really is, especially when compared with 40k units/weapons. A modern MBT could put a shell capable of penetrating a meter of armor-grade steel through a 2.5m tall space marine (in armor) at 2,000m downrange while moving at highway speeds with a ~90% success rate about 10 times a minute.

Assuming he is standing still, and not running at 30 km/s.

And as I see it, plot armour is as inherent a part of marine as anything else, and needs to be taken into account as much as is possible. IRL lasguns would be a real threat to vehicles but in 40k they barely do anything to marines. Boltguns would be tank-slayers, lascannons would work like bloodlances etc. this means that their armour is stronger than we could logically deduce. In the fluff, non-armoured marines are harder to kill than zombies are in most fiction, taking entire clips to their gut and not slowing (clips from a lasgun, which blow off human arms) and armour that only sci-fi anti-tank can kill.

In a vacuum, a lot could kill a space marine. But in practise, assuming a scenario where there is no situational advantages to either side (IE. Chapter VS. Earth, with all the resources that either side would be dedicated, and assuming standard behavior of each side), the space marines would win. They simply aren't going to face us in a way that we are prepared to deal with. Hell, the mere fact that they will have orbital supremacy, discounting exterminatus, we are going to assume they don't want to use it for whatever reason, secures them the win. There is no frontline for this conflict, they can strike where they want, when they want. They won't land where we have anti tank guns that will pulp them, they are going to fight where the advantage is theirs, strike hard, strike fast, and leave before an effective counter can be launched. Of course assuming that the space marines are going to line up in a nice orderly fashion and wait to be hit is going to result in them all dying. If our armies did the same thing to them, we would also get pulped. These arguments always end up stacking the odds in one sides favor, and using that as proof that the side would win.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Assuming he is standing still, and not running at 30 km/s.

Not a problem for modern MBT's. Modern MBT's like Leopard 2's and Abrams tanks can hit moving 2Mx2M targets while themselves moving at highway speeds at very long ranges with very high success rates.

And as I see it, plot armour is as inherent a part of marine as anything else, and needs to be taken into account as much as is possible. IRL lasguns would be a real threat to vehicles but in 40k they barely do anything to marines.

Lasguns probably would do stuff to unarmored vehicles, just like modern rifles do. Civilan cars, transport trucks, etc don't like rifle fire and I imagine wouldn't like lasgun fire. To armored vehicles? Probably not, nothing in 40k lore suggests that they would be a threat to such vehicles.

Boltguns would be tank-slayers, lascannons would work like bloodlances etc.

That's getting more than a wee bit silly here, there is absolutely nothing in any 40k lore, depiction or representation to support that. Especially not Bolters slaying battle tanks. Quite often mere walls and the like provide cover from bolter fire in fluff.

this means that their armour is stronger than we could logically deduce.

The bigger issue is consistency as I noted. In some fluff, their armor can be damaged and defeated by lasguns fairly easily, in other fluff it's basically invulnerable even to anything but lascannons.

In the fluff, non-armoured marines are harder to kill than zombies are in most fiction

Zombies are an entirely different thing and depends on entirely what kind of zombie we are talking about., that said, even the hardiest zombies are rendered relatively impotent, even if not "dead" relatively easily as their bodies can be dismembered/exploded/crushed/etc. I'm not recalling much on unarmored marines being unstoppable, merely very hardy.

taking entire clips to their gut and not slowing (clips from a lasgun, which blow off human arms)

Um, can you find an example of a marine taking entire magazines worth of fire to their unarmored gut? Because I certainly can't recall such an example.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Long range nuclear weapons would be nowhere near powerful enough to destroy a strike cruiser, even the few hundred capable of leaving the atmosphere. I'll have to look for it, but I had found estimates putting macro cannon rounds at several tens of thousands of times more powerful than every nuke every made by humans, put together.

That seems highly unlikely, given that a single macro-cannon round would therefore be capable of wiping out all life on a planet, something all of those nukes could certainly do.

Not really.

Sorry, missed this earlier.
Does the article take into account the effects of radiation on the environment?
Nuclear blasts aren't what will deliver the deathblow, fallout will.

With a fraction of a percent of the necessary nukes, I highly doubt it would be sufficient.





Those are pictures of present day Hiroshima.

Hiroshima was hit by an atom bomb, though, and not a modern ICBM. Those are a hell of a lot more powerful.
I'm not sure we can count Hiroshima as a viable example in terms of recovery from an all-out nuclear strike, no matter how impressive and inspiring their recovery.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Spoiler:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Long range nuclear weapons would be nowhere near powerful enough to destroy a strike cruiser, even the few hundred capable of leaving the atmosphere. I'll have to look for it, but I had found estimates putting macro cannon rounds at several tens of thousands of times more powerful than every nuke every made by humans, put together.

That seems highly unlikely, given that a single macro-cannon round would therefore be capable of wiping out all life on a planet, something all of those nukes could certainly do.

Not really.

Sorry, missed this earlier.
Does the article take into account the effects of radiation on the environment?
Nuclear blasts aren't what will deliver the deathblow, fallout will.

With a fraction of a percent of the necessary nukes, I highly doubt it would be sufficient.





Those are pictures of present day Hiroshima.

Hiroshima was hit by an atom bomb, though, and not a modern ICBM. Those are a hell of a lot more powerful.
I'm not sure we can count Hiroshima as a viable example in terms of recovery from an all-out nuclear strike, no matter how impressive and inspiring their recovery.

Agreed. After total nuclear war there would be no economy or infrastructure left to facilitate recovery, so Hiroshima today is a null point. You'd rather have to look at Hiroshima immediately after it was hit and apply that to most major cities and places of tactical significance (military facilities, power stations etc.).

im2randomghgh wrote:Assuming he is standing still, and not running at 30 km/s.

You may want to revise that velocity, because as it is that Space Marine is running one hundred times faster than the speed of sound

Connor MacLeod wrote: And the FFG Rogue trader stuff describes orbital bombardment lances vaporizing square kilometers of land and/or water (which is far more than 'kilotons', particulariyl for water.) You get tons of stuff like that in the novels too.

In FFG it's actually only a half km, with, oddly, no explosion, just the thermal effects from the bloom. Which is why the marines in planetstrike are not killed when three lance strike hits only 50 yards from them. vaporizing a greater daemon of nurgle and a hoard of Death Guard, because Space Marines can slaughter entire hoards of other space marines much more experienced then they are, who are also juicing on the power of the warp, because of their plot based powers.

im2randomghgh wrote:
1. Imperial ships are consistently described as having continent-shattering weaponry.

And juggernauts of Khorne are unstoppable daemon engines. You might want to look up 'hyperbola'.

im2randomghgh wrote:
2. If you don't like math, take it up with someone who is willing to not use math.

Your basis was that there was no fluff, when there was. You can't claim fluff and plot armor trump reality when talking about SM in combat and at the same time insistat that math and physics have to apply to 40k ships. Expect to get call out on such hypocrisy.

im2randomghgh wrote:
3. using TT scale, railguns have a range of about 300 feet when in reality, they have range closer to 30 nautical miles. That means it is about 1:630 in terms of range. 60,000Km/h x 630 = FTL. TT scale =/= in universe.

Um, no, on TT railguns can have a range of 45,000 km. Judging by your posts, you have never played BFG, and have little idea what you are talking about.

im2randomghgh wrote:
4. Again, you're using TT mechanics to argue against physics. And no, I did not say "several dozen, meter long" rounds, I said "several dozen meter long rounds" as in rounds that are several dozen meters long.

Because your argument is that fluff trumps reality for the SM, but reality trumps fluff for ships? Or we could use the 2,500 kmph number from BFK. Somehow though I find it hard to believe that they're that slow.

Her foredeck is so large that it can dock a dozen large cruisers and has developed its own ecosystem, complete with unique species of animal life which have had their own evolutionary history aboard the ship

Yes, but in Flight of the Eisenstein, they cannot take a frigate on board as it's too large. So, again, they cannot even agree on the most basic details of it between books.

im2randomghgh wrote:
Assuming he is standing still, and not running at 30 km/s.

And as I see it, plot armour is as inherent a part of marine as anything else, and needs to be taken into account as much as is possible. IRL lasguns would be a real threat to vehicles but in 40k they barely do anything to marines. Boltguns would be tank-slayers, lascannons would work like bloodlances etc. this means that their armour is stronger than we could logically deduce. In the fluff, non-armoured marines are harder to kill than zombies are in most fiction, taking entire clips to their gut and not slowing (clips from a lasgun, which blow off human arms) and armour that only sci-fi anti-tank can kill.

So, in essence 'You can't kill SM with modern weapons because I say so!'

And, btw: your space marine would burn his armor off trying to run at 30km per sec inside an atmosphere, since he'd be running at Mach 87.

Vaktathi wrote:
The bigger issue is consistency as I noted. In some fluff, their armor can be damaged and defeated by lasguns fairly easily, in other fluff it's basically invulnerable even to anything but lascannons.

Zombies are an entirely different thing and depends on entirely what kind of zombie we are talking about., that said, even the hardiest zombies are rendered relatively impotent, even if not "dead" relatively easily as their bodies can be dismembered/exploded/crushed/etc. I'm not recalling much on unarmored marines being unstoppable, merely very hardy.

Incidentally, in fluff Marines have been killed by hoards of plague zombies.

Vaktathi wrote:Um, can you find an example of a marine taking entire magazines worth of fire to their unarmored gut? Because I certainly can't recall such an example.

I can't either, but I do remember one worrying about being shot without his armor, as even a handgun could kill him now. (The Killing Ground)

Vaktathi wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Assuming he is standing still, and not running at 30 km/s.

Not a problem for modern MBT's. Modern MBT's like Leopard 2's and Abrams tanks can hit moving 2Mx2M targets while themselves moving at highway speeds at very long ranges with very high success rates.

And as I see it, plot armour is as inherent a part of marine as anything else, and needs to be taken into account as much as is possible. IRL lasguns would be a real threat to vehicles but in 40k they barely do anything to marines.

Lasguns probably would do stuff to unarmored vehicles, just like modern rifles do. Civilan cars, transport trucks, etc don't like rifle fire and I imagine wouldn't like lasgun fire. To armored vehicles? Probably not, nothing in 40k lore suggests that they would be a threat to such vehicles.

Boltguns would be tank-slayers, lascannons would work like bloodlances etc.

That's getting more than a wee bit silly here, there is absolutely nothing in any 40k lore, depiction or representation to support that. Especially not Bolters slaying battle tanks. Quite often mere walls and the like provide cover from bolter fire in fluff.

this means that their armour is stronger than we could logically deduce.

The bigger issue is consistency as I noted. In some fluff, their armor can be damaged and defeated by lasguns fairly easily, in other fluff it's basically invulnerable even to anything but lascannons.

In the fluff, non-armoured marines are harder to kill than zombies are in most fiction

Zombies are an entirely different thing and depends on entirely what kind of zombie we are talking about., that said, even the hardiest zombies are rendered relatively impotent, even if not "dead" relatively easily as their bodies can be dismembered/exploded/crushed/etc. I'm not recalling much on unarmored marines being unstoppable, merely very hardy.

taking entire clips to their gut and not slowing (clips from a lasgun, which blow off human arms)

Um, can you find an example of a marine taking entire magazines worth of fire to their unarmored gut? Because I certainly can't recall such an example.

1. Again, you are imagining a target such as a vehicle. Marines are not going to run in a straight line. They can duck, weave, reverse on a dime, zigzag etc. do thing normal 2x2 targets (like motorcycles or ultra-compact vehicles) could never hope to do.

2. Well being able to blow off limbs suggest power similar to a .50cal on the standard setting, and .50cal are a serious threat to vehicles. Also, they can be cranked up powerful enough to make an exit hole too on most lightly-medium light armoured vehicles. When you overcharge you could damage a tank (since overcharge can crack dreadnoughts)

3. I admit bolts wouldn't do much to heavy armour, but really any vehicle <45tons would be boned. These are rapid firing, .75 cal armour piercing warheads, which would detonate inside the vehicle after having pierced the outside. Even the Space Marine game let's you demolish most greenskin cover with bolts.

4. Well the general standard seems to be that not much outside of heavy weapons can damage the main parts of the plate, but have very limited rubber armour they need to penetrate with a direct hit to the joints. Unless it happens to be a sword in which case it will someone do more damage than lasers and shotguns #40kproblems.

5. Not unstoppable unarmoured, but more than capable of taking out 1-4 armed and trained humans, unless they're sororitas/ST.

6. The Last Detail, a Dark Hunters short story, has a space marine sans armour get hit with a full fusillade of lasguns fire and then get angry and charge the humans who fired at him, and murder their asses.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Spoiler:

Vaktathi wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Assuming he is standing still, and not running at 30 km/s.

Not a problem for modern MBT's. Modern MBT's like Leopard 2's and Abrams tanks can hit moving 2Mx2M targets while themselves moving at highway speeds at very long ranges with very high success rates.

And as I see it, plot armour is as inherent a part of marine as anything else, and needs to be taken into account as much as is possible. IRL lasguns would be a real threat to vehicles but in 40k they barely do anything to marines.

Lasguns probably would do stuff to unarmored vehicles, just like modern rifles do. Civilan cars, transport trucks, etc don't like rifle fire and I imagine wouldn't like lasgun fire. To armored vehicles? Probably not, nothing in 40k lore suggests that they would be a threat to such vehicles.

Boltguns would be tank-slayers, lascannons would work like bloodlances etc.

That's getting more than a wee bit silly here, there is absolutely nothing in any 40k lore, depiction or representation to support that. Especially not Bolters slaying battle tanks. Quite often mere walls and the like provide cover from bolter fire in fluff.

this means that their armour is stronger than we could logically deduce.

The bigger issue is consistency as I noted. In some fluff, their armor can be damaged and defeated by lasguns fairly easily, in other fluff it's basically invulnerable even to anything but lascannons.

In the fluff, non-armoured marines are harder to kill than zombies are in most fiction

Zombies are an entirely different thing and depends on entirely what kind of zombie we are talking about., that said, even the hardiest zombies are rendered relatively impotent, even if not "dead" relatively easily as their bodies can be dismembered/exploded/crushed/etc. I'm not recalling much on unarmored marines being unstoppable, merely very hardy.

taking entire clips to their gut and not slowing (clips from a lasgun, which blow off human arms)

Um, can you find an example of a marine taking entire magazines worth of fire to their unarmored gut? Because I certainly can't recall such an example.

1. Again, you are imagining a target such as a vehicle. Marines are not going to run in a straight line. They can duck, weave, reverse on a dime, zigzag etc. do thing normal 2x2 targets (like motorcycles or ultra-compact vehicles) could never hope to do.

A Space Marine is 2 to 2.4 metres tall and wearing very bulky armour. Modern Battle Tanks have auto tracking systems, laser range finding and computers to calculate the required trajectory of the shot. It doesn't matter how he moves, it will still be able to track him and fire a shot with enough accuracy to take him out. He couldn't "reverse on a dime" if he was running flat out. Try running full speed and then just stopping instantly and running the opposite way. You fall over. He'd have to decelerate first and when he does, boom.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Spoiler:

Vaktathi wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Assuming he is standing still, and not running at 30 km/s.

Not a problem for modern MBT's. Modern MBT's like Leopard 2's and Abrams tanks can hit moving 2Mx2M targets while themselves moving at highway speeds at very long ranges with very high success rates.

And as I see it, plot armour is as inherent a part of marine as anything else, and needs to be taken into account as much as is possible. IRL lasguns would be a real threat to vehicles but in 40k they barely do anything to marines.

Lasguns probably would do stuff to unarmored vehicles, just like modern rifles do. Civilan cars, transport trucks, etc don't like rifle fire and I imagine wouldn't like lasgun fire. To armored vehicles? Probably not, nothing in 40k lore suggests that they would be a threat to such vehicles.

Boltguns would be tank-slayers, lascannons would work like bloodlances etc.

That's getting more than a wee bit silly here, there is absolutely nothing in any 40k lore, depiction or representation to support that. Especially not Bolters slaying battle tanks. Quite often mere walls and the like provide cover from bolter fire in fluff.

this means that their armour is stronger than we could logically deduce.

The bigger issue is consistency as I noted. In some fluff, their armor can be damaged and defeated by lasguns fairly easily, in other fluff it's basically invulnerable even to anything but lascannons.

In the fluff, non-armoured marines are harder to kill than zombies are in most fiction

Zombies are an entirely different thing and depends on entirely what kind of zombie we are talking about., that said, even the hardiest zombies are rendered relatively impotent, even if not "dead" relatively easily as their bodies can be dismembered/exploded/crushed/etc. I'm not recalling much on unarmored marines being unstoppable, merely very hardy.

taking entire clips to their gut and not slowing (clips from a lasgun, which blow off human arms)

Um, can you find an example of a marine taking entire magazines worth of fire to their unarmored gut? Because I certainly can't recall such an example.

1. Again, you are imagining a target such as a vehicle. Marines are not going to run in a straight line. They can duck, weave, reverse on a dime, zigzag etc. do thing normal 2x2 targets (like motorcycles or ultra-compact vehicles) could never hope to do.

A Space Marine is 2 to 2.4 metres tall and wearing very bulky armour. Modern Battle Tanks have auto tracking systems, laser range finding and computers to calculate the required trajectory of the shot. It doesn't matter how he moves, it will still be able to track him and fire a shot with enough accuracy to take him out. He couldn't "reverse on a dime" if he was running flat out. Try running full speed and then just stopping instantly and running the opposite way. You fall over. He'd have to decelerate first and when he does, boom.

Unless the bullet can alter course in mid air (hint: it can't) it won't be able to account for a marine running a zig-zag or diving.

im2randomghgh wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Spoiler:

Vaktathi wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Assuming he is standing still, and not running at 30 km/s.

Not a problem for modern MBT's. Modern MBT's like Leopard 2's and Abrams tanks can hit moving 2Mx2M targets while themselves moving at highway speeds at very long ranges with very high success rates.

And as I see it, plot armour is as inherent a part of marine as anything else, and needs to be taken into account as much as is possible. IRL lasguns would be a real threat to vehicles but in 40k they barely do anything to marines.

Lasguns probably would do stuff to unarmored vehicles, just like modern rifles do. Civilan cars, transport trucks, etc don't like rifle fire and I imagine wouldn't like lasgun fire. To armored vehicles? Probably not, nothing in 40k lore suggests that they would be a threat to such vehicles.

Boltguns would be tank-slayers, lascannons would work like bloodlances etc.

That's getting more than a wee bit silly here, there is absolutely nothing in any 40k lore, depiction or representation to support that. Especially not Bolters slaying battle tanks. Quite often mere walls and the like provide cover from bolter fire in fluff.

this means that their armour is stronger than we could logically deduce.

The bigger issue is consistency as I noted. In some fluff, their armor can be damaged and defeated by lasguns fairly easily, in other fluff it's basically invulnerable even to anything but lascannons.

In the fluff, non-armoured marines are harder to kill than zombies are in most fiction

Zombies are an entirely different thing and depends on entirely what kind of zombie we are talking about., that said, even the hardiest zombies are rendered relatively impotent, even if not "dead" relatively easily as their bodies can be dismembered/exploded/crushed/etc. I'm not recalling much on unarmored marines being unstoppable, merely very hardy.

taking entire clips to their gut and not slowing (clips from a lasgun, which blow off human arms)

Um, can you find an example of a marine taking entire magazines worth of fire to their unarmored gut? Because I certainly can't recall such an example.

1. Again, you are imagining a target such as a vehicle. Marines are not going to run in a straight line. They can duck, weave, reverse on a dime, zigzag etc. do thing normal 2x2 targets (like motorcycles or ultra-compact vehicles) could never hope to do.

A Space Marine is 2 to 2.4 metres tall and wearing very bulky armour. Modern Battle Tanks have auto tracking systems, laser range finding and computers to calculate the required trajectory of the shot. It doesn't matter how he moves, it will still be able to track him and fire a shot with enough accuracy to take him out. He couldn't "reverse on a dime" if he was running flat out. Try running full speed and then just stopping instantly and running the opposite way. You fall over. He'd have to decelerate first and when he does, boom.

Unless the bullet can alter course in mid air (hint: it can't) it won't be able to account for a marine running a zig-zag or diving.

The shot is fired in a trajectory which compensates for the motion of the target. So it will be fired to detonate in front of him and his motion will carry him into it. It's like a sniper leading the target but done by computer so it is much, much more accurate.

And we're not talking about a bullet. We're talking about a tank shell. There are laser guided shells and even bullets currently in development today. One prototype laser guided bullet hit a target a mile away from its original firing position https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/bullet/ You are seriously underestimating how effective our current technology is today at hitting a moving target.

im2randomghgh wrote:
Unless the bullet can alter course in mid air (hint: it can't) it won't be able to account for a marine running a zig-zag or diving.

Um... not always true in the case of a tank. The old Starship fired a Shillelagh guided AT missile instead of a conventional round. You also run into the issue of it firing sub-munitions or canister style munitions. That isn't even getting into more exotic stuff like tungsten fletchettes.

So, to build on what Mallus was saying, you don't even need the newest bleeding edge tech to pull these tricks off.

im2randomghgh wrote:

6. The Last Detail, a Dark Hunters short story, has a space marine sans armour get hit with a full fusillade of lasguns fire and then get angry and charge the humans who fired at him, and murder their asses.

Feel free to chew me out on this, but I cannot accept this as representative of how durable a SM is. There's so much fluff to contradict this, including incidents where lasguns kill armoured marines (too many times to count in Storm of Iron) that I cannot see this as anything but unrepresentative at best. I mean, that's just ridiculous.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

6. The Last Detail, a Dark Hunters short story, has a space marine sans armour get hit with a full fusillade of lasguns fire and then get angry and charge the humans who fired at him, and murder their asses.

Feel free to chew me out on this, but I cannot accept this as representative of how durable a SM is. There's so much fluff to contradict this, including incidents where lasguns kill armoured marines (too many times to count in Storm of Iron) that I cannot see this as anything but unrepresentative at best. I mean, that's just ridiculous.

I have to agree. Uriel Ventris, a marine with enough plot armor to run for Draigo, was worried about getting shot without his armor on. If he was that immune to bullets, I don't think he would have been much concerned about it.

BaronIveagh wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Unless the bullet can alter course in mid air (hint: it can't) it won't be able to account for a marine running a zig-zag or diving.

Um... not always true in the case of a tank. The old Starship fired a Shillelagh guided AT missile instead of a conventional round. You also run into the issue of it firing sub-munitions or canister style munitions. That isn't even getting into more exotic stuff like tungsten fletchettes.

So, to build on what Mallus was saying, you don't even need the newest bleeding edge tech to pull these tricks off.

The example used was an M1 Abrams, which to my knowledge uses direct-fire shells which can compensate for a predictable course, but have no hope of hitting an erratic target, just as one has poor chances of hitting a mid-air fly with a spitball.

Sub-munition and canister would be useless. Multiple smaller bullet is not how you pierce armour.

If marine armour was as strong as logic and common sense would dictate, I agree marines would die. But given the ridiculous displays of durability the regularly perform in the fluff, you need to have a suspended disbelief. I have read sci-fi where individual ships could curb-stomp entire IN battle-fleets, where infantry weapons can damage starships, and where AIs taking over is actually beneficial, and none of those were as soft as wh40k.

The only TRULY guided bullet in production are for sniper rifles And aren't even finished testing yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

6. The Last Detail, a Dark Hunters short story, has a space marine sans armour get hit with a full fusillade of lasguns fire and then get angry and charge the humans who fired at him, and murder their asses.

Feel free to chew me out on this, but I cannot accept this as representative of how durable a SM is. There's so much fluff to contradict this, including incidents where lasguns kill armoured marines (too many times to count in Storm of Iron) that I cannot see this as anything but unrepresentative at best. I mean, that's just ridiculous.

I have to agree. Uriel Ventris, a marine with enough plot armor to run for Draigo, was worried about getting shot without his armor on. If he was that immune to bullets, I don't think he would have been much concerned about it.

Don't get me wrong, the dark hunter was injured after, so I can see why Ventris would be cautious about taking his armour off, but not fatally, or enough to sideline him.

im2randomghgh wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

6. The Last Detail, a Dark Hunters short story, has a space marine sans armour get hit with a full fusillade of lasguns fire and then get angry and charge the humans who fired at him, and murder their asses.

Feel free to chew me out on this, but I cannot accept this as representative of how durable a SM is. There's so much fluff to contradict this, including incidents where lasguns kill armoured marines (too many times to count in Storm of Iron) that I cannot see this as anything but unrepresentative at best. I mean, that's just ridiculous.

I have to agree. Uriel Ventris, a marine with enough plot armor to run for Draigo, was worried about getting shot without his armor on. If he was that immune to bullets, I don't think he would have been much concerned about it.

Don't get me wrong, the dark hunter was injured after, so I can see why Ventris would be cautious about taking his armour off, but not fatally, or enough to sideline him.

But that's just it. Why even wear the armour at all if an unarmoured SM can survive a fusillade of lasgun fire, gunfire that can be modified to punch through even Power Armour?
It just doesn't add up. The marine not only should have been injured gravely, there should have been a good chance of him being dead.

im2randomghgh wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Unless the bullet can alter course in mid air (hint: it can't) it won't be able to account for a marine running a zig-zag or diving.

Um... not always true in the case of a tank. The old Starship fired a Shillelagh guided AT missile instead of a conventional round. You also run into the issue of it firing sub-munitions or canister style munitions. That isn't even getting into more exotic stuff like tungsten fletchettes.

So, to build on what Mallus was saying, you don't even need the newest bleeding edge tech to pull these tricks off.

The example used was an M1 Abrams, which to my knowledge uses direct-fire shells which can compensate for a predictable course, but have no hope of hitting an erratic target, just as one has poor chances of hitting a mid-air fly with a spitball.

Sub-munition and canister would be useless. Multiple smaller bullet is not how you pierce armour.

If marine armour was as strong as logic and common sense would dictate, I agree marines would die. But given the ridiculous displays of durability the regularly perform in the fluff, you need to have a suspended disbelief. I have read sci-fi where individual ships could curb-stomp entire IN battle-fleets, where infantry weapons can damage starships, and where AIs taking over is actually beneficial, and none of those were as soft as wh40k.

The only TRULY guided bullet in production are for sniper rifles And aren't even finished testing yet.

And as we speak the USA is currently developing a guided shell for use in the Abrams, the XM1111. It has already been successfully tested in the prototype phase, hitting a moving T-72 at 8,700m (5.4 miles) to within an inch of the target point. I believe it is currently estimated to come into service in 2013.

Also the Russians have developed guided missiles which are fired from a tank barrel.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote: And the FFG Rogue trader stuff describes orbital bombardment lances vaporizing square kilometers of land and/or water (which is far more than 'kilotons', particulariyl for water.) You get tons of stuff like that in the novels too.

In FFG it's actually only a half km, with, oddly, no explosion, just the thermal effects from the bloom. Which is why the marines in planetstrike are not killed when three lance strike hits only 50 yards from them. vaporizing a greater daemon of nurgle and a hoard of Death
Guard, because Space Marines can slaughter entire hoards of other space marines much more experienced then they are, who are also juicing on the power of the warp, because of their plot based powers.

Depends on your source:



I take it you were referring to a 'lance strike' as per Deathwatch: Rites of Battle...



This is basically a half km radius, which is 1 km diameter, and in terms of area is 785,000 square metrs, only a bit smaller than 1 square km (1 million square metres.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as getting hit by lasfire, that depends entirely on the model and function of lasweapons being used (as well as things like setting.) Some just drill narrow holes through the target whilst others will blow off limbs (or some or all of the head away. Including Ork and Tyranid heads.) Notable example is 'First and Only' where a lasgun on maximum takes the head off of a World Eater. Or there's 'Flesh and Iron' where a lasgun barrage (without changing clip and may not even have been a full clip) at point blank range drills through a Blood Gorgons helm to kill the Marine underneath.

We do know that Black Legion armour can stand up to ~30 hellgun shots from 'hunter, Prey' (short story from an anthology I forget) before failing (although it turns the chestplate molten as I recall.) Hellguns being 2-4x more powerful than a lasgun (at least by FFG standards.)

Aye, Connor, but this is an unarmoured marine taking those hits.
Surely that's impossible for him to survive, or at least highly unlikely?

A Town Called Malus wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Unless the bullet can alter course in mid air (hint: it can't) it won't be able to account for a marine running a zig-zag or diving.

Um... not always true in the case of a tank. The old Starship fired a Shillelagh guided AT missile instead of a conventional round. You also run into the issue of it firing sub-munitions or canister style munitions. That isn't even getting into more exotic stuff like tungsten fletchettes.

So, to build on what Mallus was saying, you don't even need the newest bleeding edge tech to pull these tricks off.

The example used was an M1 Abrams, which to my knowledge uses direct-fire shells which can compensate for a predictable course, but have no hope of hitting an erratic target, just as one has poor chances of hitting a mid-air fly with a spitball.

Sub-munition and canister would be useless. Multiple smaller bullet is not how you pierce armour.

If marine armour was as strong as logic and common sense would dictate, I agree marines would die. But given the ridiculous displays of durability the regularly perform in the fluff, you need to have a suspended disbelief. I have read sci-fi where individual ships could curb-stomp entire IN battle-fleets, where infantry weapons can damage starships, and where AIs taking over is actually beneficial, and none of those were as soft as wh40k.

The only TRULY guided bullet in production are for sniper rifles And aren't even finished testing yet.

And as we speak the USA is currently developing a guided shell for use in the Abrams, the XM1111. It has already been successfully tested in the prototype phase, hitting a moving T-72 at 8,700m (5.4 miles) to within an inch of the target point. I believe it is currently estimated to come into service in 2013.

Also the Russians have developed guided missiles which are fired from a tank barrel.

Guided, but not smart shells. Smart shells don't just fire at the target and turn left right up down as needed, they will move to avoid obstacles, bend around a corner instead of hitting the corner etc.

And the russians also developed this monstrosity:

im2randomghgh wrote:

The example used was an M1 Abrams, which to my knowledge uses direct-fire shells which can compensate for a predictable course, but have no hope of hitting an erratic target, just as one has poor chances of hitting a mid-air fly with a spitball.

Your knowledge is antiquated...

im2randomghgh wrote:
Sub-munition and canister would be useless. Multiple smaller bullet is not how you pierce armour.

...and you clearly have not see what sub-munitions can do even to hard targets.

im2randomghgh wrote:
The only TRULY guided bullet in production are for sniper rifles And aren't even finished testing yet.

Actually there are other systems that are also nearing the production stage, including a rather cute number that fires a shaped explosive, rocket driven armor piercer in 12 gauge (.74 cal) Hmm.... sounds familiar somehow...

im2randomghgh wrote:
Don't get me wrong, the dark hunter was injured after, so I can see why Ventris would be cautious about taking his armour off, but not fatally, or enough to sideline him.

From the book it was of the 'crap, they'll kill me' rather then the 'well this will sting a bit'. sort. Mind you, in the same book Ventris reaches his bare hand into boiling oil, so merely suggesting he's concerned about how much pain it would cause doesn't ring true.

I'd like to submit the Challenger II MBT to this arguement.

im2randomghg

During the gulf war, Challenger II's were destroying Iraqi T-72's through sand dunes, i.e. no visual contact. The Challenger II's turret can also complete a full rotation in 9 seconds. thats alot faster than:

A. the marine can run
B. the marine can dodge

especially with the gyroscopicly stabilised weapons

Granted the Challenger II is a magnificent weapon and the premier AFV of the modern era, it still holds the world record distance for a tank v tank engagement, about 5800m I believe it was.

No way is it going to be able to engage a target as small as a space marine on the move, sure if he stood still but if he was trying to not get shot you'd never hit it.

If you did tho' well goodnight Brother.

BaronIveagh wrote:

From the book it was of the 'crap, they'll kill me' rather then the 'well this will sting a bit'. sort. Mind you, in the same book Ventris reaches his bare hand into boiling oil, so merely suggesting he's concerned about how much pain it would cause doesn't ring true.

That was the impression I got. Ventris knew the oil wouldn't kill him, but it would burn like all hell - which it did, giving him 3rd degree burns.
However, bullets will kill an SM if he is unarmoured, lasbolts doubly so.