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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I thought marines were meant to be tactical geniuses but now they're meant to just stand in the open and tank heavy weapons fire with their face?

It doesn't matter how good your armour is, the best way to not die is to minimise your exposure to enemy fire, which is accomplished by taking cover. This is true for tanks today, it'll be true for space marines in the future.

True to a point, but a tank isn't going to waste time taking cover from assault rifle fire when in a target rich environment.

As others have pointed out the Imperiun has a million worlds. Only a fraction is at war at any given time. In many of those wars Imperial Guard is enough(Or not and feth them because the imperium is a bureocratic mess).
So that makes having 200-500 marines of different chapters in big conflicts perfectely possible, even more in bigger ones.

The only problem comes with Space Marines droping like flyes in some pieces of fluff.
But really if you want to understand how marines change wars just play the Halo Games. Specially one : Halo Reach. In that one youll find the best depiction of a squad of supersoldiers doing their best without being invulnerable.
Also, in Halo universe, Spartans have also that propaganda factor, thats why they never die, they are always reported as MIA

w1zard wrote:
True to a point, but a tank isn't going to waste time taking cover from assault rifle fire when in a target rich environment.

Yes it is. It's hard to tell at a glance if one of those targets in said target rich environments has a meltagun or plasmagun or grenade launcher capable of melting your tank's face off. Tanks actually DO take cover, and effective use of cover is one of the key hallmarks of a well trained tank crew. If they don't have a meltagun they could still have a krak grenade to cause some form of critical damage like a broken tread or jammed turret mechanism, turning your tank in to a sitting duck.

And that's just taking humans in to account, before you take absurdly powerful xenos like Orks in to play, where the last thing you want is to be swarmed by them and have them literally tear your tank apart.

w1zard wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I thought marines were meant to be tactical geniuses but now they're meant to just stand in the open and tank heavy weapons fire with their face?

It doesn't matter how good your armour is, the best way to not die is to minimise your exposure to enemy fire, which is accomplished by taking cover. This is true for tanks today, it'll be true for space marines in the future.

True to a point, but a tank isn't going to waste time taking cover from assault rifle fire when in a target rich environment.

A target rich environment might have 50 assault rifles, weilded by 50 professional soldiers who might have any number of yet unidentified weapons on them because its hard to inventory 50 targets at once. Any one of them might have a Krak grenade, or meltagun, and that can end your little rambo affair nice and quick. So get your head down, engage a bit more methodically and suss it out.

And you're not a tank, you can actually take cover. Your armor does have weak points. Though a single lucky bullet may not kill you, it may decrease the efficiency of your body or your equipment. It's your duty to stay in good fighting condition because you're going to need to deploy and redeploy 20 times during this short campaign. So keep your wits and dont stand in front of 50 guardsmen unnecessarily. Any one of those several hundred shots could brain you through the eyepiece and then how invulnerable are you going to look, hero?

I expect the most experienced, disciplined and well trained soldiers in the Imperium not to act like idiots.

I'm sure they can be effective as a way to concentrate force but the 40k setting would seem to work against Marines in terms of their ability to make a huge difference on the war.

It seems like there are so many ways Marines could die before ever seeing combat. If their ships are destroyed in a space battle, if their drop pods or landing craft are shot down as they attempt to land, if they're targeted by artillery or heavy guns on arrival etc., if they're hit by snipers, missiles, plasma, or even just a lucky shot during a battle.

Not saying Marines can't make a significant contribution to individual battles, but in a galaxy-wide conflict where factions regularly suffer losses numbering in the millions, it's inevitably going to be a matter of logistics and statistics rather than individual prowess. And Marines seem like one of the worst races when it comes to absorbing losses.

Now in theory many Marine casualties could be recovered and saved. The problem is that this is reliant on the Marines being ultimately victorious in that conflict. If they're pushed back, then any Marine casualties (even if they're still alive) will instead be devoured by Tyranids, atomised by Necrons, taken back to Commorragh by DE etc.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Or maybe get that out of the lore.

I guess im too much of a historicals gamer. They might as well change all the names for the tabletop game.

It also doesnt help that the more gw plays it straight, the dumber they look.

Well the use of foresight is a pretty key part of Eldar lore so getting rid of it just to explain its absence on the tabletop is pretty dumb.

It doesn't help that you hate every aspect of the game but still play it.

Uhh… Stratagems like...Forwarding? Stratagems that let you redeploy. Lightning fast reactions...Eldar are pretty well represented. They have pretty much always played the way they should. Aspect warriors currently are pretty bad but in the past they have been pretty good through the editions. It is the same problem though. GW doesn't understand that these units arent actually elite on the table but they make you pay elite prices. As far as the lore goes. There is no question that a marine is an elite warrior no matter what fluff you read. In the game a marine has been garbage in every edition I've played.

 Xenomancers wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Or maybe get that out of the lore.

I guess im too much of a historicals gamer. They might as well change all the names for the tabletop game.

It also doesnt help that the more gw plays it straight, the dumber they look.

Well the use of foresight is a pretty key part of Eldar lore so getting rid of it just to explain its absence on the tabletop is pretty dumb.

It doesn't help that you hate every aspect of the game but still play it.

Uhh… Stratagems like...Forwarding? Stratagems that let you redeploy. Lightning fast reactions...Eldar are pretty well represented. They have pretty much always played the way they should. Aspect warriors currently are pretty bad but in the past they have been pretty good through the editions. It is the same problem though. GW doesn't understand that these units are actually elite on the table but they make you pay elite prices. As far as the lore goes. There is no question that a marine is an elite warrior no matter what fluff you read. In the game a marine has been garbage in every edition I've played.

Right so if a Farseer wants to use their foresight they frequently go "oh wait I can't I have to use an imaginary point. Oh dear." You've missed my point which is all factions have elements of their lore that go unrepresented to balance the game a bit. Tyranids aren't an unending horde, Demons don't turn the enemy mad by existing, Guard can't just stand still and fire hundreds of artillery at the enemy and so on.

pm713 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Or maybe get that out of the lore.

I guess im too much of a historicals gamer. They might as well change all the names for the tabletop game.

It also doesnt help that the more gw plays it straight, the dumber they look.

Well the use of foresight is a pretty key part of Eldar lore so getting rid of it just to explain its absence on the tabletop is pretty dumb.

It doesn't help that you hate every aspect of the game but still play it.

Uhh… Stratagems like...Forwarding? Stratagems that let you redeploy. Lightning fast reactions...Eldar are pretty well represented. They have pretty much always played the way they should. Aspect warriors currently are pretty bad but in the past they have been pretty good through the editions. It is the same problem though. GW doesn't understand that these units are actually elite on the table but they make you pay elite prices. As far as the lore goes. There is no question that a marine is an elite warrior no matter what fluff you read. In the game a marine has been garbage in every edition I've played.

Right so if a Farseer wants to use their foresight they frequently go "oh wait I can't I have to use an imaginary point. Oh dear." You've missed my point which is all factions have elements of their lore that go unrepresented to balance the game a bit. Tyranids aren't an unending horde, Demons don't turn the enemy mad by existing, Guard can't just stand still and fire hundreds of artillery at the enemy and so on.

Your point is well taken - I just don't think it's a good point. Reasonable attempts to give armies fluffy in game rules are pretty commonplace. Furthermore people like fluff rules. The rules for a space marine have never been fluffy. A space marine should be a lot more than a t4 vetren in power armor (mainly because those stats are largely irrelevant in a game where AP-3/4 could be on literally every gun your opponent has). Each one is basically captain America with a .65 rapid fire grenade launcher. They should be like 35 points and have good well rounded stats. That would be fluffy.

 Xenomancers wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Or maybe get that out of the lore.

I guess im too much of a historicals gamer. They might as well change all the names for the tabletop game.

It also doesnt help that the more gw plays it straight, the dumber they look.

Well the use of foresight is a pretty key part of Eldar lore so getting rid of it just to explain its absence on the tabletop is pretty dumb.

It doesn't help that you hate every aspect of the game but still play it.

Uhh… Stratagems like...Forwarding? Stratagems that let you redeploy. Lightning fast reactions...Eldar are pretty well represented. They have pretty much always played the way they should. Aspect warriors currently are pretty bad but in the past they have been pretty good through the editions. It is the same problem though. GW doesn't understand that these units are actually elite on the table but they make you pay elite prices. As far as the lore goes. There is no question that a marine is an elite warrior no matter what fluff you read. In the game a marine has been garbage in every edition I've played.

Right so if a Farseer wants to use their foresight they frequently go "oh wait I can't I have to use an imaginary point. Oh dear." You've missed my point which is all factions have elements of their lore that go unrepresented to balance the game a bit. Tyranids aren't an unending horde, Demons don't turn the enemy mad by existing, Guard can't just stand still and fire hundreds of artillery at the enemy and so on.

Your point is well taken - I just don't think it's a good point. Reasonable attempts to give armies fluffy in game rules are pretty commonplace. Furthermore people like fluff rules. The rules for a space marine have never been fluffy. A space marine should be a lot more than a t4 vetren in power armor (mainly because those stats are largely irrelevant in a game where AP-3/4 could be on literally every gun your opponent has). Each one is basically captain America with a .65 rapid fire grenade launcher. They should be like 35 points and have good well rounded stats. That would be fluffy.

If they're Captain America then they do a pretty good job of being overhyped amiright?

I see what you're saying but where do you put Space Marines? Then where do you put things like Aspect Warriors which are equal to Space Marines? I think the problem with Marines is more because of bad weapon balancing than bad marine stats.

 Insectum7 wrote:
And you're not a tank, you can actually take cover. Your armor does have weak points. Though a single lucky bullet may not kill you, it may decrease the efficiency of your body or your equipment. It's your duty to stay in good fighting condition because you're going to need to deploy and redeploy 20 times during this short campaign. So keep your wits and dont stand in front of 50 guardsmen unnecessarily. Any one of those several hundred shots could brain you through the eyepiece and then how invulnerable are you going to look, hero?

I expect the most experienced, disciplined and well trained soldiers in the Imperium not to act like idiots.

Aye, that's a very good point. The marine isn't there to look impressive for one single engagement, then sign propaganda posters on the victory tour - he's using that hyper-super-duper marine physiology to fight 20 important engagements with only transit time in between. He'll barely have time to eat, drink, resupply and do quick maintenance on his gear as it is. He doesn't have time to heal if it's more than a scratch, he doesn't have time to repair any real damage to his power armor and there's no reserve marine to take his place. His duty is to stay alive and in shape to fight and that means tanking shots with his faceplate is stupid when he could let, say, a wall or a big rock suck up the rokkits instead.

RttF Syndrome (Rokkit to the Face Syndrome) is to be avoided if possible. If you don't try it means you're risking the Emperor's resources (your wargear and you!) for no good reason and as we all know that's heresy...

 vipoid wrote:
I'm sure they can be effective as a way to concentrate force but the 40k setting would seem to work against Marines in terms of their ability to make a huge difference on the war.

It seems like there are so many ways Marines could die before ever seeing combat. If their ships are destroyed in a space battle, if their drop pods or landing craft are shot down as they attempt to land, if they're targeted by artillery or heavy guns on arrival etc., if they're hit by snipers, missiles, plasma, or even just a lucky shot during a battle.

Not saying Marines can't make a significant contribution to individual battles, but in a galaxy-wide conflict where factions regularly suffer losses numbering in the millions, it's inevitably going to be a matter of logistics and statistics rather than individual prowess. And Marines seem like one of the worst races when it comes to absorbing losses.

Now in theory many Marine casualties could be recovered and saved. The problem is that this is reliant on the Marines being ultimately victorious in that conflict. If they're pushed back, then any Marine casualties (even if they're still alive) will instead be devoured by Tyranids, atomised by Necrons, taken back to Commorragh by DE etc.

Unfortunately I can't give too thorough of a response now but I think you could reason their strategic importance in the following way.

Marines are able strike faster and harder than any other Imperial force. In particular they excell at taking very important/war-winning objectives, like starships, command bunkers, planetary defence grids, etc, and they're good at doing it very quickly. It could be that any other Imperial force would sustain heavy casualties taking those objectives, and for whatever reason be both less likely to succeed, and possibly much slower. Any extra time given to the defenders is more time to prepare, and more time to prepare means greater risk of failure and even more casualties spent for each objective, until the situation might snowball into weeks or months (or years) of war, plus whatever collateral damage is involved. The speed of the marines might ultimately be the thing that gives them their true value, as a 3 day marine-led conflict with 20 marine casualties might be the least costly option in a theatre of war which, if you can't secure those objectives immediately, might cost millions of lives and trillions of "Imperial bucks".

And even though this is sorta assuming the Imperium is merely quelling the rebellion of it's own world, it's the sort of thing that happens a lot (and Marines seem suspiciously well prepared for). The potential millions of Guard lives that might be spent on such a rebellion would still be a useful thing not to lose, since inevitably they'll be spent fighting Orks instead (or whatever).

So I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that because they can end some common conflicts very fast, a marine life could be worth (insert very large number here) guardsmen lives in a gross strategic sense.

And they're really good at taking starships apparently (I think they even got some bonus in Battlefleet Gothic, iirc.) which is immensely valuable anyways.

I suppose I should ask, do people find them more lore accurate in killteam than in general 40k?

They're about the only thing with a 3+ save, plasma is far rarer, and their general toughness is given a chance to shine. Aside from still being stuck in fair fights which they'd otherwise avoid they're pretty solid in the beat stick category when not faced with massive AP.

 Melissia wrote:

w1zard wrote:
True to a point, but a tank isn't going to waste time taking cover from assault rifle fire when in a target rich environment.

Yes it is. It's hard to tell at a glance if one of those targets in said target rich environments has a meltagun or plasmagun or grenade launcher capable of melting your tank's face off. Tanks actually DO take cover, and effective use of cover is one of the key hallmarks of a well trained tank crew. If they don't have a meltagun they could still have a krak grenade to cause some form of critical damage like a broken tread or jammed turret mechanism, turning your tank in to a sitting duck.

But a tank won't actually waste time trying to take cover until it knows that kind of weapon is present. What is the point otherwise?

Most of the time, "taking cover" in tank battles involves going "hull down" in a prepared position before the battle, or utilizing a ridge-line effectively. However, the sole reason that tanks were invented was to be able to cross open ground in the face of prepared infantry positions in order to break those positions. I think you are fundamentally misrepresenting the purpose of tanks on the modern battlefield.

Similarly a space marine isn't going to give a gak about a bunch of infantry wielding lasguns. In the Astartes miniseries you see they just stand there and focus entirely on killing them. The one time that the astartes were threatened by a krak missile he just used his superior reflexes and sidestepped it. Now if they had a lascannon, cover might be a better option for the marines, but there is no use in wasting time taking cover from weapons that CANNOT HURT YOU.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Your armor does have weak points. Though a single lucky bullet may not kill you, it may decrease the efficiency of your body or your equipment. It's your duty to stay in good fighting condition because you're going to need to deploy and redeploy 20 times during this short campaign. So keep your wits and dont stand in front of 50 guardsmen unnecessarily. Any one of those several hundred shots could brain you through the eyepiece and then how invulnerable are you going to look, hero?

I expect the most experienced, disciplined and well trained soldiers in the Imperium not to act like idiots.

Your job as a marine is to kill the enemy as fast as possible and achieve whatever your objective is. As long as the enemy are firing weapons that have little to no chance of hurting you or your equipment it makes no sense to delay killing them in order to prevent your armor from getting scuffed.

The Astartes Miniseries... Fan-made, right?

 JNAProductions wrote:
The Astartes Miniseries... Fan-made, right?

Yep, but as I said, I much prefer the depiction of marines in that miniseries to the ones that drop like guardsmen in some 40k lore.

They never drop like Guardsmen, they're just not stupid OP, like in that miniseries. Dodging missiles like that is just... urgh, maybe that works for Eldars, but for Marines its just so wrong.

 Bobthehero wrote:
They never drop like Guardsmen, they're just not stupid OP, like in that miniseries. Dodging missiles like that is just... urgh, maybe that works for Eldar, but for Marines its just so wrong.

I felt like it was borderline. It was a pretty long ranged shot you could see coming. But a more Marine thing would have been just tanking the shot on the shoulder pad IMO.

A krak missiles would have killed that Marine.

 Bobthehero wrote:
A krak missiles would have killed that Marine.

Unless it was a frag missile. I didn't exactly get the impression the series is about people prepared for marines.

Yeah, but the post before mentionned a krak, hence my assumption. I haven't watch the series myself, maybe its clearer?

 Bobthehero wrote:
Yeah, but the post before mentionned a krak, hence my assumption. I haven't watch the series myself, maybe its clearer?

Not really they just shoot a missile and it goes spiralling down a corridor and the Marine steps out of the way.

 Bobthehero wrote:
They never drop like Guardsmen, they're just not stupid OP, like in that miniseries. Dodging missiles like that is just... urgh, maybe that works for Eldars, but for Marines its just so wrong.

When half of a marine squad doesn't make it back from a mission it means they are dropping like guardsmen.

They are not stupid OP in that miniseries, that is HOW THEY SHOULD BE.

 Bobthehero wrote:
A krak missiles would have killed that Marine.

A krak missile would kill a marine in the tabletop game but why would I make the assumption that it would in the lore? Maybe just wound him and mess up his armor? Once again, the variability of the strength of the average marine is all over the place in the published lore, why am I wrong when I take marines to be on the stronger side in my personal headcanon?

Because Krak Missiles are anti-tank weapons.

Power Armor is tough. But it's not tougher than a tank.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Because Krak Missiles are anti-tank weapons.

Power Armor is tough. But it's not tougher than a tank.

And a single krak missile doesn't have 100% chance of killing a tank in one shot either. Your point?

I think if a krak missile hits a Marine then it should wound them enough to take them out. So if they aren't dead they're missing at least one limb.

pm713 wrote:
I think if a krak missile hits a Marine then it should wound them enough to take them out. So if they aren't dead they're missing at least one limb.

That's what happens the vast majority of the time in the fluff when a marine gets hit by a missile, lost arm and heavy damage but alive and sometimes still able to kill.

I was reading the solar war book today and a sons of Horus marine gets carved up by a power sword repeatedly, shot multiple times by a bolt weapon and survives to kill his opponents, earlier in the book a rotor cannon shreds another marine in his squad, marines can take an ungodly amount of punishment and live, key word is can, that does not mean always, some marines just take a bad hit.

Some of the people here seem to take those fringe cases and apply it across the board, so going by that logic any marine can be killed by a spear... Because it happened one time.

regarding marines taking cover,I imagine they'll take cover when they need to, but at the same time there is a physcahlogical element to marines as well that they're aware of and likely will be trained to take advantage of. watching your weaponry be utterly ineffective is TERRIFYING so against a unit thats clearly equipped only with Lasguns a Marine might break cover and rush em, heck one of the HH novels describes a scene in a compliance where marines are ordered to switch to melee weapons "because it would be a waste of resources to use mass reactives"

pm713 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Or maybe get that out of the lore.

I guess im too much of a historicals gamer. They might as well change all the names for the tabletop game.

It also doesnt help that the more gw plays it straight, the dumber they look.

Well the use of foresight is a pretty key part of Eldar lore so getting rid of it just to explain its absence on the tabletop is pretty dumb.

It doesn't help that you hate every aspect of the game but still play it.

Uhh… Stratagems like...Forwarding? Stratagems that let you redeploy. Lightning fast reactions...Eldar are pretty well represented. They have pretty much always played the way they should. Aspect warriors currently are pretty bad but in the past they have been pretty good through the editions. It is the same problem though. GW doesn't understand that these units are actually elite on the table but they make you pay elite prices. As far as the lore goes. There is no question that a marine is an elite warrior no matter what fluff you read. In the game a marine has been garbage in every edition I've played.

Right so if a Farseer wants to use their foresight they frequently go "oh wait I can't I have to use an imaginary point. Oh dear." You've missed my point which is all factions have elements of their lore that go unrepresented to balance the game a bit. Tyranids aren't an unending horde, Demons don't turn the enemy mad by existing, Guard can't just stand still and fire hundreds of artillery at the enemy and so on.

Your point is well taken - I just don't think it's a good point. Reasonable attempts to give armies fluffy in game rules are pretty commonplace. Furthermore people like fluff rules. The rules for a space marine have never been fluffy. A space marine should be a lot more than a t4 vetren in power armor (mainly because those stats are largely irrelevant in a game where AP-3/4 could be on literally every gun your opponent has). Each one is basically captain America with a .65 rapid fire grenade launcher. They should be like 35 points and have good well rounded stats. That would be fluffy.

If they're Captain America then they do a pretty good job of being overhyped amiright?

I see what you're saying but where do you put Space Marines? Then where do you put things like Aspect Warriors which are equal to Space Marines? I think the problem with Marines is more because of bad weapon balancing than bad marine stats.

Aspect warriors aren't very well represented ether.
Lets start in the most obivous places. Speed. A marine can run twice as fast as a human - yet in this game they have the exact same speed. For aspect warriors they should be even faster than that but probably not by much. Imagine if marines all moved like 10 inches and all had grenade launchers (or something similar). Not suggesting they remain at their point cost but just that they should have better cababilities. These are things that make marines worth something. These are the reason that marines actually matter to the imperium.

w1zard wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
They never drop like Guardsmen, they're just not stupid OP, like in that miniseries. Dodging missiles like that is just... urgh, maybe that works for Eldars, but for Marines its just so wrong.

When half of a marine squad doesn't make it back from a mission it means they are dropping like guardsmen.

They are not stupid OP in that miniseries, that is HOW THEY SHOULD BE

With the way you describe and according to my personnal headcanon, they are stupid OP in that serie, big turn off.

w1zard wrote:
. . . there is no use in wasting time taking cover from weapons that CANNOT HURT YOU.

Source for lasguns having a 0% chance of hurting a marine in armor. A source other than your own personal headcannon or fan animation, please.

w1zard wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Your armor does have weak points. Though a single lucky bullet may not kill you, it may decrease the efficiency of your body or your equipment. It's your duty to stay in good fighting condition because you're going to need to deploy and redeploy 20 times during this short campaign. So keep your wits and dont stand in front of 50 guardsmen unnecessarily. Any one of those several hundred shots could brain you through the eyepiece and then how invulnerable are you going to look, hero?

I expect the most experienced, disciplined and well trained soldiers in the Imperium not to act like idiots.

Your job as a marine is to kill the enemy as fast as possible and achieve whatever your objective is. As long as the enemy are firing weapons that have little to no chance of hurting you or your equipment it makes no sense to delay killing them in order to prevent your armor from getting scuffed.

That is sometimes your job. Sometimes your job is to delay an enemy action or take on a force many times your size who has an unknown complement of weapons. In which case strolling unaided forward into 50 opposing infantry is dumb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
regarding marines taking cover,I imagine they'll take cover when they need to, but at the same time there is a physcahlogical element to marines as well that they're aware of and likely will be trained to take advantage of. watching your weaponry be utterly ineffective is TERRIFYING so against a unit thats clearly equipped only with Lasguns a Marine might break cover and rush em, heck one of the HH novels describes a scene in a compliance where marines are ordered to switch to melee weapons "because it would be a waste of resources to use mass reactives"

I agree with all that. I just want to point out that the cover scenario began in response to a single marine vs. 50 guardsmen in the open. But sure, in some circumstances get out the chainswords because you're going to be in a long battle and conserving ammo might be a good thing. I'm trying to draw the line between smart marines and over-the-top ridiculous marines (i.e. 30 rounds for 30 kills in a matter of seconds, and marines shouldn't take cover because they are literally invulnerable.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobthehero wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
They never drop like Guardsmen, they're just not stupid OP, like in that miniseries. Dodging missiles like that is just... urgh, maybe that works for Eldars, but for Marines its just so wrong.

When half of a marine squad doesn't make it back from a mission it means they are dropping like guardsmen.

They are not stupid OP in that miniseries, that is HOW THEY SHOULD BE

With the way you describe and according to my personnal headcanon, they are stupid OP in that serie, big turn off.

If I recall correctly, they're not even stupid OP in that animation, they're methodically advancing through mostly confined spaces and narrow corridors, engaging only a few disorganized opponents at a time. They advance into lasfire but never for long or against too many, and they take cover from heavy weapons.

W1zard seems to be conflating it drastically.