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.

To emphasise what I was talking about earlier;



Are those weapons really supposed to have the same stats?

Yeah.

Okay, so Space Marines are supposed to be awesome, right? I can get behind that. We have these genetically enhanced, superhuman badasses that only live so they can die in the Emperor's service. It takes decades to train one, and their standard equipment is verging on relic territory.

Cool, grimdark, makes as much sense as anything else in the setting so far. I'm tracking.

Right, so we take these guys, who are all tactical and strategic genuineses down to Battle Brother Moon-moon, who no one likes, and then we send them on special missions in support of larger operations. They're like special forces' badass, better looking older brother, riding a dope ass hog with the hottest girl in town on the back.

Alright, I'm still on board with this.

Oh, but we're also going to send a full company to singlehandedly reclaim a world from some untold millions, nay, billions of Orks.

Because that really makes sense.

I mean, its not like there's some other military organization that excels in mass battle, open warfare, and retaking entire planets, if not systems. Its not like there's some miliatry branch that has a source of much cheaper, still effective, and much more plentiful source of dakka.

Nah, let's just put the marines there instead, because not only are they super badass elite mega soldiers that perform flawless surgical operations, they're also capable of planet wide warfare in the open against numbers far exceeding their own. Because they're totally capable of replenishing themselves as readily as say, I dunno, the Imperial Guard. No, its totally cool if marines start getting portrayed as masters of everything, who are totally invincible, and can fight off Imperial Navy battlefleets, and combined forces of the inquisition, and staving off planets of Orks, and daemons, or hive fleets.

There couldn't possibly be another faction that could be used to throw into the meat grinder. Let's use our super expensive, mega badass marines to hold a fort against the endless tides of enemies of the Imperium.

And that's not even getting into the ridiculousness of most of the big chapters and their absurd fluff inconsistencies or general stupidity.

What a confused mess.

Have I told you how I really feel about marines?

It's a problem of the D6 mechanic. Lasguns have the same problem, really. According to the stats you can punch as hard as the beam of one does. A gun that can blow limbs off and put holes into concrete. There is probably a difference between bolters but not enough to justify a different stat.

Eh.

I utterly love the Marines as a concept, and I prefer them really, really stronk.

But I still feel that they are used completely wrong in the fluff. When you have super-elite special forces forming a needle striking with the force of a hammer, you still use it as a needle, just a really really good needle. When you have ten thousand wooden hammers that'd do the job just as well but only a few needles, you use that superneedle for needle jobs, not try to force it into hammer jobs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
It's a problem of the D6 mechanic. Lasguns have the same problem, really. According to the stats you can punch as hard as the beam of one does. A gun that can blow limbs off and put holes into concrete. There is probably a difference between bolters but not enough to justify a different stat.

Then it doesn't justify pulse rifles having higher strength either.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Eh.

I utterly love the Marines as a concept, and I prefer them really, really stronk.

But I still feel that they are used completely wrong in the fluff. When you have super-elite special forces forming a needle striking with the force of a hammer, you still use it as a needle, just a really really good needle. When you have ten thousand wooden hammers that'd do the job just as well but only a few needles, you use that superneedle for needle jobs, not try to force it into hammer jobs.

Which was exactly my point with my post.

I like the concept of marines too.

Just not what they've become. They're a parody of themselves.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Eh.

I utterly love the Marines as a concept, and I prefer them really, really stronk.

But I still feel that they are used completely wrong in the fluff. When you have super-elite special forces forming a needle striking with the force of a hammer, you still use it as a needle, just a really really good needle. When you have ten thousand wooden hammers that'd do the job just as well but only a few needles, you use that superneedle for needle jobs, not try to force it into hammer jobs.

Which was exactly my point with my post.

I like the concept of marines too.

Just not what they've become. They're a parody of themselves.

100% agreed on all accounts. It's why I tend to ignore most of the fluff produced about their battles and stick to the descriptions of their gear.

@Ashiraya

Agreed. I think Pulse rifles should be S:4 given the scaling system of 40k unless they are as powerful as a Heavy Bolter.

Tbf, that is not the fault of the marines themselves. When criticising the Marines, we should not seek to change the Marines to fit the role they are hamfisted into, rather we should seek to change their role.

It's quite simply the fault of the writers. Sadly.

I wish 40k had been D20 from the start...

I'm not so much concerned about the fluff as much as marines are armed with weapons that basically accomplish nothing against most enemy lists in my experience. People aren't foolish enough to bring lists that bolters are effective against.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nedTCM wrote:
You can't justify it with cover. You could make the claim that a plasma gun is not effective because of cover in that I am paying 15 points and he still gets a 4+ save in a ruin.

More over the Riptide example is faulty as well because the riptide is widely regarded as underpriced at base and worse underpriced with its upgrades. There are a lot units that fall under the underpriced OP catagory and you can't really use them as a yardstick for however everything else is measured. It is a different problem all together. Most of the time you should be getting a 5+ base cover save when advancing with a unit, maybe a 4+ if you are lucky. There are several units that are cheesing their way to obscene cover saves (2+ demon prince BS). Again different problem with the game all together.

A heavy bolter will get 2 turns of full shooting before a charge. That should off set any bonus that a unit advancing in cover gains and he can't hide behind cover forever.

The plasma gun still cuts 2+ armor down to 4+ cover.

I can and will use Riptides as examples because they are legal and I have to go up against them. They count and they matter.

I think you can give all marines bolters Krak ammunition and live everething else the same. Here we would have "superior" (range 30") astartes bolters, and pulse rifles would be still better.

The other solution is to force the game back in a direction where lists must take units vulnerable to bolters. I realize this is never going to happen, either, but it was at least a little true in 3rd.

Okay basic guns:

Sisters: Bolter
IG: Lasgun
Space Marines and their flavors: Bolter
Daemons: Pink Horrors: Flicking Fire. Or Firestorm. Or Bolt of Change. Or Infernal Gateway. (And it's pretty random what ya get.)

CSM: Bolter
D. Eldar: Splinter Rifle
Eldar: Shuriken Catapult
Grey Knights: Storm Bolter
Militarum Tempestus: Hot Shot Las
Necrons: Gauss Flayer
Orks: Shoota
Tau: Pulse Rifle
Tyranids: Fleshborer

So to put this in perspective. Combining all the armies who's main gun is the bolter, there is 11 weapons to compare.

Going to hypothetically say the weapon is used at equal BS value.

Bolter vs. Lasgun: No contest Bolter and Las have the same range but Bolter's S and AP is superior.

Bolter vs. Pink Horrors: Kinda iffy on this being called the 'main/basic gun' of Daemons but this one has so many variables that in some cases the 1 psychic power could be better, but you can't Deny the Witch on a boltgun. There is just to many variables to make a fair comparison. But the stable option is the bolter.

Bolter vs. Splinter Rifle: This one has 'slightly' less variables but it is one weapon I'll give the edge to on the Splinter Rifle. Poisoned can potentially kill anything. But against IG or anything T3 or lower and/or Armor Save 5+ the boltgun is actually better. BUT since 95% of the time the other guy will be T4 and AS 3+ the Poison is a big deal. Even more so if it's something with a ton of T and little to no save.

Bolter vs. Shuriken Catapult: Bolter outranges it easily. And if the catapult is close enough to shoot, the bolter can put out just as much firepower. I'll take that 24" range over the Catapult. In context even, the Eldar are just too flimsy to put that gun anywhere remotely close to a squad with bolters.

Bolter vs. Storm Bolter: Yeah SB wins, but Grey Knights are 'the' broken OP of 40K anyway. And supposedly even more 'elite' then even a tac marine so...eh...

Bolter vs. Hot Shot Las: This one is interesting. Hellgun's AP3 makes it look perfect as a marine killer. Still being S3 makes me like the bolter more in the long run. Especially when the bolter has much better range.

Bolter vs. Gauss Flayer: Very similar weapons though Gauss wins cause it's used by the 2nd most broken army and the extra 'glance' rule.

Bolter vs. Shoota: Ork vs. Tac marine point for point give me the bolter. But just comparing the weapons the Shoota is a better Shuriken Catapult, though AP6 does give light infantry a save they'd otherwise never even sniff. The bolter's range advantage is checked by the assault 2 this time though because it's not as big a sacrifice as the 12" ranged assault weapons.

Bolter vs. Pulse Rifle: Pulse Rifle is probably the KING of basic troop guns. Inside 24" give me the Flayer or a Storm Bolter, but basic gun for basic gun the Pulse Rifle is win.

Bolter vs. Fleshborer: Boltgun outranges, and out shoots it shot for shot. Though the fleshborer does have the same strength and ap.

So...Bolter wins 5, and loses 5

Pretty good results to me. If I actually put the 'basic' troop behind the gun.

Bolter wins 6 and loses 4. (Ork shoota losing out in the end.)

If I had to rate them 1-10 being fired by the basic trooper:

1: Pulse Rifle
2. Gauss Flayer
3. Storm Bolter
4. Splinter Rifle
5. Bolter
6. Pink Horror's spell (the variability can move it up or down a lot though.)
7. Shoota
8. Hot Shot Las
9. Shuriken Catapult
10. Lasgun
11. Fleshborer

The shoota is a much better weapon than the bolter. So is the lasgun, if you factor in the cost of the guardsmen.

Which brings up my point, yet again.

The problem here is not bolters, but the cost of marines.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Which brings up my point, yet again.

The problem here is not bolters, but the cost of marines.

Maybe. But also the fact that no one ever brings anything in their lists than are even meaningfully vulnerable to bolters. So make them as cheap as you like, bolters still won't matter. The Riptides and WS will just keep lauging all the way to the victory line. Even the lowly Rhino makes my unit immune to 100,000 bolters.

Are you saying that the bolters is bad because of blatantly overpowered units? If so that's pretty stupid. If that's the problem, than that's what you fix.

Marines are TOO CHEAP for all their special rules, guns, and unit upgrades. 16 points I think for a boltgun, power armor, 4s in WS,BS,S,T,I in the stat line, LD 8 though really with ATSKNF might as well be 10. Combat Squad rule (kinda iffy I'm not big on splitting my squads but others like it.), All the MEQ flavored special rules, That's a fricken' bargin. A xenos with that stat and saves, would push 20 if not more.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Are you saying that the bolters is bad because of blatantly overpowered units? If so that's pretty stupid. If that's the problem, than that's what you fix.

Not exactly.

Marines have evolved a whole bunch over time and been hamfisted into roles they really have no business in. For example, a full chapter of marines probably couldn't hold much more than a couple of kilometers of territory at once, there just aren't enough of them to physically occupy more ground than that. That's not going to conquer squat (or prevent anything from being conquered) when most enemies can simply encircle the marines, pin them in place with superior numbers and/or pound flat the small area with artillery and air strikes, and/or simply go around the marines. GW's fluff regarding marines is highly variable, and often not exceedingly well thought out beyond how cool it looks on paper, and though they're not the only faction guilty of that by any means, they're the worst offenders, and this often applies to Chaos Marines as well.

That said, the game has also gone to great lengths since its inception to make the marines more awesome on the tabletop. Originally, they were T3 with power armor being a 4+ save (reduced to a 5+ by lasguns) and no special Ld rules, they were really originally portrayed very similarly to the way IG Stormtroopers/Tempestus Scions are now. They bumped them up to T4 and a 3+ save and then dumped armor save modifiers and replaced it with AP to make those 3+ saves "feel" right. The basic marine has consistently gotten better with each passing edition, going from the RT era T3 4+sv to 2E's T4 3+sv and Rapid Fire bonus, getting their cost cut by more than half going into 3E and no longer suffering armor save modifiers and getting to use that 3+ against almost everything in 3E and 4E, in 5E they got free frag and krak grenades and basic pistol in addition to the bolter along with Combat Squads and Chapter Tactics, and in 6E they got an amazing codex with better chapter tactics and cheaper points cost. The basic Tactical Marine has never been better equipped, had as many special rules, or been as cheap as they are now.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Marines are TOO CHEAP for all their special rules, guns, and unit upgrades. 16 points I think for a boltgun, power armor, 4s in WS,BS,S,T,I in the stat line, LD 8 though really with ATSKNF might as well be 10. Combat Squad rule (kinda iffy I'm not big on splitting my squads but others like it.), All the MEQ flavored special rules, That's a fricken' bargin. A xenos with that stat and saves, would push 20 if not more.

Marines are not too cheap at all. They are a serious joke in their base form. Their offense is pathetic for their cost.

Compare it to the Avenger Shuriken Catapult, not the Guardian one.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Marines have evolved a whole bunch over time and been hamfisted into roles they really have no business in. For example, a full chapter of marines probably couldn't hold much more than a couple of kilometers of territory at once, there just aren't enough of them to physically occupy more ground than that. That's not going to conquer squat (or prevent anything from being conquered) when most enemies can simply encircle the marines, pin them in place with superior numbers and/or pound flat the small area with artillery and air strikes, and/or simply go around the marines. GW's fluff regarding marines is highly variable, and often not exceedingly well thought out beyond how cool it looks on paper, and though they're not the only faction guilty of that by any means, they're the worst offenders, and this often applies to Chaos Marines as well.

That said, the game has also gone to great lengths since its inception to make the marines more awesome on the tabletop. Originally, they were T3 with power armor being a 4+ save (reduced to a 5+ by lasguns) and no special Ld rules, they were really originally portrayed very similarly to the way IG Stormtroopers/Tempestus Scions are now. They bumped them up to T4 and a 3+ save and then dumped armor save modifiers and replaced it with AP to make those 3+ saves "feel" right. The basic marine has consistently gotten better with each passing edition, going from the RT era T3 4+sv to 2E's T4 3+sv and Rapid Fire bonus, getting their cost cut by more than half going into 3E and no longer suffering armor save modifiers and getting to use that 3+ against almost everything in 3E and 4E, in 5E they got free frag and krak grenades and basic pistol in addition to the bolter along with Combat Squads and Chapter Tactics, and in 6E they got an amazing codex with better chapter tactics and cheaper points cost. The basic Tactical Marine has never been better equipped, had as many special rules, or been as cheap as they are now.

And it still doesn't really help because they still just get wasted by scatter lasers like little punks.

Avenger is not BASIC gun.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Avenger is not BASIC gun.

Basic doesn't matter. Most lists aren't dependent on basic guns for anything.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Avenger is not BASIC gun.

Then neither is the shoota (instead blasta). Dire Avengers is the closest thing to tacticals Eldar have, which admittedly is not superclose anyway.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Avenger is not BASIC gun.

Then neither is the bolter. Dire Avengers is the closest thing to tacticals Eldar have, which admittedly is not superclose anyway.

What? The bolter is the basic SM gun, just as the lasgun is the basic IG gun, and the pulse rifle or carbine is the basic tau gun.

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Marines have evolved a whole bunch over time and been hamfisted into roles they really have no business in. For example, a full chapter of marines probably couldn't hold much more than a couple of kilometers of territory at once, there just aren't enough of them to physically occupy more ground than that. That's not going to conquer squat (or prevent anything from being conquered) when most enemies can simply encircle the marines, pin them in place with superior numbers and/or pound flat the small area with artillery and air strikes, and/or simply go around the marines. GW's fluff regarding marines is highly variable, and often not exceedingly well thought out beyond how cool it looks on paper, and though they're not the only faction guilty of that by any means, they're the worst offenders, and this often applies to Chaos Marines as well.

That said, the game has also gone to great lengths since its inception to make the marines more awesome on the tabletop. Originally, they were T3 with power armor being a 4+ save (reduced to a 5+ by lasguns) and no special Ld rules, they were really originally portrayed very similarly to the way IG Stormtroopers/Tempestus Scions are now. They bumped them up to T4 and a 3+ save and then dumped armor save modifiers and replaced it with AP to make those 3+ saves "feel" right. The basic marine has consistently gotten better with each passing edition, going from the RT era T3 4+sv to 2E's T4 3+sv and Rapid Fire bonus, getting their cost cut by more than half going into 3E and no longer suffering armor save modifiers and getting to use that 3+ against almost everything in 3E and 4E, in 5E they got free frag and krak grenades and basic pistol in addition to the bolter along with Combat Squads and Chapter Tactics, and in 6E they got an amazing codex with better chapter tactics and cheaper points cost. The basic Tactical Marine has never been better equipped, had as many special rules, or been as cheap as they are now.

And it still doesn't really help because they still just get wasted by scatter lasers like little punks.

How are they more vulnerable now to Scatterlasers than they ever were? The weapon is the same now as it has been for going on nearly a decade, and just as available, and is only different from its late 90's 3E incarnation by being a straight 4 shots instead of D6 shots.

Now, Scatterlasers making *other* weapons more effective may have merit, but the Scatterlaser isn't any more fearsome now than in the last 4 editions at least on its own. The Eldar weapon that was obscenely effective at killing marines, the Starcannon, got nerfed and stayed nerfed.

Another depressing artifact of the mechanics: the boltgun is no more effective against T6 MCs than the lasgun, but the IG has three or four times as many lasguns. Bolters are terrible because of a combination of statline and delivery system. None of the space marines' stupid extra gear or stupid morale rules make up for poor firepower in a game that is all about firepower.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Marines have evolved a whole bunch over time and been hamfisted into roles they really have no business in. For example, a full chapter of marines probably couldn't hold much more than a couple of kilometers of territory at once, there just aren't enough of them to physically occupy more ground than that. That's not going to conquer squat (or prevent anything from being conquered) when most enemies can simply encircle the marines, pin them in place with superior numbers and/or pound flat the small area with artillery and air strikes, and/or simply go around the marines. GW's fluff regarding marines is highly variable, and often not exceedingly well thought out beyond how cool it looks on paper, and though they're not the only faction guilty of that by any means, they're the worst offenders, and this often applies to Chaos Marines as well.

That said, the game has also gone to great lengths since its inception to make the marines more awesome on the tabletop. Originally, they were T3 with power armor being a 4+ save (reduced to a 5+ by lasguns) and no special Ld rules, they were really originally portrayed very similarly to the way IG Stormtroopers/Tempestus Scions are now. They bumped them up to T4 and a 3+ save and then dumped armor save modifiers and replaced it with AP to make those 3+ saves "feel" right. The basic marine has consistently gotten better with each passing edition, going from the RT era T3 4+sv to 2E's T4 3+sv and Rapid Fire bonus, getting their cost cut by more than half going into 3E and no longer suffering armor save modifiers and getting to use that 3+ against almost everything in 3E and 4E, in 5E they got free frag and krak grenades and basic pistol in addition to the bolter along with Combat Squads and Chapter Tactics, and in 6E they got an amazing codex with better chapter tactics and cheaper points cost. The basic Tactical Marine has never been better equipped, had as many special rules, or been as cheap as they are now.

And it still doesn't really help because they still just get wasted by scatter lasers like little punks.

How are they more vulnerable now to Scatterlasers than they ever were? The weapon is the same now as it has been for going on nearly a decade, and just as available, and is only different from its late 90's 3E incarnation by being a straight 4 shots instead of D6 shots.

Now, Scatterlasers making *other* weapons more effective may have merit, but the Scatterlaser isn't any more fearsome now than in the last 4 editions at least on its own. The Eldar weapon that was obscenely effective at killing marines, the Starcannon, got nerfed and stayed nerfed.

They're not MORE vulnerable,it's just a 36" inch weapon that is cheap and lays waste to marines by forcing dozens and dozens of saves. It's just an example of the futility of the average tac marine.

 Vaktathi wrote:
That said, the game has also gone to great lengths since its inception to make the marines more awesome on the tabletop. Originally, they were T3 with power armor being a 4+ save (reduced to a 5+ by lasguns) and no special Ld rules, they were really originally portrayed very similarly to the way IG Stormtroopers/Tempestus Scions are now. They bumped them up to T4 and a 3+ save and then dumped armor save modifiers and replaced it with AP to make those 3+ saves "feel" right. The basic marine has consistently gotten better with each passing edition, going from the RT era T3 4+sv to 2E's T4 3+sv and Rapid Fire bonus,

I hear it was less than six months after the publication of Rogue Trader for marines to gain t4.

For example, a full chapter of marines probably couldn't hold much more than a couple of kilometers of territory at once, there just aren't enough of them to physically occupy more ground than that. That's not going to conquer squat (or prevent anything from being conquered) when most enemies can simply encircle the marines, pin them in place with superior numbers and/or pound flat the small area with artillery and air strikes, and/or simply go around the marines.

Field armies of any size can be flattened by macro artillery. It seems likely that most battles would then take place on top of said macro artillery, or on the relatively small areas that are too valuable to hit with said giga-plasma, for which you might prefer to have troops who can run straight through lasfire.

People say that 40k battles are a bit small and simulate portions of larger battles going on around them, and that Epic is more realistically scaled for that reason. I think, like I said, that large Epic armies are good candidates for being stepped on by bombardment. Also, on a planetary scale, they will be even easier to "simply go around." A guard army needs as much as a day to pick up sticks and fly to another continent that needs fighting on. Fewer troops, who have no need to encamp and no giant depot for servicing tank companies, are much better for planetary warfare.

The standard 200 marine deployment seems like a fine amount to take over a /continent/. Assuming you can shoot down ICBMs, the only weapons that can be used from neighboring continents, taking a continent at a time seems like the thing to do. They wreck the food and energy infrastructure to ruin the society until it either politically submits or becomes culturally dissolved. In fact, once you've done that, you can set up the Imperial government of that planet on that continent, and /they/ can take over the world the same way all the great nations in history have threatened to do.

And is there some reason it shouldn't be capable of that?

LIkeiwse, it costs the same to take it as it does to take AP2 Starcannons, S8 AP2 Lances, and its only cheaper than EML's because GW hamfisted Skyfire missiles for their universal extra 10pts onto all EML's as basic equipment.

I ask why they're "more" vulnerable because, largely until very recently, I had never seen anyone complain about them in regards to their ability to kill marines, and they've been that way for a long time, looking back to the 2E book they could fire up to 6 times and a marine only saved on 4's against one.

It's a weapon much like an autocannon where it doesn't care about the difference between T3 and T4. If I take a 30mm cannon, I can bring it to bear against an Elephant or a Tiger and it won't have any harder time bringing one of those down that it will killing a person. Same principle.

I mean, are we trying to make the case that Marines just shouldn't have any such vulnerabilities?

pelicaniforce wrote:

I hear it was less than six months after the publication of Rogue Trader for marines to gain t4.

It was about 4 years, RT came out in 1987, and the Compilation book updating marines came out in 1991.

Field armies of any size can be flattened by macro artillery. It seems likely that most battles would then take place on top of said macro artillery, or on the relatively small areas that are too valuable to hit with said giga-plasma, for which you might prefer to have troops who can run straight through lasfire.

You don't even need macro artillery for something like that. A company of basilisks raining fire on a couple square kilometers of ground for a few hours from fifteen kilometers away would be very nasty indeed, and that's not even getting into concentrated artillery. To use a real life example, the Red Army during the Battle of Berlin in some areas had 650 big guns per kilometer of front, and there are fields in France who's geography remains permanently altered by concentrated artillery fire.

As Huron Blackheart said "Though my guards may sleep and ships may rest at anchor, our foes know full well that big guns never tire."

People say that 40k battles are a bit small and simulate portions of larger battles going on around them, and that Epic is more realistically scaled for that reason.

Typically true yes.

I think, like I said, that large Epic armies are good candidates for being stepped on by bombardment. Also, on a planetary scale, they will be even easier to "simply go around." A guard army needs as much as a day to pick up sticks and fly to another continent that needs fighting on. Fewer troops, who have no need to encamp and no giant depot for servicing tank companies, are much better for planetary warfare.

They may be better able to maneuver, assuming they haven't been cut off or anything, but being so small they're exceedingly vulnerable to attrition, encirclement, or supplies being cut off if they're having to do things like hold ground, go out on patrol, etc.

There's a reason you don't see wars being won by special forces units today, they support major operations, but don't defeat armies, take cities, etc on their own.

The standard 200 marine deployment seems like a fine amount to take over a /continent/.

How are they going to hold ground? That's simply too small a number of troops to do anything bu raid. Unless they somehow have amazingly perfectly accurate intelligence and no way an enemy can intercept them (earlier disproven in this thread), they won't even be able to carry out commando operations on their own. What are 200 marines going to do after they've seized an enemy base and they start getting shelled from thirty kilometers off while enemy reserves are moving to encircle them? There's too few of them to hold more than a few hundred meters of ground and no artillery capable of responding and few enough aircraft.

Assuming you can shoot down ICBMs, the only weapons that can be used from neighboring continents, taking a continent at a time seems like the thing to do. They wreck the food and energy infrastructure to ruin the society until it either politically submits or becomes culturally dissolved. In fact, once you've done that, you can set up the Imperial government of that planet on that continent, and /they/ can take over the world the same way all the great nations in history have threatened to do.

I'm curious how 200 marines are going to destroy energy and food infrastructure on their own, even assuming unlimited munitions, that's stuff that takes quite a while to do, particularly if you're trying to do it with infantry and tanks, and particularly only with a couple hundred dudes. The Soviets were able to transport thousands of factories away from the Wehrmacht's grasp over a front of thousands of miles and an advance of up to fifty kilometers a day and millions of troops, how would 200 marines stop such a thing?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not only that it brings up a few design problems. Pulse weapons were designed to be better than bolters, shuriken to be similar. Making them that powerful, especially with no points increase, and that's not even touching on all the other units that have bolters, is slightly ridiculous.

Well, it's going to be difficult to buff bolters without making them tread into pulse rifle territory.

If you feel it becomes a fluff problem, you can always remember there's a difference between bolter and bolter. Presumably this 'pulse > bolter' refers to human bolters.

You know, there's a difference between the bolter that humans fire one-handed

Spoiler:

And the bolters that they, well... don't.

Spoiler:

“The angel’s brethren emerged from the dark interior of their landing craft and descended to the plaza. All wore armour of the same blue. All of them carried great weapons too heavy for a mortal man to lift unaided.”
Pg.20 The First Heretic

“He saw Tycho’s combi-weapon lying on the floor and took a half-step toward it. The idea of taking it up himself died in this mind; the gun was so massive he would never have been able to lift it.”
Pg.320 Blood Angels Omnibus

Like other Space Marine weaponry, Astartes boltguns are designed around their superhuman physique. The weight of each weapon would require most humans to use a supporting brace, with hand-grips larger than any normal human could manage. However, even if a normal human were to fire the boltgun, the resulting recoil would rip their arm from its socket.
Dark Heresy Pg. 173

You are aware that general has a cybernetic limb, right? He can fire most weapons one handed.