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.

Martel732 wrote:
That's not true at all. 3/3 marines are awesome.

Now your speaking gibberish.

Is Heroes of the Storm marines even a thing?

Heroes of the Storm is not even supposed to make sense. It is just the Blizzard equivalent of Super Smash Bros. But if we take it as canon, Jim Raynor and Tychus can tank a whole goddamn battlecruiser! And not any battlecruiser, the goddamn Hyperion.
Did I mention a baby murloc can kill the devil himself?

 Asherian Command wrote:
The culture is largely ignored by general sci fi fans because its not enjoyable and too over the top for its own good.

Trying to win the "most hilariously wrong post of the year" award already?

In HotS, Raynor has the exact same stats in and outside of armour.

Using game mechanics for this kind of debate is pointless since I can bring in my 278,000 hp WoW Death Knight to fight your 55 hp Marines. Seems fighting with mundane armour and melee weapons is not so bad after all, eh?

My character can also tank a 150 ft giant's melee attacks without even losing more than 4-5 health per hit. Can Starcraft Marines do that?

Hey, all is fair in love and game mechanics!

For something a bit less ridiculous, if you want to compare games, compare Starcraft II to Dawn of War II.

A Starcraft Marine has 55ish hp and does what, 7 ish dps?

A basic Tactical Marine in DoWII has 350 hp, and deals 14.58 ranged and 19 melee dps.

GG

 Ashiraya wrote:
In HotS, Raynor has the exact same stats in and outside of armour.

Using game mechanics for this kind of debate is pointless since I can bring in my 278,000 hp WoW Death Knight to fight your 55 hp Marines. Seems fighting with mundane armour and melee weapons is not so bad after all, eh?

My character can also tank a 150 ft giant's melee attacks without even losing more than 4-5 health per hit. Can Starcraft Marines do that?

Hey, all is fair in love and game mechanics!

For something a bit less ridiculous, if you want to compare games, compare Starcraft II to Dawn of War II.

A Starcraft Marine has 55ish hp and does what, 7 ish dps?

A basic Tactical Marine in DoWII has 350 hp, and deals 14.58 ranged and 19 melee dps.

GG

Also according to gameplay A Space Marine regains health by killing people and can take bullets to the face and survive, they also stop time when executing a kill move on someone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
The culture is largely ignored by general sci fi fans because its not enjoyable and too over the top for its own good.

Trying to win the "most hilariously wrong post of the year" award already?

No more of It doesn't matter in this thread, why are you even talking about it here when there is another thread that allows you to do that....

 Ashiraya wrote:
In HotS, Raynor has the exact same stats in and outside of armour.

You can play Raynor outside of armor?

Anyhow, the point is not gameplay mechanics. There are no point of reference to compare the SC marines and the 40k marines in fluff. Therefore, the only option is to do what a writer would do anyway, and go for the power difference that you enjoy the most/that will make for the better story. Since SC armor is bulkier and I like their whole “cowboy in space” stuff, I am putting SC marines on top.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
In HotS, Raynor has the exact same stats in and outside of armour.

You can play Raynor outside of armor?

Anyhow, the point is not gameplay mechanics. There are no point of reference to compare the SC marines and the 40k marines in fluff. Therefore, the only option is to do what a writer would do anyway, and go for the power difference that you enjoy the most/that will make for the better story. Since SC armor is bulkier and I like their whole “cowboy in space” stuff, I am putting SC marines on top.

Yes because Terran Marines have been able to handly stop a rebellion of an entire world without incurring hundreds of losses.

 Asherian Command wrote:
No more of It doesn't matter in this thread, why are you even talking about it here when there is another thread that allows you to do that....

It's funny how your rules for "off-topic posts" work: when you make a comment (including one where you give your opinion about the subject instead of just saying "this isn't relevant") about something that isn't the explicit subject of the thread it's perfectly acceptable, when anyone responds to your comment it's off-topic and needs to go elsewhere. It really looks like your definition of an on-topic post is one that agrees with everything you say.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
No more of It doesn't matter in this thread, why are you even talking about it here when there is another thread that allows you to do that....

It's funny how your rules for "off-topic posts" work: when you make a comment about something that isn't the explicit subject of the thread it's perfectly acceptable, when anyone responds to your comment it's off-topic and needs to go elsewhere. It really looks like your definition of an on-topic post is one that agrees with everything you say.

Its more of that I keep pointing you to stop posting about the culture multiple times is more saying of how you generally ignore everything that has been said and people agreeing and saying you should not post it on this thread.

Stop being all high and mighty and saying that is the reason why I am doing it when its not.

Have you not put him on ignore already.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Yes because Terran Marines have been able to handly stop a rebellion of an entire world without incurring hundreds of losses.

Sigh. Once again, looking at what an army in one setting does against an opponent from their own setting does not tell you anything about how they'd perform against an opponent from a different setting. Sure, space marines can stop an entire rebelling planet, but can they do it because space marines are awesome, or because the average rebelling planet has a military that would be weak by WWII standards? Also remember that space marines tend to end those planet-scale rebellions with decapitation strikes against the leaders, after which the remaining forces are too apathetic to continue the fight. That doesn't work against an enemy that has a chain of command that can function even once the single highest-ranking officer is killed, or a leadership structure that doesn't sit in the former governor's palace with a giant "I'm a chaos cultist, come kill me" sign.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Have you not put him on ignore already.

Yep I have.

If you want to think yourself higher than god and proclaim yourself as such, and come to a thread proclaiming someone is full of it you might as well leave your comments to yourself. Infact it is useless to even say these things repeatedly to someone who doesn't listen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Yes because Terran Marines have been able to handly stop a rebellion of an entire world without incurring hundreds of losses.

Sigh. Once again, looking at what an army in one setting does against an opponent from their own setting does not tell you anything about how they'd perform against an opponent from a different setting. Sure, space marines can stop an entire rebelling planet, but can they do it because space marines are awesome, or because the average rebelling planet has a military that would be weak by WWII standards? Also remember that space marines tend to end those planet-scale rebellions with decapitation strikes against the leaders, after which the remaining forces are too apathetic to continue the fight. That doesn't work against an enemy that has a chain of command that can function even once the single highest-ranking officer is killed, or a leadership structure that doesn't sit in the former governor's palace with a giant "I'm a chaos cultist, come kill me" sign.

Its already been stated several times, by me and several posters. We really can't compare the two without numbers or knowing what makes up Adamantium or how space marines and tactics work in general.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Its more of that I keep pointing you to stop posting about the culture multiple times is more saying of how you generally ignore everything that has been said and people agreeing and saying you should post it on this thread.

1) If my comments about the Culture are so off-topic then why are your comments about the Culture appropriate? Your objection to off-topic posts didn't exist when you felt the urge to make a "the Culture novels suck" post that had nothing to do with the supposed subject of the thread, so how is your current objection not a double standard?

2) You don't seem to bother paying any attention to the purpose of the comparisons with the Culture. The point is not that the Culture is awesome and would slaughter everything in 40k (which is indisputable fact), it's that you can't compare two forces just by looking at how they perform against enemies from their own setting. The same argument that leads you to argue that 40k space marine armor is stronger than Starcraft space marine armor also inevitably leads you to the obviously wrong conclusion that 40k space marine armor is stronger than Culture armor. Therefore your argument is fatally flawed and you should stop using it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Its more of that I keep pointing you to stop posting about the culture multiple times is more saying of how you generally ignore everything that has been said and people agreeing and saying you should post it on this thread.

1) If my comments about the Culture are so off-topic then why are your comments about the Culture appropriate? Your objection to off-topic posts didn't exist when you felt the urge to make a "the Culture novels suck" post that had nothing to do with the supposed subject of the thread, so how is your current objection not a double standard?

2) You don't seem to bother paying any attention to the purpose of the comparisons with the Culture. The point is not that the Culture is awesome and would slaughter everything in 40k (which is indisputable fact), it's that you can't compare two forces just by looking at how they perform against enemies from their own setting. The same argument that leads you to argue that 40k space marine armor is stronger than Starcraft space marine armor also inevitably leads you to the obviously wrong conclusion that 40k space marine armor is stronger than Culture armor. Therefore your argument is fatally flawed and you should stop using it.

Because you keep bringing it up. And I keep saying stop bringing it up. And then when I make one remark that says the culture is overpowered and not very good science fiction is where you draw the line and start talking about the culture more. IS that not your problem for bringing it up. When I have told you many times not to post it here.

If you want to continue posting it here. This thread will only be locked. So stop I will not bother with comparing the culture to 40k. Because there has been a thread about that a number of years ago. Just look it up.

I have said this several times and I will continue to say this. 40k wins by the fact its weapons are more damaging, and for the fact that marines win more battles than they lose. They have defeated tyranids who are exceptionally more difficult to kill than the zerg. The zerg only occassionally evolves. Where the tyranids are ever evolving or instanteously evolving and learning. They are also a hive mind, not controlled by a single being. Warhammer 40k's space marines are able to deal with these threats and are able to neutralize it. The Terrans with three entire fleets, are unable to defeat the zerg and its leader.

WE can also see that 40k has better psychic powers, that are more awestrucking. We also have the knowledge that the space marine's suits add to the marines strength and abilities. Where in the lore it is described they move like in a blur, even in the codexes this is mentioned.

Then it is mentioned again that space marine's weapons tear apart nids and all sorts of creatures. Space marines can punch holes through cement with their bare knuckles. They have weapons that literally MELT things or turn people into ash. The Terran do not. They have a gauss rifle.

Tactically the Space marines are superior because they are able to operate for months without supplies. As described in the lore. (Codex Space Marines)

Then we have the different types of armor and protection that marines have, that are meant to deflect and defend space marines. We also have the different organs that help the space marines even further.

Terran marines are not super human. They are just militia. They are not elite and they die very often. A company of space marines can quell in entire solar system. A thousand terran marines are unable to even quell a single planet. (Mara Sara and SEVERAL other planets)

They are unable to defend against the zerg, and have their asses kicked by them all the time. Even their captiol when it was attacked only showed that starcraft's terran marines are terrible. 40k has the terms of numbers, and ships, and vechiles. But we aren't including them because it would massively unfair. Space marines can wither nuclear bombs and plasma weaponry. Space marines can survive deep space unhindered, and they don't have any problems with posionious atmospheres. They also have a better arensal to draw from, where the terran marines only have 1 weapon. The Gauss Rifle... Though powerful this only makes your forces worse. They are also not tactical geniuses (terran marines), they are not compentent they are only criminals forced to wear that armor. This is why the space marines win again, a Space Marine is not a criminal he is a soldier. A professional soldier.

Its the same debate between who would win an Imperial Guardsmen or a Storm Trooper. The imperial guardsmen would win because they have the numbers and have better armor and tactics. They also do not rely on one type of weapon, they use many different types of weapons to give them tactical flexibility.

It is also well known that Terran Marines suck in close combat, but space marines fight over miles, just like Battlefleet Gothic (which fights over hundreds of kilometres) With that technology on hand this basically shows that the imperium is more advanced, because Terran craft has to engage up close and personal. (IE battlecruiser as seen in starcraft's opening mission)

A Terran marine also suffers from the fact that they are easily killed, they are cannon fodder. They are not meant to be linebreakers or siegebreakers or elite hunters or even headhunters. They are meant to be troops, bodies for the meat grinder. They are meant to hold terran resources.

We have seen what space marines can do to others who wear power armor. We know what they do to humans that have power armor. They give their arse on a silver platter.

So please tell me how is this debate still going on, when people have provided that information several times. And yet people keep ignoring those posts and only use their conflicting idea of game mechanics being representative of fluff or lore.

When we could post the fact that space marines somehow also can somehow crush someones skull while FALLING from orbit.

Or how a space marine regains health while killing people.

Game Mechanics are not lore. They are not representative of the actual thing or fictional thing.

How can I take people seriously if they don't even take the time to source their information, or to stop away from their bias. I am not a fan of 40k. I love starcraft, but the thing is that you are telling me that I like 40k more than Starcraft. Are you serious or are you lacking a sense of clarity? You are saying I am bigger fan of Warhammer than starcraft, is stupid you are saying that I like it more when I don't. You are ascribing to me, without consulting me on this factiod. If you say how ignorant we are about starcraft lore, then please source your information before you go on a rant about how much you are right and we are wrong. When all you have done is prove yourself to be unable to partake in a discussion.

If you want to come into this thread and say I am a 40k Fanboy, when I haven't touched my 40k army in years or anything 40k. But I play starcraft more than I do 40k, so doesn't that mean I am bigger fan of starcraft? Because I enjoy its themes and its characters? Though I do enjoy 40k, it does not mean that I believe it to be superior in terms of writing or game mechanics. Or that I am a fanboy for enjoying it and defending it when people obviously have not been here as long as I have, when it comes to these discussions, 40k usually wins. Why? Because 40k has been described as the dragon ball of science fiction. Other than the culture books which are completely nuts.

But this is where I draw the line, if you enjoy starcraft then out of good concious think critically. How would they win against a superior foe? When they have only been showed to suck against most of their enemies. And yet they are described in the lore as just being milita not professional soldiers. And are easily killed by Molotovs in the game. (Starcraft wings of Liberty First Mission) Where Space Marines just brush off humans and sometimes crush them (Horus Rising). Or Space Marines snap the necks of humans (Gaxaly in Flames). Or the fact that Space marines can jump out of low orbit and destroy ships by themselves! (Space Marine the Game) You literally cannot compare to 8 foot tall killing machines. Unless you have made a universe that does. Like the Culture books.

(All information comes from Codex Space Marines 4th Edition, 5th Edition, 6th Edition, and Galaxy in Flames)

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because you keep bringing it up. And I keep saying stop bringing it up. And then when I make one remark that says the culture is overpowered and not very good science fiction is where you draw the line and start talking about the culture more. IS that not your problem for bringing it up.

1) You've done more than just "one remark".

2) You keep ignoring the context of WHY I brought it up. Which is pretty impressive because you just quoted the post where I explained this.

When I have told you many times not to post it here.

If you want to continue posting it here. This thread will only be locked.

Stop trying to be a moderator. You aren't one.

40k wins by the fact its weapons are more damaging

You have yet to provide any evidence for this.

and for the fact that marines win more battles than they lose.

And what's your point? They win battles against enemies in their own setting. That doesn't mean anything when they're fighting an enemy from some other setting. If you're going to argue that the 40k space marine record of winning means that they'd beat Starcraft marines then you also have to argue that it means they'd beat Culture combat drones (which are frequently destroyed by equivalent-level opponents), something even the most dedicated marine fanboy would have to admit is not true.

The Terrans with three entire fleets, are unable to defeat the zerg and its leader.

Why are you assuming that this is because the Starcraft marines suck, and not because the Zerg are awesome?

The Terran do not. They have a gauss rifle.

It's amazing how much you can conclude from just the name of a weapon. Could you provide some specific firepower numbers for each weapon, along with evidence to support those numbers?

Terran marines are not super human. They are just militia.

So what? You don't have to be superhuman if your technology is good enough. For example, a Culture civilian with appropriate equipment would effortlessly slaughter an entire space marine chapter. So stop making vague statements about all the ways in which 40k marines are better than normal humans and start providing some specific firepower and armor numbers.

This is why the space marines win again, a Space Marine is not a criminal he is a soldier. A professional soldier.

So what? A criminal with a better gun and better armor can still beat a professional soldier. War is about winning, not having the most ethical troops.

So please tell me how is this debate still going on, when people have provided that information several times.

Because you keep making vague statements about how awesome space marines are and refusing to provide any specific numbers to support your claims.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because 40k has been described as the dragon ball of science fiction. Other than the culture books which are completely nuts.

It's not just the Culture, they're just a commonly-known example of a god-like civilization (and a lot more entertaining as literature than some of the other ones). 40k is on the high end of the "real-world armies with laser guns" genre of science fiction, but they're nowhere near the top of science fiction as a whole.

Because you keep making vague statements about how awesome space marines are and refusing to provide any specific numbers to support your claims.

Pot meet kettle.

o what? A criminal with a better gun and better armor can still beat a professional soldier. War is about winning, not having the most ethical troops.

Ever seen the military get their face rocked in the real world by criminals with better guns? No. Neither have i. Because better weaponry does not mean anything in war. Its all about who is tactically superior.

Hannibal successful defeated a superior army with tactics and strategy, The Japanese Samurai successfully killed off the japanese soldiers with inferior weapons. history has taught us that those who are not trained well enough even with the best equipment can still fall to their opponents quite easily.

So what? You don't have to be superhuman if your technology is good enough. For example, a Culture civilian with appropriate equipment would effortlessly slaughter an entire space marine chapter. So stop making vague statements about all the ways in which 40k marines are better than normal humans and start providing some specific firepower and armor numbers.

There will be a point Where you get out of your box and stop and actually listen. Professional Soldiers are what makes some wars successful. Milita did not win the Revolutionary War. Soldiers Won the Revolutionary War. The Milita were being slaughtered on the open field and even gurellia warfare.

It's amazing how much you can conclude from just the name of a weapon. Could you provide some specific firepower numbers for each weapon, along with evidence to support those numbers?

A gauss rifle is not effective and runs out of ammo fairly quickly as seen in the trailer for Starcraft Brood War and Starcraft Zerg Missions where a terran group are slaughtered by hydralisks.

Tactically the Space marines are superior because they are able to operate for months without supplies. As described in the lore. (Codex Space Marines)

Correct!

Then we have the different types of armor and protection that marines have, that are meant to deflect and defend space marines. We also have the different organs that help the space marines even further.

False Terran marines have two different types of armor.

Why are you assuming that this is because the Starcraft marines suck, and not because the Zerg are awesome?

Zerg are easily killed and die instantly to chemical weapons and biological weapons.

Tyranids Cannot be killed by biological weapons. Such as the life eater virus which did nothing to the Tyranids.

And what's your point? They win battles against enemies in their own setting. That doesn't mean anything when they're fighting an enemy from some other setting. If you're going to argue that the 40k space marine record of winning means that they'd beat Starcraft marines then you also have to argue that it means they'd beat Culture combat drones (which are frequently destroyed by equivalent-level opponents), something even the most dedicated marine fanboy would have to admit is not true.

The Win Ratio also helps us determine how combat efficent Space Marines are compared to Terran marines. The more battles won the far superior the Space Marines are. The more battles lost the worse they are.

You have yet to provide any evidence for this.

A Space Marine Weapon is a 75 Caliber. That is Damaging and I have talked about bolters and how powerful they are. You just have ignored it. And decided to talk all the time without confirming it.

Also there is this thread

That talks about this quite a bit.

I was actually looking for this image:

As it is basically what a bolter round is. A miniature rocket .75 Calbier Which is enough to splatter a brain into jelly.

The fact also space marine bolts also explode on contact is more than enough to say they are more powerful than a gauss rifle.

Or this Theortical Idea and discussion of a Bolter: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=121975&highlight=40k

This has been brewing at the back of my mind for some time now. I admit when I actually starrted doing the analysis bit I was at a complete loss as to how to quantify the explosive effects of the almighty bolter. The kinetic/imapct effects were simpler (Recoil, or by measuring the mass of the projectile and so on and so forth.) I knew some about that, but precisely zippo about high explosives.

It would be "roughly" possible to get an estimate by assuming a projectile mass and internal composition of explosive to get an estimate, but it would be just an estimate, rather than a measurement of effects. So no really accurate attempt at quantifying bolters was possible. Until Mythbusters at least.

A number of Mythbusters episodes have centered around the use of explosives ant the human body. Two notable ones involved grenades and one that involved exploding pens. With these, we've at last got quantiative evidencee to measure bolters by.

Generally speaking, I shouldn't have to describe the various examples of bolter effects - everyone is well acquainted with the effects of bolter shells on the body (I've documented many as ti is.) Some shells blow large fist or head sized holes in the body (human or space marine, depending on source) - which is roughly between 10-20 cm diameter holes. Others blow heads, torsos, or even entire bodies apart. Some vaporize or cauterize, but I won't address those here, as they're easily calced.

The first calc (and the easier) is the Grenade on a ballistics gel body (see link above.) It was a standard fragmentation grenade, and it managed to basically blow apart the torso. Knowing that, we simply need a hand grenade to go by. For convenience sake I'll use the US M61 and M67 Grenades. The former has 6.5 ounces of Composition B, and the latter has 5.5 ounces. We'll call it roughly between 156-185 grams of Composition B, which is roughly 1.35 times more powerful than TNT - or 5.7 MJ per kg. This yields between 900 and 1000 kilojoules of energy (though of course, energy is only patr of the effect ove a conventional explosive - the blast is the more damaging part.)

So, given that, and given we know some bolter shells can blow torsos apart, ,we can conjecture that a bolter round (or several - 3rd edition says that bolters will fire 3-4 shells per trigger pull) is roughly equal to a Grenade.

There are some considerations. Since its an omnidirectional blast, technically a grenade won't direct ALL its energy to the person - part of it will probably hit the ground and may reflect up, but its at least half. Also, its a fragmentation grenade,a nd not all bolter shells are frag (only the metla storm are.) REgular grenades would be more equal to a "concussion" grenade, and thus might not be as effective. Both situations are probably mitigated somewhat by internal detonation as well, though.

I should note that an earlier episode dealing with nitrogylcerine patches featured a similar case where a ballistics gel torso was obliterated by high explosives and nitro poured into a small (several inch diameter) cavity in the gel dummy's chest (the explosive, which remained unidentified, was by my estimates only a bit smaller then the hole.) and by my estimates provided similar results above.

Now, that one is quicker, but less precise. The "exploding pen" (see liknk above) is harder, but was done with multiple examples.

The first example used a "regular" sized pen. The Mythbusters measured its internal volume at around 3 cubic centimeters. It also put a "grapefruit" sized hole in the target (which is roughly fist or head shaped)

We don't hear the type fo explosive used, but we can guess.

TNT has a density of 1.654 g/cm^3, and obviously a RE of 1.0 (since its the baseline.)

RDX has a density of 1.82 g/cm^3 and a RE of 1.6.

The (currently) most powerful explosive I am aware of is octanitrocubane:

it has a RE of 2.7 and a density of 2 g/cm^3.

By regular TNT, the pen would carry around 5 grams of TNT, 5.4 grams of RDX, or 6 grams of ONC. The energy equivalents would be 21 kilojoules for TNT, 36.2 kilojoules for RDX, and 68 kilojoules for ONC.

For the most parrt I'm betting it was something better than TNT (it sounded like it might be restricted or secret) so ti would probably be between RDX and ONC in terms of power.

The second one was actually easier to measure. Jamie said that it had the "better part" of as tick of dynamite in it. "Better part" which argues more than half (backup definition here.)

A stick of dynamite is about 2000 BTU, which is confirmed here. Dynamite is also noted to have around 5000 BTU per pound here, and an average (20 cm long, 2.5 cm diameter) stick is probably around 200 grams, so it works out. Half of that, would be around 1000 BTU, or a little over one megajoule (at least.)

So, we can say between 1-2 megajoules to blow up a torso with the exploding pen, although again its an omnidirectional blast which will affect things (though by no more than half.).

Its also interesting to note that yield-wise, it was said that the other pen (with the unknown explosive) had 1/6 the yield of the second test, suggesting it was closer to 100-200 kilojoules of TNT to blow a fist/head sized hole in the target.

Note that while the Mythbusters weren't "convinced" by this blast, it probably would match what is described in 40K sources for bolters blasting torsos.

The last pen explosion isn't quantified, but was considerably bigger than the second or first one, and it also totally obliterated the torso. Going by estimates, I'd say its at least 50% longer and perhaps twice the diameter of ths second pen, so again its probably 6x larger. This would suggest that it was explosively comparable to 1-2 kg of TNT.

I would not generally consider the last one as being analogous to bolter rounds as the blast effects observed in the video seem to encompass a substantially greater volume than the earlier two detonations,a nd bolters aren't quite THAT nasty (IE they're not area affect wepaons like grenade or missile launchers.) so we can probably rule that one out.

Taking all of the above into context, its fair to say that bolter shells are probably equal to many tens or hundreds of grams of TNT, given comparison of observed effects.

I further supposed that the expansion curve of rocket fuel may not be optimal, hence beginning the burn phase with a different type of propellant, which combusts during the time the shell travels within the barrel.

Did you notice that a boltgun shell has a baseplate made of metal, with just an exhaust nozzle opening? If there's no casing left behind to be ejected, that means that same baseplate we see is part of the projectile itself. Nothing is left behind: no casing, no propellant
Thus a bolter CANNOT fire like a "conventional firearm". It cannot possibly even fire like a caseless firearm. The entire shell travels down the barrel, leaving nothing behind.
It doesn't matter if there's a first-stage charge with a gas pressure curve similar to firearm propellant for the in-barrel travel; if all the propellant is in the shell as it travels, releasing expanding gas through the exhaust port at its rear, it's a rocket right from the start.

You will still get the same effect:
- a high muzzle velocity due to the pressure buildup within the enclose chamber and barrel
- a bang as that built-up pressure explodes out of the barrel after the bolt clears the muzzle
Yet, even disregarding the after-muzzle rocket propulsion, it is not like a conventional firearm.

Tada we got a bolter round that is more effective than a gauss rifle.

how do I know?

In use by 2478,[2] the C-14 fires hypersonic 8 mm armor-piercing metal "spikes"[1][3] which can penetrate up to two inches of steel plating.[4]

The Impaler is fully automatic with a fire rate of 30 rounds per second,[5] although fully automatic fire is discouraged under most circumstances. A capacitor system is used to fire the weapon in short bursts, conserving ammunition and minimizing power requirements.[1] Due to this, the C-14 rifle has high recoil; CMC armor is designed to suppress this.[2] The armor can also supplement the rifle's power supply.[5]

The C-14 has been used as automatic base defense weapon, mounted on a tower.[6]

.75 Caliber Bolters are fired at hyper supersonic speeds. Infact the technology for bolters is often compared to the Gyrojet except they are fired faster and pentrate armor rather quickly. The gauss rifle has the advantage of holding a large amount of ammo, but suffers to not being able to fire from a far enough distance. Instead not being used as a tactical rifle and more of a mid ranged weapon, where the bolter fires from pretty far away. The farther away an enemy is the more damage the bolter round will do.

I have the sources all you have to do is ask. : Comparision Here

The gauss rifle is roughly .50 BMG's worth of KJs on a shot. It's more like an automatic lasgun than anything. A Bolter is like a 19mm low-velocity autocannon. It's bigger, more powerful universally, and has a bigger payload capacity.

According to physics the Bolter round can do more damage at terminal velocity and does damage ranging from a Javelin missile to a 20mm grenade.

The C14 is designed for horde control, not for taking out targets effectively. considering that The stopping power for them is not comparable to a highly explosive round from a Space Marine Bolter. It is the reasonably concluded that the Space Marines have better weaponry and ARMOR.

As space marine bolters can fire at longer ranges as well.

I just look through IvanTiH's Posts as he has talked at quite great lengths about 40k's weapons and the power they have.

Peregrine, why are you still even trying?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because better weaponry does not mean anything in war. Its all about who is tactically superior.

This is just laughably wrong. Inferior armies only win when there's at least rough parity in technology, even if one side is a bit better than the other. You can have the greatest naval commanders in history with the best possible crews on a fleet of 1700s ships and they will lose every time to a crew of barely-trained conscripts on a WWII battleship. The battleship is faster by a huge margin, can kill an opposing ship effortlessly from far beyond the range of return fire, and has armor that wouldn't even be dented by that return fire if it somehow ended up within range.

The only reason history has those examples of "inferior" armies winning with superior skill is that most of history involves forces that do have rough parity. There aren't many historical battles between armies with multi-generation gaps in equipment, and even fewer that make it into the history books.

False Terran marines have two different types of armor.

What's hilarious about this is that you just posted "FALSE" in response to your own previous post (I screwed up the quote tags and left your statement unquoted).

Zerg are easily killed and die instantly to chemical weapons and biological weapons.

So if they die instantly to those weapons how is it that they're so hard to kill in Starcraft? You can't have it both ways.

The Win Ratio also helps us determine how combat efficent Space Marines are compared to Terran marines. The more battles won the far superior the Space Marines are. The more battles lost the worse they are.

Again, this is absolutely worthless unless you have their win/loss records against the same opponent. A Culture warship might only have a win ratio of 50% against other Culture-universe warships, but it's still going to effortlessly slaughter the entire 40k universe.

That talks about this quite a bit.

It talks about it, but it doesn't actually say what you think it does. All it says is that a bolter is roughly equivalent to real-world grenade launcher in firepower. They have fairly small ammunition compared to modern grenades, which could allow each marine to carry more shots than a modern soldier armed with a grenade launcher, but otherwise that isn't very impressive.

Tada we got a bolter round that is more effective than a gauss rifle.

That's not what your link says. The gauss rifle is the equivalent of a .50 caliber machine gun, the bolter is the equivalent of a grenade launcher. One is a pure kinetic energy weapon that can hit you from extreme range and penetrate armor, the other lobs low-velocity explosive shells that have limited range and depend on the explosion to do any damage. I don't see any clear winner in this situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Peregrine, why are you still even trying?

Boredom? Masochism? An easy opportunity to increase my post count?

Yeah I mean, ''High Lord of Terra'' is a pretty terrible title, might as well try and get the next one in line.

That's not what your link says. The gauss rifle is the equivalent of a .50 caliber machine gun, the bolter is the equivalent of a grenade launcher. One is a pure kinetic energy weapon that can hit you from extreme range and penetrate armor, the other lobs low-velocity explosive shells that have limited range and depend on the explosion to do any damage. I don't see any clear winner in this situation.

No it doesn't read it again.

It says it is a combination. Read it again before you make a false statement like that. Those links say it is not comparable to a Grenade launcher. Some of them go onto detail why the bolter is more damaging.

You misread and didn't even read it by the looks of it.

It is a combination of a rocket proplleged bullet than an actual grenade launcher. Which is what it was saying through out it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Yeah I mean, ''High Lord of Terra'' is a pretty terrible title, might as well try and get the next one in line.

Mine was stuck on Chaplain for quite a while.

But I don't post every single day. I've been here for six years now. Its kind of funny when people come in and proclaim they know everything when I have been on this forum and seen these threads pop up over and over and each time 40k has won.

I have vague memories of a terran vs space marine battle and the space marine won of course.

So if they die instantly to those weapons how is it that they're so hard to kill in Starcraft? You can't have it both ways.

Considering the fact that the zerg have whole handledly still been able to win, even when the terran's know this and have not just sprayed chemicals on char and or destroyed it.

In fact the terran have lost every major engagement against the zerg and/or every war against them.

When in doubt, go back to what can be proven:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
No, but they have C-14 rifles which shoots U-238 bullets, which is better than bolts, and they do not need 2 hearts, because one is enough when, your armor protects it efficiently.
And they never miss a shot, while 40k marines miss 1/3 of the time. So they are better.
Definite proof: ten Starcraft Space Marines are able to destroy a battlecruiser using only their C-14 rifles. Have you ever heard of ten 40k space marines destroying a battle cruiser equivalent, or even simply a thunderhawk, with just bolters? Hence the Starcraft marine wins!

Out of curiosity, what makes the Culture so unstoppable?

I read their Wikipedia page and teleporting warheads is pretty nifty, but it seems they'd be smacked around by an Alpha/plus psyker like anyone else.

Even Edust assassins, Culture 'terror weapons', are described as being able to level buildings. That is certainly not out of scale for 40k, though it certainly does beat any 40k infantry.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Yeah I mean, ''High Lord of Terra'' is a pretty terrible title, might as well try and get the next one in line.

Confessor of Sin barely evokes the Sororitas, but I am currently stuck with that . The solution would be to become DCM. I remember I made a bet that involved the looser paying DCM status to the winner, about Games of Throne, but I forgot all the details.
New debate idea: White Walkers from GoT versus Orks from 40k, who would win?

Probably Orks. Orks have flamethrowers. Fire beats ice.

Orks are only permanently killed when slain with a flame weapon; otherwise the spores escape and make new orks.
White Walkers do not have flame weapons.

 Torga_DW wrote:
When in doubt, go back to what can be proven:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
No, but they have C-14 rifles which shoots U-238 bullets, which is better than bolts, and they do not need 2 hearts, because one is enough when, your armor protects it efficiently.
And they never miss a shot, while 40k marines miss 1/3 of the time. So they are better.
Definite proof: ten Starcraft Space Marines are able to destroy a battlecruiser using only their C-14 rifles. Have you ever heard of ten 40k space marines destroying a battle cruiser equivalent, or even simply a thunderhawk, with just bolters? Hence the Starcraft marine wins!

Those are actually wrong. Those are the bullets fired by c-14's. But they do not increase the damage output, only the range of the c-14. These are less effective because they only pierce and do not have the explosive bolt inside the 40k universe.

As in the lore they can't actually do that. We can't really use gameplay to be used as a standard for lore, as in the lore battle cruisers wreck the terran marines and have to hide in and duck in cover. So stop trying, you are embrassing yourselves by defending it by using game mechanics.

he C-14 is capable of firing a wide variety of ammunition;

Kal50 SC2-WoL CineFireFury1
Kal .5 Auto casing
Armor piercing: Used against heavily armored targets.[8]
Depleted uranium: Encompass U-238 shells/spikes. The most popular variant among marines given that they extend the rifle's range up to 25%.[9][3]
Hollow point spread: Flatten and expand on impact for maximum wounding efficiency. Custom made by Ardo Melnikov.[5]
Incendiary: Used against structures.[8]
Steel tipped: Used to maim rather than kill an enemy.[5]

These are the bullets used by the starcraft marines in the lore. Their armor piercing seems interesting but again this does not change the fact they do not have what it takes to defeat a space marine, they maybe be able to pierce a space marine's power armor but the raw power of the bolter would explode inside of the Terran Marines armor and kill them instantly. The terran marine's weapon is meant to stop hordes, The Space Marine Bolter is meant to take out single targets, but can do alot to defeat its enemies rather easily. AS space marines go into battle with different types of weaponry not just the bolter. The Terran Marines are stuck with the c-14. Allowing the Space Marines to have more tactical flexibility.

Confessor of Sin barely evokes the Sororitas, but I am currently stuck with that . The solution would be to become DCM. I remember I made a bet that involved the looser paying DCM status to the winner, about Games of Throne, but I forgot all the details.
New debate idea: White Walkers from GoT versus Orks from 40k, who would win?

Make your own thread, Do not use this one.

Yeah but White Walkers can turn the dead orks into zombies that will fight for them. Maybe those zombies create zombie ork spores!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Yeah but White Walkers can turn the dead orks into zombies that will fight for them. Maybe those zombies create zombie ork spores!

If an Ork can resist demonic possession to some degree, I'm sure a glorified zombie wouldn't have that much success.
The zombie orks are still susceptible to fire, and the orks will surely figure out that zombies who do the burny-burny dance don't get up again.

Don't Battlecruisers absolutely devastate infantry in SC2? I recall them having some sort of rapid fire laser thing.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Yeah but White Walkers can turn the dead orks into zombies that will fight for them. Maybe those zombies create zombie ork spores!

If an Ork can resist demonic possession to some degree, I'm sure a glorified zombie wouldn't have that much success.
The zombie orks are still susceptible to fire, and the orks will surely figure out that zombies who do the burny-burny dance don't get up again.

Don't Battlecruisers absolutely devastate infantry in SC2? I recall them having some sort of rapid fire laser thing.

The Hyperion and many of the ships do have that, but it would be massively unfair if all battlecruisers had the power of the hyperion in game. So in order to ensure that does not happen they have to decrease weapon speed on the battle cruisers.

Also because for balance reasons battle cruisers and carriers will not be as good as their cinematic or lore compatriots. It would be really unfair if they did have those abilities.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Yeah but White Walkers can turn the dead orks into zombies that will fight for them. Maybe those zombies create zombie ork spores!

If an Ork can resist demonic possession to some degree, I'm sure a glorified zombie wouldn't have that much success.
The zombie orks are still susceptible to fire, and the orks will surely figure out that zombies who do the burny-burny dance don't get up again.

Don't Battlecruisers absolutely devastate infantry in SC2? I recall them having some sort of rapid fire laser thing.

The Hyperion and many of the ships do have that, but it would be massively unfair if all battlecruisers had the power of the hyperion in game. So in order to ensure that does not happen they have to decrease weapon speed on the battle cruisers.

Also because for balance reasons battle cruisers and carriers will not be as good as their cinematic or lore compatriots. It would be really unfair if they did have those abilities.

Yeh, I think I remember carriers having some sort of main cannon in the cinematics. It's been like a decade since I last played SC. I usually play C&C now.