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.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
24" on the board is equalivent to two kilometres.

A Rhino moving Combat Speed moves 6" (500 meters per your estimate). A Rhino itself is only 3" long (250 meters per your estimate). Per GW the official length of a Rhino is 6.6 meters. Well short of your estimate.

Hmm so what the speed be exactly?

I was estimating mostly. So what would 24 inches be in terms of real life or in the fluff.

A space marine is around a 2 meters tall


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Thats the problem with using 'ingame' metrics to prove how awesome space marines are. Mjolnir armour is weak because it can only take a couple of plasma rounds before the occupant dies. While with marine armour its pretty much a guaranteed kill with one shot.

Marines don't need power weapons to blow up most tanks in melee, their fists do it just fine. I think we need to bring the hulk into this discussion.

No. Hulk stupid. Hulk wins every fight.

Martel732 wrote:

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The marines also fight as individuals, at least on the table top. In fact, the marines have the least list synergy of almost every army in the game, afaik.

They look that way but the best part of that codex is figuring out list synergy. I'd put them on par with guard.

There is no synergy to figure out. Ie, there is no mechanistic way for the units to help each other. The Guard have WAY MORE synergy in their list via the order mechanic. At least the Starcraft terrans have the medivac.

You have a very narrow view of synergy. You don't have to have direct interaction for there to be synergy.

Units simply dedicated to covering an area another squad is deficient in is plenty of synergy.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Thats the problem with using 'ingame' metrics to prove how awesome space marines are. Mjolnir armour is weak because it can only take a couple of plasma rounds before the occupant dies. While with marine armour its pretty much a guaranteed kill with one shot.

Marines don't need power weapons to blow up most tanks in melee, their fists do it just fine. I think we need to bring the hulk into this discussion.

Imperial plasma is stronger than covenant plasma though. Plasma in warhammer 40k is meant to detonate with the heat of a small sun, and is supposed to kill a human outright (going off Instant death)

Covenant plasma only appears to leave small burns.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
24" on the board is equalivent to two kilometres.

A Rhino moving Combat Speed moves 6" (500 meters per your estimate). A Rhino itself is only 3" long (250 meters per your estimate). Per GW the official length of a Rhino is 6.6 meters. Well short of your estimate.

Hmm so what the speed be exactly?

I was estimating mostly. So what would 24 inches be in terms of real life or in the fluff.

A space marine is around a 2 meters tall

Unknown.
There are problems with trying to calculate this. As you pointed out models are not to scale. a 2m tall Space Marine is roughly the same height as a normal person. We could estimate distances based on speed, however we do not have a time reference to compare it to. If the Movement phase takes 1 hour of :miniature time" (in other words, regardless of how long the Movement phase takes for us, for the models it is always 1 hour), then 6" could be anywhere between 5 and 8 kilometers. If the miniature time is less (say maybe 2 minutes) you are looking at roughly 250 meters.

If we use FFG rules for weapons, then a Lasgun (with a 24" range) has a range of 100m, meaning that 6" on the table would be 25 meters.

25 meters sounds reasonable for a short sprint.
100m range for a lasgun still sounds pretty short though.
See the M16 range in the previous post.

Martel732 wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
If you put Starcraft marines armor and SM armor on equal footing, Starcraft marines win because their gun is made to punch through their own armor, and would therefore punch through SM armor as well.

It is quite silly that marine guns can't penetrate the armor of their hated rivals, the CSM. This is completely the reverse of how modern weapons really work.

except the way armor is supposed to work is to protect the wearer from weaponry.

Any study of the history of arms and armor is sufficant to realize that it's basicly a never ending race, someone invents a better weapon, and someone creates armor to protect against it. in which case they create a better weapon.

one thing to keep in mind is the boltgun was designed and deployed when the idea of marines fighting marines was almost unheard of. and we see evidance of the Marines deploying speciality ammo for bolt guns. if they're willing to take some ranged penalties, Marines CAN penatrate power armor.

All this back and forth on who would win between Space Marines, Starcraft Marines and Spartans; when there is only but one obvious winner...

Mobile Infantry.


Honestly. Starship Troopers may be the grandfather to all of them but the novel's Mobile Infantry will still probably wipe the floor with each and every one of them. Armour that's designed to withstand everything short of anti-tank weaponry, that imbues the soldier with enough strength to crush a tank, and is equipped with jump jets. All this as standard issue and completely uncumbersome to the point as being described as being worn much like how humans wear their own skin. As for weaponry, they're armed to suit the enemy but are routinely equipped with hand-mounted flame throwers, explosive ammunition and automated missile launchers. Most of which are all target-seeking. Oh, and they have access to tactical nukes.

So, to put it in 40K game terms... Each Mobile Infantry soldier is jump infantry with at least Toughness 6 and armed with Power fists. Moreover, at least one (if not all) member(s) of the squad is carrying a Strength D, Apocalyptic blast weapon. Oh, and as they are always deployed from orbit, they have Deep Strike too.

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
If you put Starcraft marines armor and SM armor on equal footing, Starcraft marines win because their gun is made to punch through their own armor, and would therefore punch through SM armor as well.

It is quite silly that marine guns can't penetrate the armor of their hated rivals, the CSM. This is completely the reverse of how modern weapons really work.

except the way armor is supposed to work is to protect the wearer from weaponry.

Any study of the history of arms and armor is sufficant to realize that it's basicly a never ending race, someone invents a better weapon, and someone creates armor to protect against it. in which case they create a better weapon.

one thing to keep in mind is the boltgun was designed and deployed when the idea of marines fighting marines was almost unheard of. and we see evidance of the Marines deploying speciality ammo for bolt guns. if they're willing to take some ranged penalties, Marines CAN penatrate power armor.

Lets not forget that space marines do carry special ammunition with them sometimes on special missions where they know who they are fighting during the Tyranic Wars they carried hellfire rounds on every marine. Yes Every marine had a hellfire round.

Unknown.
There are problems with trying to calculate this. As you pointed out models are not to scale. a 2m tall Space Marine is roughly the same height as a normal person. We could estimate distances based on speed, however we do not have a time reference to compare it to. If the Movement phase takes 1 hour of :miniature time" (in other words, regardless of how long the Movement phase takes for us, for the models it is always 1 hour), then 6" could be anywhere between 5 and 8 kilometers. If the miniature time is less (say maybe 2 minutes) you are looking at roughly 250 meters.

If we use FFG rules for weapons, then a Lasgun (with a 24" range) has a range of 100m, meaning that 6" on the table would be 25 meters.

http://www.philipsibbering.com/wh40k/10-01-marine-morphology.shtml

I think this might help.

Considering how far a weapon of today can shoot (1000 Yards)
x1.52 (As modern weapons only get better with time.)
We are probably going to see the main weaponry gain more and more range over time.

Each Mobile Infantry soldier is at least Toughness 6 and armed with Power fists. Moreover, at least one (if not all) member(s) of the squad is carrying a Strength D weapon, Apocalyptic blast weapon. Oh, and as they are always deployed from orbit, they have Deep Strike too.

That sounds incredibly stupid. Even by 40k standards it does sound stupid.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The marines also fight as individuals, at least on the table top. In fact, the marines have the least list synergy of almost every army in the game, afaik.

They look that way but the best part of that codex is figuring out list synergy. I'd put them on par with guard.

There is no synergy to figure out. Ie, there is no mechanistic way for the units to help each other. The Guard have WAY MORE synergy in their list via the order mechanic. At least the Starcraft terrans have the medivac.

You have a very narrow view of synergy. You don't have to have direct interaction for there to be synergy.

Units simply dedicated to covering an area another squad is deficient in is plenty of synergy.

No, not really. That's just being a unit with a different specialization. NOT synergy.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Considering how far a weapon of today can shoot (1000 Yards)

Two problems with this:

1) You're trying to translate heavily-abstracted game mechanics into "real-world" numbers. This doesn't work because the game mechanics have very little to do with the "real" world. For example, giving a maximum range for a weapon is just absurd, bullets don't magically disappear once they hit an arbitrary maximum range. In reality you would have decreasing accuracy with range, up to a point where the chance of hitting a target is too small to be worth rolling the dice. And that point would be well short of the maximum range at which the bullet can kill someone if it hits them by sheer luck. So when the 40k rules say a weapon has a maximum range of 24" that doesn't mean very much. At most we can claim that its effective range is roughly twice the range of a 12" gun, but even that doesn't work all that well when you consider the fact that 40k's weapon ranges seem to work on a non-linear scale.

2) You're confusing maximum range with maximum effective range. A modern rifle bullet can land miles away from the shooter if you fire it in a high arc, but you aren't going to hit anything at that range. The more relevant range from a gaming perspective is the range at which an average shooter can expect to hit a human-sized target. A maximum range of 24" for an infantry gun represents the much shorter range at which an average shooter is consistently hitting a target, not the 1000 yard range at which an expert marksman can hit a target under ideal conditions.

That sounds incredibly stupid. Even by 40k standards it does sound stupid.

Too bad, because that's how it works. 40k is not even close to the high end of power in scifi, complaining about how "stupid" it would be for the mobile infantry to have those stats makes about as much sense as complaining that it isn't appropriate to give a space marine god-like stats in a 1500s historical game. And of course the mobile infantry aren't really at the top either. For example, a Culture combat drone would have a stat line of all 10s and a special rule that as soon as the game begins the entire opposing army is destroyed. And that would probably underestimate its power by a significant margin.

40K is low-powered because it is a retro-future. We have better targeting in our military today than the Imperium does.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Considering how far a weapon of today can shoot (1000 Yards)

Two problems with this:

1) You're trying to translate heavily-abstracted game mechanics into "real-world" numbers. This doesn't work because the game mechanics have very little to do with the "real" world. For example, giving a maximum range for a weapon is just absurd, bullets don't magically disappear once they hit an arbitrary maximum range. In reality you would have decreasing accuracy with range, up to a point where the chance of hitting a target is too small to be worth rolling the dice. And that point would be well short of the maximum range at which the bullet can kill someone if it hits them by sheer luck. So when the 40k rules say a weapon has a maximum range of 24" that doesn't mean very much. At most we can claim that its effective range is roughly twice the range of a 12" gun, but even that doesn't work all that well when you consider the fact that 40k's weapon ranges seem to work on a non-linear scale.

2) You're confusing maximum range with maximum effective range. A modern rifle bullet can land miles away from the shooter if you fire it in a high arc, but you aren't going to hit anything at that range. The more relevant range from a gaming perspective is the range at which an average shooter can expect to hit a human-sized target. A maximum range of 24" for an infantry gun represents the much shorter range at which an average shooter is consistently hitting a target, not the 1000 yard range at which an expert marksman can hit a target under ideal conditions.

Yes but we are dealing with super humans who far superior to any human are probably have better wired brains and their eyes are probably far more efficient and better than a regular human eye.

I was only making an estimate on it, and I wasn't saying the max range of the bolter is this. For all we know the Bolter could have optics that are placed on the bolter that allow them to see farther. The helmets that Space Marines wear have alot of special optics that make most starcraft technology look crappy in comparision.



Infact we know that the power armor space marines wear only enhances their abilities. Not to mention that how efficent weaponry has gotten in 40k universe.

That sounds incredibly stupid. Even by 40k standards it does sound stupid.

Too bad, because that's how it works. 40k is not even close to the high end of power in scifi, complaining about how "stupid" it would be for the mobile infantry to have those stats makes about as much sense as complaining that it isn't appropriate to give a space marine god-like stats in a 1500s historical game. And of course the mobile infantry aren't really at the top either. For example, a Culture combat drone would have a stat line of all 10s and a special rule that as soon as the game begins the entire opposing army is destroyed. And that would probably underestimate its power by a significant margin.

And yet those have no bearings in this discussion. The Culture and Mobile Infantry have no point to this discussion as this is about Spartan 2s and Starcraft Marines.

We have talked about the culture before On SEVERAL threads and we know throughly that the Culture would win hands down against any species or race that any genre has to offer. If you wish to talk about the culture or Mobile Infantry please take it to another thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
40K is low-powered because it is a retro-future. We have better targeting in our military today than the Imperium does.

Stop making these claims. If you have read the lore you know this is completely false.

Its a gothic feature. Not a Retro one.

Cowboy Bebop is Retro.

40k is not.

40k has ships that can go from one side of the gaxaly to the other in a matter of days. A space marine has a gun that can break through tank armor. And this armor can resist heavy weaponry even from tanks.

Stop making stuff up.

They might have those ships, but marine tanks miss their mark 33% of the time. 83% of the time if they moved and it is the second shot. For god sakes, they have SPONSON guns. Those went out in the 20s.

The lore to me is very secondary to efficacy on the table top. Marines don't perform anything like the claims you are making. I already conceded that the marines in the fluff win, but I consider the fluff almost irrelevant to my 40K experience.

Marines on the table top die in droves to AP - or AP 6 weapons that hit them enough times. Doesn't sound like that happens in the fluffl, but it's not reflected in their game. I'm going with the game.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Yes but we are dealing with super humans who far superior to any human are probably have better wired brains and their eyes are probably far more efficient and better than a regular human eye.

Accuracy isn't just about vision, it's about things like fine control over aiming the gun. A slight angular error in aim might be only an inch or two off at 10m (still hitting a human-size target), but the same level of error wouldn't even be close at 1000m. And at extreme range things like different wind between the shooter and the target, worn out parts on the gun, etc, all become much bigger factors. Then on top of that you have the power armor to consider. It's very difficult to increase the strength and speed of something (a robotic arm, for example) without sacrificing a bit of precision. For example, if you want the extreme arm strength to swing a chainsword and cut through a tank you might have to accept that your arm movements are always going to overshoot a bit. This is fine at close range, where marines are intended to fight, since slight errors don't matter as much, but would make it harder for a marine to aim a gun accurately at long range.

The helmets that Space Marines wear have alot of special optics that make most starcraft technology look crappy in comparision.

Proof of this? Do you have any evidence that marine optics are better than their Starcraft equivalents, or are you just assuming that space marines have to be awesome?

Not to mention that how efficent weaponry has gotten in 40k universe.

Actually most 40k weapons suck. They've made progress on firepower in some areas (melta/plasma/etc) but most of their stuff seems to be stuck at "WWII in space" levels.

And yet those have no bearings in this discussion. The Culture and Mobile Infantry have no point to this discussion as this is about Spartan 2s and Starcraft Marines.

We have talked about the culture before On SEVERAL threads and we know throughly that the Culture would win hands down against any species or race that any genre has to offer. If you wish to talk about the culture or Mobile Infantry please take it to another thread.

You're the one who complained that giving mobile infantry a particular stat line and special rules was "stupid". If you don't want to discuss those other universes then why did you feel compelled to post about them?

40k has ships that can go from one side of the gaxaly to the other in a matter of days. A space marine has a gun that can break through tank armor. And this armor can resist heavy weaponry even from tanks.

On the other hand you also have tanks that most WWII-era designers would laugh at, spaceships with broadside-mounted cannons and slave crews to load them, and hordes of screaming idiots with swords that still somehow manage to work because everyone has forgotten that WMDs/artillery/etc exist. The "retro-future" label is entirely accurate.

Martel732 wrote:
They might have those ships, but marine tanks miss their mark 33% of the time. 83% of the time if they moved and it is the second shot. For god sakes, they have SPONSON guns. Those went out in the 20s.

The lore to me is very secondary to efficacy on the table top. Marines don't perform anything like the claims you are making. I already conceded that the marines in the fluff win, but I consider the fluff almost irrelevant to my 40K experience.

Marines on the table top die in droves to AP - or AP 6 weapons that hit them enough times. Doesn't sound like that happens in the fluffl, but it's not reflected in their game. I'm going with the game.

Wow this is where we diverge as the marines would still win. In the fluff they win, even with tabletop rule sets the space marines would still win considering the enormous amount of things you can take on a space marine codex list.

What is a starcraft tank?



what is a regular space marine tank?


Now baring in mind that space marines often out maneuver most foes you have to keep in mind that space marines very often use other experimental weaponry such as the Scarian Tank, but on very rare occassions they use super heavies such as the fellblade.

I don't think you are posting in good faith anymore. There are a very narrow range of marine lists that are truly fearsome. And most of them involve Tiggy/grav cent tricks. Given that Tiggy can only be in one place at a time, I'd say this is a problem for them.

Point for point, marines are rather miserable on the tabletop.

And for being so smart, all the tactical marines left their chainswords in their locker room. That's pretty stupid to me.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Yes but we are dealing with super humans who far superior to any human are probably have better wired brains and their eyes are probably far more efficient and better than a regular human eye.

Accuracy isn't just about vision, it's about things like fine control over aiming the gun. A slight angular error in aim might be only an inch or two off at 10m (still hitting a human-size target), but the same level of error wouldn't even be close at 1000m. And at extreme range things like different wind between the shooter and the target, worn out parts on the gun, etc, all become much bigger factors. Then on top of that you have the power armor to consider. It's very difficult to increase the strength and speed of something (a robotic arm, for example) without sacrificing a bit of precision. For example, if you want the extreme arm strength to swing a chainsword and cut through a tank you might have to accept that your arm movements are always going to overshoot a bit. This is fine at close range, where marines are intended to fight, since slight errors don't matter as much, but would make it harder for a marine to aim a gun accurately at long range.

Problem again is that we are thinking space marines aren't capable of this. Space Marines are for all tenses andd purposes veterans of hundreds of wars and battles. Saying that they cannot calculate distance and wind is something a super human would not have any trouble doing. As they often are shown to process information at greater detail than a normal human being.

The helmets that Space Marines wear have alot of special optics that make most starcraft technology look crappy in comparision.

Proof of this? Do you have any evidence that marine optics are better than their Starcraft equivalents, or are you just assuming that space marines have to be awesome?

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/193027-space-marine-helmets/

http://forum.spacehulk-deathwing.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1867

Each suit possesses a full suite of life-support functions for operation in hostile environments, an automated medicae system to provide some level of first aid to a wounded wearer and a highly advanced and fully integrated tactical targeting and threat analysis system known as Auto-senses. The suit would be heavy and cumbersome to wear but for the electrically motivated fibre bundles within the armour that replicates the wearer's movement and enhances his strength beyond its already considerable superhuman baseline (for Space Marines). Whilst Power Armour is most commonly associated with the Space Marines of the Adeptus Astartes, the Sisters of Battle and many Inquisitors also use powered armour of one sort or another. Typically, however, these armours may not contain the same strength-enhancing properties or life-support functions of Space Marine Power Armour, nor do they always provide the same level of protection.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Power_Armour

Components
While Space Marine Armour has evolved and changed over the Millennia, key components remain the same.[15]
Auto-senses: Contained in the helmet, these systems include thought-activated communication arrays and audio filters, targeting reticules and range finders, tactical displays and auspex-links, and a host of other features.
Photolenses: Protect the Space Marine from light bursts and allow him to see in the infrared and ultraviolet spectrum's as well as enable vision in low-light conditions.
Respirator Vox Grill: This thought-activated device amplifies a Marine's battlecry to deafening volumes and contains a respirator to filter out toxins and draw upon an internal oxygen supply.
Auto Responsive Shoulder Plates: Shaped to deflect and absorb incoming blows, they usually display heraldry including Chapter, Company, and Squad symbols.
Chestpiece: Designed to protect armored power cables.
Backpack Power Unit: This houses the primary power core for the armour, as well as reserve cells and an emergency solar collector.
Life Signs Monitor: Regulate a suite of life support functions, including an injection system that can regulate painkillers, anti-toxins, and combat stimulants.
Nutrient Reservoir: A self-replenishing high-energy food store that can sustain a Space Marine's metabolism. Thus during battle, there is no need for a Space Marine to eat or drink.
Reinforced Greaves: These incorporate gyroscopic stabilizers and power units that can magnetize the soles of the armour's boots, allowing Space Marines to walk on metal surfaces in the void of space or zero gravity environments.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Power_armor

Its been discussed to death on this website several SEVERAL times.

40k has technology that makes us pale in comparision considering they can have someone who has blown apart limb from limb and still have them survive, means their medical technology is far superior to our own. Not to also forget that they have planet killing weaponry that reduces everything on a planet to ashes.

Not to mention that how efficent weaponry has gotten in 40k universe.

Actually most 40k weapons suck. They've made progress on firepower in some areas (melta/plasma/etc) but most of their stuff seems to be stuck at "WWII in space" levels.

Heres a bolter bullet:

And yet those have no bearings in this discussion. The Culture and Mobile Infantry have no point to this discussion as this is about Spartan 2s and Starcraft Marines.

We have talked about the culture before On SEVERAL threads and we know throughly that the Culture would win hands down against any species or race that any genre has to offer. If you wish to talk about the culture or Mobile Infantry please take it to another thread.

You're the one who complained that giving mobile infantry a particular stat line and special rules was "stupid". If you don't want to discuss those other universes then why did you feel compelled to post about them?

And yet you continue to bring it up. Do not include it on the conversation at hand.

40k has ships that can go from one side of the gaxaly to the other in a matter of days. A space marine has a gun that can break through tank armor. And this armor can resist heavy weaponry even from tanks.

On the other hand you also have tanks that most WWII-era designers would laugh at, spaceships with broadside-mounted cannons and slave crews to load them, and hordes of screaming idiots with swords that still somehow manage to work because everyone has forgotten that WMDs/artillery/etc exist. The "retro-future" label is entirely accurate.

on the other hand you can look at most starcraft vechiles and know they are mass produced and one of the reasons why they have fatal flaws. The Thor being massly outmatched by the Odin. And then the other vechiles such as the banshee being unable to target air units, yet being a stealth fighter has to rely on an highly unreliable stealth generator. Face it both universes sacrifice things in the name of cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think you are posting in good faith anymore. There are a very narrow range of marine lists that are truly fearsome. And most of them involve Tiggy/grav cent tricks. Given that Tiggy can only be in one place at a time, I'd say this is a problem for them.

Point for point, marines are rather miserable on the tabletop.

And for being so smart, all the tactical marines left their chainswords in their locker room. That's pretty stupid to me.

In older rule sets they use to come with a combat knife.

Back in 4th edition your marine squads could take an apothecary in every squad. And you could deck out the sarge with artificer armor. You could also give your whole armor bionics.

The later editions have only made marines worse because of power creep.

Its funny you say that I took mostly tactical squads and I never lost a battle because I just held the line. I didn't lose a single squad in a tournament once. It was quite funny.

" I didn't lose a single squad in a tournament once. It was quite funny."

And with that claim, I think we're done.

Martel732 wrote:
" I didn't lose a single squad in a tournament once. It was quite funny."

And with that claim, I think we're done.

That was fourth edition back when you could do a ton of shenanigans in a single army.

Such as equipping an entire army with artificer armor.

I can't speak for 4th ed, as that is the one I skipped. I'll have to rely on others.

The discrepancy between marine fluff and marines on the table is really too large.

Martel732 wrote:
I can't speak for 4th ed, as that is the one I skipped. I'll have to rely on others.

The discrepancy between marine fluff and marines on the table is really too large.

Thats why I stopped playing the tabletop. The discrepancy only grew and grew.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Problem again is that we are thinking space marines aren't capable of this. Space Marines are for all tenses andd purposes veterans of hundreds of wars and battles. Saying that they cannot calculate distance and wind is something a super human would not have any trouble doing. As they often are shown to process information at greater detail than a normal human being.

Again, this is not just about skill. For example, how does a space marine's skill and experience allow them to compensate for varying burn rates in the propellant of two different bolter rounds? You can't know that information until after the shell has left the gun, so it's just random error that the space marine can't do anything about. Same kind of thing with power armor: no amount of experience is going to let you avoid the speed/power vs. accuracy tradeoff. That's just controls 101, if you change the response of a machine to a given input in one direction (faster, less overshoot, less stead-state error, etc) you usually make it worse in some other area and the final engineering decision is a compromise. Since space marines are designed for close-range combat their power armor will almost inevitably strength and reaction time over precision. After all, it doesn't matter if a sword blow or bolter shot is an inch from the aim point, it's still going to kill the target.

{irrelevant stuff that doesn't answer my question}

That doesn't prove that marine optics are better than their starcraft equivalents, it's just a bunch of technobabble that says little more than "space marines have optics in their helmets". So it seems like your answer is in fact "SPACE MARINES ARE MORE AWESOME I LOVE MARINES!!!!".

40k has technology that makes us pale in comparision considering they can have someone who has blown apart limb from limb and still have them survive, means their medical technology is far superior to our own. Not to also forget that they have planet killing weaponry that reduces everything on a planet to ashes.

That's nice. I asked about your claim of "space marines have better optics". 40k medical technology and planet killers have nothing to do with this subject.

Heres a bolter bullet:
{pictures}

What's your point? I don't see what a fan-made picture of a bolter bullet (which doesn't seem to match the fluff provided by GW) has to do with anything.

And yet you continue to bring it up. Do not include it on the conversation at hand.

IOW, "we can only talk about these things when you agree with me".

on the other hand you can look at most starcraft vechiles and know they are mass produced and one of the reasons why they have fatal flaws. The Thor being massly outmatched by the Odin. And then the other vechiles such as the banshee being unable to target air units, yet being a stealth fighter has to rely on an highly unreliable stealth generator. Face it both universes sacrifice things in the name of cool.

That's nice, I wasn't talking about Starcraft at all there. The fact that Starcraft units may or may not be badly designed doesn't change the fact that 40k is a retro-future game with a thin layer of technology added to a WWII-era (or earlier!) universe.

in terms of scale, 40k isn't exactly a stellar example of weapon ranges. If a marine is say 10 feet tall (a bit high i admit) and is represented by a 2" model, then a bolter has a range of about 120 feet, or 40m.

the longest ranged weapon in 40k (that i can think of) is the Earthshaker with a 120" range, which would give it a range of about 200m

Compare that to lets say, a modern AS90 with its pretty nifty 155mm gun, and has a range of 35km, which translates to 40k as 1750 feet, or 21,000 inches. and that is 175 times the range of an earthshaker.

If you were to make a more reasoned comparison, then earthshakers would probably have comparable range to modern artillery, probably in the 15-20km range, certainly no less than 10km. and its equally probable that weapons in the 40k universe are designed to operate at ranges modern weapons operate at today.
Assault rifles are designed with engagements of up to 300m or so in mind (the vast majority of firefights occur at, or below this range) so i see no reason that a bolter wouldn't have that kind of reach, probably more given astartes have much better eyeball MK I's than normal humans and could probably hit a moving target much further away with a much more high powered weapon than the average infantryman can today.

A better comparison of weapon ranges, but still imperfect is epic scale battles. 6mm marines have a 50cm range (going by Space Marine), which is about 250-300m without crunching the numbers too seriously, with heavier weapons adding 50% onto that. there is still the issue of truly big guns having inadequate range, but at epic scale, an earthshaker can kiss most of the battlefield.

On the subject of killing a space marine. Being removed as a casualty in game doesn't mean that the space marine in question is actually dead, it just means he is a casualty, Wounded most likely, perhaps his armour is too badly damaged to continue. perhaps he has lost a limb, it certainly doesn't mean he is dead. Only a few weapons in 40k can actually kill a marine outright. Wounds are a very arbitrary metric. A normal space marine is 'killed' by a plasma round. a captain with the same armour will shrug it off like a champ

The reason that its a very difficult comparison to make is 40k doesn't really publish hard numbers, and when they do they tend to be laughable. a landraider has armour equivalent to 350mm or so of steel armour, which might seem a lot, its all round, certainly. and its AV-14 which is the best in the game (discounting fortifications). Compared to a modern MBT with its composite armour providing up to 1000mm of protection against certain rounds, and still being vulnerable to some weapons and, well, you have to laugh.

There is a reason the star wars versus star trek debate can be so lively, and that is because stats for ships and weapons and armour have been published in detail for both universes. When it comes to 40k all you have to go on are a few joke stats from sources that rarely agree, and the impossibly imbalanced representation of marines on the tabletop.

Personally, i think if you want to compare tabletop marines to everyone else, you should use the 'Movie Marine' stats, rather than the current C;SM stats (2000 points, 6-7 marines, and they stand a good chance of taking out 2000 points of whatever they are fighting with minimal casualties)

The table top rules are an abstraction. And there isn't a fixed ratio either.

I came up with a theory that range bands represent different distances.

So 0-6 might be 10-30 meters.

6-12 would be 100-200 meters.

12-24 would be 300-500 meters.

24-48 would be roughly around a Kilometer.

48-72 would be several kilometers.

Again, the table top is an abstraction. The distances given are certainly not relative to the physical model size nor are distances relative to each other.

Personally, I think the TT stats for SM are a good representation of them, stronger and faster than humans but not so much that they're unbeatable and undefeatable.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Problem again is that we are thinking space marines aren't capable of this. Space Marines are for all tenses andd purposes veterans of hundreds of wars and battles. Saying that they cannot calculate distance and wind is something a super human would not have any trouble doing. As they often are shown to process information at greater detail than a normal human being.

Again, this is not just about skill. For example, how does a space marine's skill and experience allow them to compensate for varying burn rates in the propellant of two different bolter rounds? You can't know that information until after the shell has left the gun, so it's just random error that the space marine can't do anything about. Same kind of thing with power armor: no amount of experience is going to let you avoid the speed/power vs. accuracy tradeoff. That's just controls 101, if you change the response of a machine to a given input in one direction (faster, less overshoot, less stead-state error, etc) you usually make it worse in some other area and the final engineering decision is a compromise. Since space marines are designed for close-range combat their power armor will almost inevitably strength and reaction time over precision. After all, it doesn't matter if a sword blow or bolter shot is an inch from the aim point, it's still going to kill the target.

I am pretty sure them being more intelligent than any normal human being, having super human abilities more than allows them to do so. Space marines are designed to do whatever the helk they want. The Raptors Chapter being a camo chapter that rarely gets into close combat. infact many chapters perfer ranged combat to close quarters.

Read the fluff my friend ^.^

{irrelevant stuff that doesn't answer my question}

That doesn't prove that marine optics are better than their starcraft equivalents, it's just a bunch of technobabble that says little more than "space marines have optics in their helmets". So it seems like your answer is in fact "SPACE MARINES ARE MORE AWESOME I LOVE MARINES!!!!".

Hahaha. Oh dear god I do hope your joking because that is all we have to go on. WE can't say what is better and what is not. Because remember that the technology in starcraft is very retro as well.

On a personal note 40k is not my favorite universe. Nor are space marines my favorite. I know when one group is superior to another. Such as the Marines from Old Man's war being superior to Spartans and Starcraft marines but being completely insuperior to space marines.

40k has technology that makes us pale in comparision considering they can have someone who has blown apart limb from limb and still have them survive, means their medical technology is far superior to our own. Not to also forget that they have planet killing weaponry that reduces everything on a planet to ashes.

That's nice. I asked about your claim of "space marines have better optics". 40k medical technology and planet killers have nothing to do with this subject.

That is an equalivency statement I suggest you look it up before commenting any further. But you lack this quite often and just rush in with out any idea and no support for your own claims.

As I have stated before this comes to a logical conclusion that their optics are just as advanced as 40k weapon technology is leagues ahead of their medical technology.

Heres a bolter bullet:
{pictures}

What's your point? I don't see what a fan-made picture of a bolter bullet (which doesn't seem to match the fluff provided by GW) has to do with anything.

Funny thing those are actually from white dwarves XD The bullet picture was made from a fan, and the other photo was in a white dwarf.

And yet you continue to bring it up. Do not include it on the conversation at hand.

IOW, "we can only talk about these things when you agree with me".

No more on the lines of. Why are you talking about this. This has nothing to do with the matter on hand. Stop acting high and mighty.

on the other hand you can look at most starcraft vechiles and know they are mass produced and one of the reasons why they have fatal flaws. The Thor being massly outmatched by the Odin. And then the other vechiles such as the banshee being unable to target air units, yet being a stealth fighter has to rely on an highly unreliable stealth generator. Face it both universes sacrifice things in the name of cool.

That's nice, I wasn't talking about Starcraft at all there. The fact that Starcraft units may or may not be badly designed doesn't change the fact that 40k is a retro-future game with a thin layer of technology added to a WWII-era (or earlier!) universe.

And? What does that have baring in this conversation about starcraft vs space marines?

If that has no baring in the conversation Don't bring it up. That is a side strike. What point is it to bring it up other than as a distraction to the thread?

Now, let's compare Guardsmen with Alliance Soldiers from Mass Effect and Stormtroooers from Star Wars

madtankbloke wrote:
in terms of scale, 40k isn't exactly a stellar example of weapon ranges. If a marine is say 10 feet tall (a bit high i admit) and is represented by a 2" model, then a bolter has a range of about 120 feet, or 40m.

the longest ranged weapon in 40k (that i can think of) is the Earthshaker with a 120" range, which would give it a range of about 200m

Compare that to lets say, a modern AS90 with its pretty nifty 155mm gun, and has a range of 35km, which translates to 40k as 1750 feet, or 21,000 inches. and that is 175 times the range of an earthshaker.

If you were to make a more reasoned comparison, then earthshakers would probably have comparable range to modern artillery, probably in the 15-20km range, certainly no less than 10km. and its equally probable that weapons in the 40k universe are designed to operate at ranges modern weapons operate at today.
Assault rifles are designed with engagements of up to 300m or so in mind (the vast majority of firefights occur at, or below this range) so i see no reason that a bolter wouldn't have that kind of reach, probably more given astartes have much better eyeball MK I's than normal humans and could probably hit a moving target much further away with a much more high powered weapon than the average infantryman can today.

A better comparison of weapon ranges, but still imperfect is epic scale battles. 6mm marines have a 50cm range (going by Space Marine), which is about 250-300m without crunching the numbers too seriously, with heavier weapons adding 50% onto that. there is still the issue of truly big guns having inadequate range, but at epic scale, an earthshaker can kiss most of the battlefield.

On the subject of killing a space marine. Being removed as a casualty in game doesn't mean that the space marine in question is actually dead, it just means he is a casualty, Wounded most likely, perhaps his armour is too badly damaged to continue. perhaps he has lost a limb, it certainly doesn't mean he is dead. Only a few weapons in 40k can actually kill a marine outright. Wounds are a very arbitrary metric. A normal space marine is 'killed' by a plasma round. a captain with the same armour will shrug it off like a champ

The reason that its a very difficult comparison to make is 40k doesn't really publish hard numbers, and when they do they tend to be laughable. a landraider has armour equivalent to 350mm or so of steel armour, which might seem a lot, its all round, certainly. and its AV-14 which is the best in the game (discounting fortifications). Compared to a modern MBT with its composite armour providing up to 1000mm of protection against certain rounds, and still being vulnerable to some weapons and, well, you have to laugh.

There is a reason the star wars versus star trek debate can be so lively, and that is because stats for ships and weapons and armour have been published in detail for both universes. When it comes to 40k all you have to go on are a few joke stats from sources that rarely agree, and the impossibly imbalanced representation of marines on the tabletop.

Personally, i think if you want to compare tabletop marines to everyone else, you should use the 'Movie Marine' stats, rather than the current C;SM stats (2000 points, 6-7 marines, and they stand a good chance of taking out 2000 points of whatever they are fighting with minimal casualties)

I am pretty sure your numbers need to be increased by x35.

The armor that land raiders use might be far more effective and layered than our tanks. Lets not forget this is the year 40k meaning everything is far better and more well suited than right now. So our conventional weaponry might just bounce off it like a dodge ball hitting a wall of solid metal.

 The Wise Dane wrote:
Now, let's compare Guardsmen with Alliance Soldiers from Mass Effect and Stormtroooers from Star Wars

Guardsmen win. Why? Baneblades, Reaver Titans and Imperial navy. GG

Star Wars Storm Troopers lose based on how cruddy their armor is and how few of them there are compared to a regiment of imperial guardsmen.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Personally, I think the TT stats for SM are a good representation of them, stronger and faster than humans but not so much that they're unbeatable and undefeatable.

They're good for the purpose they serve, as stats for a battle game. But to properly represent them on the table top relative to everyone else's stats, basic tactical marine profiles would need to look like this.

WS:5
BS:5
Str:4
T:4
W:3
I:4
A:2
Ld:8

They'd also have FnP and Acute Senses.

They'd also cost 50ish points for just a guy with a Bolter and Bolt Pistol.

Hey Asherian Command, you know I'm no in this conversation and I don't have any problems with you, so can you tell me why your writing is so crazy?