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.

Ok so it's been a while now from all the 40k games, the latest of which being Space Marine. However for all its flaws (yes there are a few), there's one that's cropped up recently that puzzles me. Time for an explination.

For those of you who do surf Youtube on a regular (read as too-often) basis you may be familiar with TotalBiscuit aka the Cynical Brit. Now, he's a 40k fan - this was evident during his "WTF Is Space Marine" video review and a few subsequent and not really relavent videos that pick on the game and it's accuracy in Lore. His main gripe though is besides the football (soccer) fan - sounding Orks is the weapons. According to him the meltagun is portrayed incorrectly and that the Dawn of War 2 portrayel is more accurate (I think), and that the Lascannon is not supposed to be a sniper rifle for Space Marines (disregarding Scouts). Now, I'm not fully immersed in 40k fluff, particularly every darn weapon in the 40k universe, so his comments have left me somewhat baffled as to whether he is right or not.

So, simply put, is he right? And how should such weapons be protrayed in a video game such as Space Marine? Or I suppose, how does the 40k universe portray them?

PS: I hope this is in the right place.

I like how they portrayed a lot of the weapons. The bolter could have felt more powerful though, rather than rapid fire. I don't imagine anything besides the stormbolter and heavy bolter to be extremely rapid. The bolter to me sounds like a thunk thunk thunk instead of a rattattatat. The vengeance grenade launcher is neat, but I would have liked to keep real 40k weapons, like the astartes grenade launcher. The Lascannon feels awkward. I usually play as a sniper in games, but not in Space Marine. The lascannon is an anti-tank weapon, but made into a sniper. It doesn't feel like a sniper or an anti-tank cannon. The melta gun was neat, how it was made the shotgun of space marine, and I like how it feels. I can imagine melting a tank with it up close. The bolt pistol is amazing, and its a great weapon by itself. I really like the use of stalker boltgun as standard issue too. It makes sense as a sniper and feels like how a boltgun should.

The majority of the weapons in Space Marine felt just fine to me. Having the Lascannon be the sniper rifle of the game felt a little odd, but it does meet the expectations of a "sniper" weapon, long range and the ability to kill enemies in one shot. The meltagun wasn't totally accurate in how it was portrayed, but besides the Astartes Shotgun, it is the closest thing to a shotgun they could use.

The better weapons to use to fill the roles of sniper rifle and shotgun would have been the Astartes Sniper Rifle and Astartes Shotgun, the problem is that those are less iconic weapons compared to the Lascannon and Meltagun and those weapons are used by Scouts, which the PC in Space Marine is not.

I think my main gripes are with Final Vengeance and the Heavy Bolter. A Space Marine wouldn't explode himself, the chapter needs his geneseed to continue. The Heavy Bolter feels far less like a rapid fire weapon; even when braced, it simply does not keep up with how fast I would expect it to go.

Should probably be in video games btw.

Simply put, there is no proper "right" or "wrong" on this - 40k fluff is a loose assembly of often preference-based interpretations that merely tend to overlap at the most basic level. Authors, particularly those of licensed material (which includes computer games such as this one), are granted considerable leeway in how to do things, and many make full use of it. This is also evident with Space Marine's invention of a new grenade launcher*, its weird sniper-lascannongun**, the meltashotgun*** or the Stalker-"pattern" bolter****, or THQ openly admitting that their game plays in a "parallel timeline" to gloss over it having a different 2nd Company Captain than the one mentioned in Games Workshop fluff.

*: in GW fluff non-existent
**: in GW fluff requiring a backpack and being an AT-weapon
***: in GW fluff mentioned to fire a beam
****: in GW fluff not a unique weapon in itself but rather a standard off-the-rack bolter fitted with attachments and special ammo

Even just by looking at GW material, though, minor details on weapon descriptions can easily change between one edition to another, and as such it is nigh-impossible to determine any kind of hard consistency for the franchise - save perhaps from stuff like bolters always being more powerful than lasguns, regardless where you look.

It all comes down to what you like more, what your personal interpretation looks like. The weapon depiction in "Space Marine" is just as valid as the ones done in BL novels, FFG's RPG or GW's Codices. Just pick one you like best and be aware that other players may follow a different version, depending on what kind of material they "grew up with".

Lynata pretty much hit it on the head. I think the weapons in Space Marine are just as valid as any other source. Personally, I think they did a really good job.

Lynata wrote:Simply put, there is no proper "right" or "wrong" on this - 40k fluff is a loose assembly of often preference-based interpretations that merely tend to overlap at the most basic level. Authors, particularly those of licensed material (which includes computer games such as this one), are granted considerable leeway in how to do things, and many make full use of it. This is also evident with Space Marine's invention of a new grenade launcher*, its weird sniper-lascannongun**, the meltashotgun*** or the Stalker-"pattern" bolter****, or THQ openly admitting that their game plays in a "parallel timeline" to gloss over it having a different 2nd Company Captain than the one mentioned in Games Workshop fluff.

*: in GW fluff non-existent
**: in GW fluff requiring a backpack and being an AT-weapon
***: in GW fluff mentioned to fire a beam
****: in GW fluff not a unique weapon in itself but rather a standard off-the-rack bolter fitted with attachments and special ammo

Even just by looking at GW material, though, minor details on weapon descriptions can easily change between one edition to another, and as such it is nigh-impossible to determine any kind of hard consistency for the franchise - save perhaps from stuff like bolters always being more powerful than lasguns, regardless where you look.

It all comes down to what you like more, what your personal interpretation looks like. The weapon depiction in "Space Marine" is just as valid as the ones done in BL novels, FFG's RPG or GW's Codices. Just pick one you like best and be aware that other players may follow a different version, depending on what kind of material they "grew up with".

Most of those guns were just taken from FFG.

The lascannon isn't a sniper rifle, no. It's a tank hunting weapon.

But what are you supposed to use it on when there are no Metal Boxes?

Aren't space marines smaller metal bawkses by themselves?

I think the lascannon being a sniper rifle-esk weapon is an ok portrayel when there arn't any vehicles to kill. as for it not having a powerpack backpack, that is easily explained by the fluff openly stating there are many varients of different weapons. This lascannon varient simply has a multi-charge power clip instead of a backpack(which would represent in game the weapon having more/unlimited ammo capacity)

I do feel that the meltagun was poorly done, they don't have a scatter ability in the table top game, but then again its impossable to show its actual use when there arn't any vehicles. It would have been great if it had a dual setting ability, scatter and focused fire. That would have saved the Meltagun.

Bolters and Plasma weapons seemed perfect to me, especially the Stormbolter(I love that weapon)

Yea StormBolter was my friggin weapon in that game. GAWD that would just mow people down

I'm fine with how they changed the meltagun and lascannon as it seems like by far the best way to fit them into the game. I really like how the heavy plasma cannon and other plasma weapons fire.

@Gus Indo: I think the bolter and heavy bolter are spot on, but the storm bolter feels a little too rapid and a little too close range.

The Vengeance launcher I feel could be removed from both single and multiplayer. It's completely unneeded in single and in multi feel it's a bit cheesy.

Lynata wrote:meltashotgun[...]**: in GW fluff requiring a backpack

No it doesn't.

I've actually not seen any references of meltagunners requiring a backpack.

In Caves of Ice, the meltagun is basicaly a heat-based shotgun.

I think Lynata was referring to the Lascannon that needed the backpack.

I thought that the heavy weapons guys did have different backpacks to the tactical marines, but I could be wrong.

They do. It's only the captain in single player tha goes withou a backpack.

Oh. Wow. People will complain about anything.
I think the bigger issue is that he is able to carry around so many weapons at once!

I think the biggest issue is that you don't carry enough weapons around.

The biggest issue of all is that you take your jump pack off. Ever.

I think the biggest issue is that the game was rushed.

I think it's ridiculous when you headshot a Devastator with a LASCANNON, a weapon designed to cripple tanks, that an iron halo means they're fine.

BlapBlapBlap wrote:I think it's ridiculous when you headshot a Devastator with a LASCANNON, a weapon designed to cripple tanks, that an iron halo means they're fine.

Invulnerable saves are a bch aren't they?

bombboy1252 wrote:

BlapBlapBlap wrote:I think it's ridiculous when you headshot a Devastator with a LASCANNON, a weapon designed to cripple tanks, that an iron halo means they're fine.

Invulnerable saves are a bch aren't they?

What?

BlapBlapBlap wrote:

bombboy1252 wrote:

BlapBlapBlap wrote:I think it's ridiculous when you headshot a Devastator with a LASCANNON, a weapon designed to cripple tanks, that an iron halo means they're fine.

Invulnerable saves are a bch aren't they?

What?

Iron Halo, Space Marine Codex Armory, 4+ invuln save.

Grey Templar wrote:

BlapBlapBlap wrote:

bombboy1252 wrote:

BlapBlapBlap wrote:I think it's ridiculous when you headshot a Devastator with a LASCANNON, a weapon designed to cripple tanks, that an iron halo means they're fine.

Invulnerable saves are a bch aren't they?

What?

Iron Halo, Space Marine Codex Armory, 4+ invuln save.

I know, I was playing along

Anyway, I've also found problems with the Plasma Weapons. For the energy of a sun, they really don't do damage...

Actually I loved the lascannon.
The melta gun felt spot on. They are kinda like shotguns. In that in order to do anything, they have to be close. But a little longer range would of been better. The Plasma weapons were cool but weren't all that powerful. Storm Bolters felt right.
Vengeance launcher I disliked.
I loved the STalker Bolter.
The plasma pistol felt right. Bolt pistol right.

Problems...
Bolter does not sound right. Or feel right.
Plasma gun sucked, plasma cannon was okay.
Wheres the other guns?

Dunwich wrote:I think Lynata was referring to the Lascannon that needed the backpack.

Indeed.

I'm just used to the version where the power pack has to be replaced after every single shot, necessitating a backpack for when you want a larger capacity.
Interesting that the depiction differentiates between single- and multiplayer. I suppose this was done because the only other option would have been to invent a new kind of backpack that doubles as a jetpack and ammo-dispenser for heavy weapons, as backpacks changing their visuals based on what weapon you pick up in the midst of a game would look a bit ridiculous, not to mention that some people might dislike not having the option to play a backpack-less Marine when they rarely use the affiliated guns.

The bolter's were all wrong. They aren't very fast so making them rapid was a stupid move. They go thud thud thud not ratttatatatatta so that annoyed me greatly. The bullets didn't even explode!!!! That's the key aspect of a bolter, explosive shells. Yes you could explode an orks head or body parts by constantly shooting them and such but the bullets didn't properly explode.

The Vengeance Launcher was wrong. I disliked it and would have prefered an Astartes Grenade Launcher, something more akin to the fluff.

Also, and though this isn't related to weapons it's a problem. There is NO captain titus of the Ultrasmurfs let alone as captain of the 2nd company who nearly everybody knows as Sicarius.

GET IT RIGHT!!!

crimsonfist832 wrote:The bolter's were all wrong. They aren't very fast so making them rapid was a stupid move. They go thud thud thud not ratttatatatatta so that annoyed me greatly. The bullets didn't even explode!!!! That's the key aspect of a bolter, explosive shells. Yes you could explode an orks head or body parts by constantly shooting them and such but the bullets didn't properly explode.

The Vengeance Launcher was wrong. I disliked it and would have prefered an Astartes Grenade Launcher, something more akin to the fluff.

Also, and though this isn't related to weapons it's a problem. There is NO captain titus of the Ultrasmurfs let alone as captain of the 2nd company who nearly everybody knows as Sicarius.

GET IT RIGHT!!!

I rather have Sicarius replaced by Titus. He sounds better, nicer and cares about his troops and isn't a donkey cave. Plus there are more than 10 captains in a chapter. Sometimes they send a small party and a captain out. (Because all captains are from the first company they are just given command of a company.)

I also wish I could take Flamers. Exterminatus would be great then...

crimsonfist832 wrote:The bolter's were all wrong. They aren't very fast so making them rapid was a stupid move. They go thud thud thud not ratttatatatatta so that annoyed me greatly. The bullets didn't even explode!!!! That's the key aspect of a bolter, explosive shells. Yes you could explode an orks head or body parts by constantly shooting them and such but the bullets didn't properly explode.

Bolters are a fully automatic weapon that is normally fired in burst or semi-auto mode. The sound sounded good to me.

and a bolt shell is large as far as caliber is concerned, but it isn't all that big compared to an ork. It could easily explode inside the body and leave very little outer evidence of the damage. Then when you do head shot an ork in the ghame his head does get blown off. Seems fairly accurate to me.

The Vengeance Launcher was wrong. I disliked it and would have prefered an Astartes Grenade Launcher, something more akin to the fluff.

Is the Vengence Launcher a real weapon in the fluff, not currently but its existance isn't contradicted. The fluff allows for countless thousands of unknown weapons.