Legion Sizes

[Gree]

I'm honestly just trying to help you. You can report me if you must. You seem to want 40K to work. It doesn't. You continually approach 40K trying to make it work, and go tit for tat with people. But as I said in my last post, it will not get you to the end of the maze.

 

Studying now B)

 

Well, while I would thank you for your intent, when a mod says to stop, then I expect people to stop.

 

Of course I personally think Thirst's post was rather misplaced, the current discussion me and Legatus were having was to determine if a chapter could take world within a month. As part of said argument he Kethran example was used which I helpfully pointed out the PDF’s suicide tactics. Said argument was eventually part of the timetable discussion for each chapters of a Legion which in turn was part of a set of larger calculations to determine if a Legion size was inefficient.

 

So in conclusion, I would find a chapter of Astartes, when one puts them down in a scenario and assumes that all parties will act as competently as able, will be unable to take a world.

[Pulse]

So in conclusion, I would find a chapter of Astartes, when one puts them down in a scenario and assumes that all parties will act as competently as able, will be unable to take a world.

Couldn't agree with you more, a chapter is no where near enough to take even a moderately organised world.

[Legatus]

Well, unless you believed anything written in the 3rd, 4th or 5th Edition Codex Spae Marines. But those aren't credible sources on Space Marines, so let's not. B)

[Gree]

Well, unless you believed anything written in the 3rd, 4th or 5th Edition Codex Spae Marines. But those aren't credible sources on Space Marines, so let's not. B)

 

Oh, I believe them, then I take said sources and try to see how they can work practically, and.......well I can't see how it can work at all.

 

It's like how the World Eaters were described as virtually mindless blood-crazed maniacs. It's hard to see how such a force could survive ten millenia.

[Legatus]

Oh, I believe them, then I take said sources and try to see how they can work practically, and.......well I can't see how it can work at all.

There are two possible conclusions:

 

A: If you "can't see how Space Marines can work", then they apparently cannot, and thus the entire premise of Warhammer 40K Space Marines is invalid.

 

B: If you "can't see how Space Marines can work", then we are perhaps not being told all the details that make them work. (Or some of the sources suggesting that they wouldn't work are inaccurate.)

 

For example, one source might say that there is little that defenders can do against Thunderhawks or drop pods, while another source might say that Thunderhawks and drop pods can be mitigated by basic air defense. One of those sources would permit Space Marines to work, while the other would mean that they could not. You could decide that the former source is correct, simply on the basis that the authors probably intend for Space Marines to work. Or you could decide that the latter source is probably correct, since the former source is likely biased in favour of Space Marines, and thus conclude that Space Marines in fact do not work.

 

One approach is to assume that Space Marines are supposed to work, and take sources that would allow them to work as more credible than conflicting sources that would not. Another approach is to favour conflicting sources that would make Space Marines impossible to work and conclude that they really don't. Occam's Razor, authorial intent. Yadda, yadda.

[Gree]

Oh, I believe them, then I take said sources and try to see how they can work practically, and.......well I can't see how it can work at all.

There are two possible conclusions:

 

A: If you "can't see how Space Marines can work", then they apparently cannot, and thus the entire premise of Warhammer 40K Space Marines is invalid.

 

B: If you "can't see how Space Marines can work", then we are perhaps not being told all the details that make them work. (Or some of the sources suggesting that they wouldn't work are inaccurate.)

 

Or a third option would be that the forces they face are criminally incompetent. Going by the few examples we have been provided that would seem to be the most likely case.

 

For example, one source might say that there is little that defenders can do against Thunderhawks or drop pods, while another source might say that Thunderhawks and drop pods can be mitigated by basic air defense. One of those sources would permit Space Marines to work, while the other would mean that they could not. You could decide that the former source is correct, simply on the basis that the authors probably intend for Space Marines to work. Or you could decide that the latter source is probably correct, since the former source is likely biased in favour of Space Marines, and thus conclude that Space Marines in fact do not work.

 

I would find it more reasonable to go with the neutral POV would it not?

 

One approach is to assume that Space Marines are supposed to work, and take sources that would allow them to work as more credible than conflicting sources that would not. Another approach is to favour conflicting sources that would make Space Marines impossible to work and conclude that they really don't. Occam's Razor, authorial intent. Yadda, yadda.

 

Well, if given the choice between a neutral source specializing in orbital assault and a biased source giving a vague general description without any examples………I would choose the former.

[Arkangilos]

So, some of the excuses to why the Space Marines would lose would be the enemy has over whelming fire power, hydras, etc.

 

However, the Imperial Guard Codex specifically states that the IG regiments are seperated by planets (ie, infantry, armor, anti-air, artillery, etc), so that should a planet or regiment turns, they would not have a combined force.

 

Thus, space marines attacking a rebel planet will most likely NOT face a force of combined troops.

 

And anyways, as had been said, there is plenty of evidence in the codex and rule books, and those trump everything else. Sorry to say :)

[Gree]

So, some of the excuses to why the Space Marines would lose would be the enemy has over whelming fire power, hydras, etc.

 

However, the Imperial Guard Codex specifically states that the IG regiments are seperated by planets (ie, infantry, armor, anti-air, artillery, etc), so that should a planet or regiment turns, they would not have a combined force.

 

Thus, space marines attacking a rebel planet will most likely NOT face a force of combined troops.

 

Well then it is fortunate we are talking about PDF and not Guard. However your point is incorrect. Such forces are separated in organization, but commonly used together in an actual campaign. The rulebook has a nice illustration of Guard regiments working together as a combined arms force. The Guard Codex even explicitly states that Guard regiments are specialized in one area so that if they rebel they can be taken down by a combined arms force of loyal regiments and even lists an example. Since we are talking about an entire planet of rogue PDF, one would assume they would have access to a combined arms force or raise and manufacture some themselves.

 

So yes, if the Astartes attacked a rebel planet they would face a force of combined troops.

 

And anyways, as had been said, there is plenty of evidence in the codex and rule books, and those trump everything else. Sorry to say :)

 

Well putting aside the fact that having the codices trump everything else is purely a matter of the opinion, I have already pointed out the various flaws in said examples.

[Culebras]

I can see there is alot of passion here, So I will try to make this quick.

 

The original post postulated that 2 million worlds were claimed over the course of 200 years or so in change. I would like to point out some potential variables that would affect this number.

 

1. technology level of the planets in question.

as far as I have ever read, there is no definitive percentages given regarding how many of the planets in the Imperium are at a specific technological level. Some could be on the level of hive worlds, but you would also find planets in the stone, bronze, iron, and even atomic ages. With the exception of the atomic and hive world technology levels, it would not require excessive force to subjugate these planets. If a population has no way of reach space, than taking the orbital high ground over the planet would be all you would need. you could then establish a base of operations and begin the slow process of rolling up any resistance.

 

On the other hand, planets with high technology levels, ranging from the early industrial age through to the atomic and beyond, would present more of a problem and would require a more extensive campaign, especially if their are resources on the ground that must be taken in tact.

 

Also, as the Great crusade occured following the events of the dark age of technology, in which large amounts of technical know-how were lost, we do not know how many of the planets had access to things like void shields, basilisk artillery, etc. If we assume that every planet of these 2 million had these weapons, then it doesn't make a lot of sense. But it is also difficult to know for sure how many planets actually had things like void shields or basilisks because they were there before the emperor arrived and how many got them after the Emperor shower up. Unless i am off base, I would assume that a conquered planet would adopt the weapons and tools of the invaders, if they are proven to be more efficient or more plentiful.

 

2. Population size

A planet can have extremely advanced technology, but if the human population is not high enough, than a simple matter of numbers comes into play. In reverse, a planet with low tech but high population could be harder to control because of the number of people you would need to convince.

 

3. Form of government

Planets with a single unified government could, at least in theory, be vulnerable to the sort of swift, decapitating attack the Space Marines are known for. Even planets with un-unified governments but with a few super powers could be vulnerable. Imagine a five man squad of terminators teleporting into the white house or the Kremlin and you have some idea of the damage and confusion that a mere five marines could do. now expand that to imagine a unit of 50 marines attacking the ten most powerful governments on earth simultaneously and you can see how this could rapidly cause confusion. Furthermore, if a planet has divided governments, some factions might side with the Imperium in the hope that they would be rewarded for their loyalty. In this way, you wouldn't have to conquer an entire planet, just a portion of it.

 

4. Shock and Awe (or the lack of it)

Space Marines have traditionally been described as being a point-of-the-spear unit that moves in as part of a first strike. Obviously, if the Space

Marines are able to suprise and sieze the initiative in a conflict, then this would alter the flow of battle. Furthermore, if a planet has never seen space marines before, the military commanders may not know how to react to deal with this threat. Finally, Space Marines used to fighting opponents in this way might themselves become vulnerable when they find themselves fighting an opponent who is either unafraid, better prepared, or able to react fast enough to counter the marine tactics.

 

All of these variables could alter the number of marines required to take a planet. They could also alter the amount of time that would have to be expended on each world.

 

Finally, I would like to point out that time, especially when warp travel is involved, is not equal. As the orks have shown, it is possible to arrive at a location before you have left it and meet yourself. In the same way, a company of space marines might leave an imperial base, spend 3 months in one system, 4 months in the next, 5 months in the system after that, only to return to the base that they started from and find out that only a week has passed. Never ask a chaos god for the time, cause their watches go to 13 and have no hands.

 

And thats all I have to say on that.

[Legatus]

I would find it more reasonable to go with the neutral POV would it not?

So, is an Imperial Armour book describing near impervious Thunderhawk armour considered a neutral source? Or is it biased, because that volume happened to focus on Space Marines? Also, I'd say two Space Marine Codices in a row giving the same specs can be seen as the trumping authoritative source, whereas a "neutral" source not focused on Space Marines in particular might contain inaccuracies. The intent behind a Codex Space Marines is to show how all of their gear works and all. The intent behind a Planetfall supplement book is to make it all work together somehow, and not have Space Marines dominate from the get go.

 

Following the two possible conclusions above:

 

A: The fluff story in the "neutral" Planetfall book is correct, the two Codex descriptions are false, and Space Marines therefor largely incapable to assault planets.

 

B: The general capability description given in two Space Marine Codices is correct, the Planetfall story is an odd exception/inaccuracy, and Space Marines are therefor quite capable to assault planets.

 

 

Also, on the matter of "neutral" sources: Wouldn't the Warhammer 40K Rulebook be the ultimate "neutral" and authoritative source? And thus it's descriptions of general Space Marine capabilities trump stories from other sources that have a particular agenda? (Such as an Imperial Armour volume including a lot of new Tau units, or a supplement focusing on planetary assaults that is intent to not simply state "Space Marines win, the end".)

[Iron Lord]

What about Horus Heresy novels and short stories?

 

In those, the Thunderhawk isn't portrayed as "impervious to aircraft attack". Indeed, the Marines complain that it's "mass-produced rubbish" and one says "I could spit through its hull" (and the other points out that, with acid saliva, there aren't many hulls he couldn't spit through).

[Piousservant]

What about Horus Heresy novels and short stories?

 

In those, the Thunderhawk isn't portrayed as "impervious to aircraft attack". Indeed, the Marines complain that it's "mass-produced rubbish" and one says "I could spit through its hull" (and the other points out that, with acid saliva, there aren't many hulls he couldn't spit through).

 

 

I think the point there was comparing the mass-produced T-Hawk with the pre-Heresy era Stormbirds, etc which were apparently far superior craft (It's one of those things the reader is supposed to find ironic, one of the pinnacles of the Astartes 41st millenium armoury was considered inferior back in the days of the Heresy). To be honest, it's a pretty common theme in 40k...

 

 

 

The problem with Gee's view, IMHO, is that it supposes the Rebel PDF are able to achieve a massive concentration of force in one location. They may have 10,000 Hydras, but if they mass them in one place, that leaves the entire rest of the planet without any. Either that or the rebel planet is somehow able to mass sufficient forces to fight an entire Company of Astartes at every single strategic node at the same time. That's a major assumption and not very likely to boot.

 

The simple fact the Astartes are in orbit makes a massive difference. For a start, they are able to deploy by Thunderhawk, Drop Pod or teleport anywhere on the planet which will make anticipating an attack and responding very difficult.

Also, why would they not make use of orbital bombardments? They might avoid targetting population centres (depends on the chapter I suppose) or high value industrial targets, etc but the Kethra example mentions that they completely dismantled the planets military. Most military bases, etc are not located in the middle of a major metropolitian area. So why not use orbital bombardment against any exposed military facilties? For example, if they were worried about enemy air superiority they could destroy a large proportion, perhaps most, of a planets air power in a prelimary bombardment before they launch drop pods against strategic targets.

[Marshal Rohr]

I think in any fictional setting the amount of men required to win or the amount of men defeated depends largely on the story the author is trying to develop.

 

If A D-B wants to write an awesome story of a companies last stand against rebels, then clearly the rebels were capable of beating the marines.

 

If Matt Ward wants to write a blurb about Marneus Calgar sodomizing Khaine and castrating Slaanesh, then clearly Marneus was capable of doing that.

 

Because its fiction.

 

There is no point anymore in trying to decide if 10 Companies of Marine could occupy a world, or if 10,000 man legions were too small, simply because it isnt important to the 'story' of 40K.

 

It isnt the invasion of Iraq, figuring out an optimum order of battle is cool filler, but remains unimportant to the grander end of days theme.

[Pulse]

Because its fiction.

 

There is no point anymore in trying to decide if 10 Companies of Marine could occupy a world, or if 10,000 man legions were too small, simply because it isnt important to the 'story' of 40K.

 

It isnt the invasion of Iraq, figuring out an optimum order of battle is cool filler, but remains unimportant to the grander end of days theme.

Fiction can be credible, and in most cases (outside 40k) it is.

 

The trouble is if you look at most 40k subjects, even at a glance, they crumble instantly.

[Gree]

So, is an Imperial Armour book describing near impervious Thunderhawk armour considered a neutral source? Or is it biased, because that volume happened to focus on Space Marines?

 

It is a neutral source. Forge World is dedicated to treadheads, not Astartes, and the same volume described the Inquisition as well.

 

As for the Thunderhawk description, we got a nice hyperbolic description, but actual examples as afforded by the later Imperial Armor books show them to hardly be impervious. We have examples of them being turned away by AA fire and being forced to avoid air-defense networks. The description offered in the Thunderhawk profile is also rather vague. Not all interceptors are of equal speed or armament and not all anti-aircraft guns are equal in effectiveness of caliber. It also does not tell how many anti-aircraft guns were fired at the Thunderhawk.

 

Do you seriously expect me to believe a Thunderhawk could survive being shot at by a hundred Hydras? Or survive being shot at by a defense laser?

 

Also, I'd say two Space Marine Codices in a row giving the same specs can be seen as the trumping authoritative source, whereas a "neutral" source not focused on Space Marines in particular might contain inaccuracies.

 

Unfortunately a biased source would take back seat to the….well you know, biased thing.

 

The intent behind a Codex Space Marines is to show how all of their gear works and all. The intent behind a Planetfall supplement book is to make it all work together somehow, and not have Space Marines dominate from the get go.

 

The intent of the Codex Marines is to hype them up so players will buy them. The intent of the Planetstrike book is to show how an orbital assault is conducted and get players excited to try that out as a scenario.

 

A: The fluff story in the "neutral" Planetfall book is correct, the two Codex descriptions are false, and Space Marines therefor largely incapable to assault planets.

 

Oh, they are perfectly capable of planetary assaults, if they had more numbers and combined arms elements to make it work. 1000 Astartes is simply to few.

 

B: The general capability description given in two Space Marine Codices is correct, the Planetfall story is an odd exception/inaccuracy, and Space Marines are therefor quite capable to assault planets.

 

This seems to be pretty unlikely.

 

But then if the descriptions in the Marine Codices are correct then I must accept the fact that the enemies the Astartes fitgh are complete idiots. Judging by their tactical abilties that does not seem to be the case.

 

Also, on the matter of "neutral" sources: Wouldn't the Warhammer 40K Rulebook be the ultimate "neutral" and authoritative source?

 

That would purely be an opinion.

 

And thus it's descriptions of general Space Marine capabilities trump stories from other sources that have a particular agenda? (Such as an Imperial Armour volume including a lot of new Tau units, or a supplement focusing on planetary assaults that is intent to not simply state "Space Marines win, the end".)

 

Perhaps but other descriptions of armies in the rulebook tend to have the same hyperbolic shooty death-kill vague descriptions that accompany it that say ''this race is awesome buy me''.

 

When naturally determining what army will beat who, it is important to factor in leadership, numbers, capabilities of each soldiers, terrain, tactics used and the defenses deployed. We are given hyperbolic descriptions of Space Marines being awesome, and then we are given actual examples which seemingly show their enemies to be quite stupid.

 

I mean, let me give this as an example. ‘’Give me a hundred Space Marines or give me a thousand other troops’’- Rogal Dorn. That’s a nice example of this vague, hyperbolic fluff that has been on the background for a few editions now. It sound cool but what does a thousand other troops mean? Is one Space Marine worth ten Necrons? Ten Eldar Aspect Warriors? Ten Kroot? If we assume Guardsmen then you have many different types of Guardsmen each with their own specialty and training. Are Astartes worth Ten Conscripts? Ten Kaskrin? Ten Catachans?

 

And the rulebook seems to contridict itself.

 

It may take one, two, or a dozen such strikes to bring a capmaign to a victorious end, but victory is never in doubt. Whilst a Space Marine still draws breath he will fight and whilst a Space Marine fights, triumph remains in his grasp.

 

This passage here in the rulebook effectively states that Astartes will always win and that victory is never in doubt. This is obviously quite false as the rulebook later shows examples of Astartes being beaten and being forced to retreat and suffering from tactical draws. Honestly? While I would consider each of the rulebook descriptions I take them with a pinch of salt on every one.

 

Of course the descriptions in the rulebook and of the Marine Codex can be quite true if we assume ''most enemies'' to be complete idiots unable to use their war machine in a competent fashion.

 

But then again, the rulebook does not answer a question of how say, 3,000 Astartes and their attendent fleet would defeat 2 Billion orks of their tens of thouands of warships. I suspect nobody can really figure out a logical way for that to happen. If Battlefleet Gothic is even remotely like it's fluff counterpart then the ork fleet would swar aside the Astartes with ease.

 

The problem with Gee's view, IMHO, is that it supposes the Rebel PDF are able to achieve a massive concentration of force in one location. They may have 10,000 Hydras, but if they mass them in one place, that leaves the entire rest of the planet without any.

 

Why would they do that? Just put 50-60 Hydras in each important location.

 

Either that or the rebel planet is somehow able to mass sufficient forces to fight an entire Company of Astartes at every single strategic node at the same time. That's a major assumption and not very likely to boot.

 

It is perfectly possible. Do you have any idea how many soldiers a planet with earth’s six billion man population can churn out? Millions of millions without strain and tens of millions with ease.

 

It is perfectly possible and completely practical.

 

The simple fact the Astartes are in orbit makes a massive difference. For a start, they are able to deploy by Thunderhawk, Drop Pod or teleport anywhere on the planet which will make anticipating an attack and responding very difficult.

 

The defendfers simply have ot wait in important locatiosna dn fight a defenseive war to their benefit. Any direct orbital assault on the defenses will fail due to stuff like defense lasrs and anti-aircraft weapons.

 

Also, why would they not make use of orbital bombardments?

 

Void Shields of course, Imperial planets have them. I have already covered this.

 

Most military bases, etc are not located in the middle of a major metropolitian area. So why not use orbital bombardment against any exposed military facilties

 

And why exactly would those military faculties not be defended against orbital bombardment? Seems rather stupid to me.

 

And of course modern military bases usually don't have to face the threat of orbital bombardment. Bases in the 40k universe however, would logically have ot face that threat and should be designed accordingly.

 

For example, if they were worried about enemy air superiority they could destroy a large proportion, perhaps most, of a planets air power in a prelimary bombardment before they launch drop pods against strategic targets.

 

And why is this airpower now in a void-shielded hanger? Again, seems awfully stupid to leave them out to be destroyed by orbital bombardment.

[Octavulg]

You're assuming void shields are very common.

 

That seems debatable at best.

[Gree]

You're assuming void shields are very common.

 

That seems debatable at best.

 

Vervunhive had a void shield. Helsreach had a void shield. Taros, a mining world in the end of nowhere was said to posses orbital defenses that made an Astartes orbital assault impossible, (Although that was after the Tau arrived) Vraks, a armoury planet with a 12 million population had void shields and many defense lasers (Although admittedly, Vraks was noted to be strategically important).

 

Honestly? I seems any Imperial world of any kind of importance has void shields of some sort. I see no reason to doubt otherwise.

[Sturnn]

But assaulting well defended possitions is not the way how Astartes are used...it is Imperial Guard job. Astartes are using tactics where they can deploy in numers very close to enemy, where they supreme skill etc can be used to the maximum. So attacking the hive city with void shields and huge number of forces defending it would be stupid from Astartes point of view. If they would want such city bring to knees they could deploy some small squad to inflirtate into the city and get the shield down. There is examples where even mass attack of thousand strong army could do nothing if the void shields are up ( Dan Abnett's Necropolis). Some one here misunderstood Astartes role in Imperium's Forces.

[Gree]

But assaulting well defended possitions is not the way how Astartes are used...it is Imperial Guard job. Astartes are using tactics where they can deploy in numers very close to enemy, where they supreme skill etc can be used to the maximum. So attacking the hive city with void shields and huge number of forces defending it would be stupid from Astartes point of view.

 

Then an force would be quite safe staying in the city now would it? Any reasonable and competent general would thus do that right?

 

If they would want such city bring to knees they could deploy some small squad to inflirtate into the city and get the shield down.

 

Now, what would happen if you stuck a few thousand troops and a few hunderd tanks around the generator and guarded it zealously with lots of renforcements in easy reach?

[Piousservant]

Why would they do that? Just put 50-60 Hydras in each important location.

 

It is perfectly possible. Do you have any idea how many soldiers a planet with earth’s six billion man population can churn out? Millions of millions without strain and tens of millions with ease.

 

It is perfectly possible and completely practical.

 

Well we're going to have to disagree. The background supports Space Marines being able to take a world, so I don't understand why you make basically decide to add assumptions that contradict that. The idea that most worlds must have millions of soliders stood around every single strategic point waiting around just doesn't make any sense to me. Nothing in the background suggests that every Imperial world is the kind of fortified stronghold that you think it is, sure those worlds exist but I don't see it being feasible for the Imperium to maintain that sort of force on every world, especially with the tithing of Guard regiments, etc on top.

 

 

The defendfers simply have ot wait in important locatiosna dn fight a defenseive war to their benefit. Any direct orbital assault on the defenses will fail due to stuff like defense lasrs and anti-aircraft weapons.

 

Well that would make Planetstrike a rather pointless game, wouldn't it...?

 

 

 

Void Shields of course, Imperial planets have them. I have already covered this.

 

And why exactly would those military faculties not be defended against orbital bombardment? Seems rather stupid to me.

 

And why is this airpower now in a void-shielded hanger? Again, seems awfully stupid to leave them out to be destroyed by orbital bombardment.

 

 

That's a lot of void shields... The main hive(s) may have one (ala Verunhive, Helsreach, etc) but I don't expect every single military installation to have one. It's just not practical. That would be like expecting every US military base in the Cold War to have been hardened against nuclear attack. It's just not feasible.

[JamesI]

It seems to me that this thread almost immediately slipped off topic after the previous moderator intervention.

 

The topic is not could a Space Marine chapter attack and conquer a world. It is a legion.

 

Lets not have this become even more circular. In my opinion, the discussion of biased sources is irrelevant to the discussion. One author can decide to write where marines are basically immortals who smash aside any opposition, and in another source write how 20 guardsmen repelled a marine invasion. It comes down to what works for that particular story as the authors are not required to keep consistent with previous works.

 

Keep it to the capabilities of a marine legion and not how the sources are biased or this thread will go away with prejudice.

[Gree]

Well we're going to have to disagree. The background supports Space Marines being able to take a world, so I don't understand why you make basically decide to add assumptions that contradict that.

 

Then you would explain to me why a world of six billion people cannot put out tens of millions of soldiers? That’s actually a low number. We have examples in the rulebook itself of worlds offering 50 million soldiers per years as part of a typical draft.

 

The idea that most worlds must have millions of soliders stood around every single strategic point waiting around just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Strangely though, it does make perfect sense if you have ever studied a real war or the art of logistics. Crack open a book on World War II.

 

Again, we have examples smack dab in the rulebook of worlds putting out 50 million soldiers per year.

 

A world of six billion people can easily put out tens of millions of soldiers. Funny when you apply actual logistics and common sense to a setting.

 

Nothing in the background suggests that every Imperial world is the kind of fortified stronghold that you think it is, sure those worlds exist but I don't see it being feasible for the Imperium to maintain that sort of force on every world, especially with the tithing of Guard regiments, etc on top.

 

I am assuming that if a world rebelled they would quite naturally expect an reprisal from the Imperium. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to assume they would raise a huge army to prepare for the inevitable counterattack.

 

And no, the examples I put are hardly a fortified stronghold. Emperor forbid if I put the Astartes against a real fortress world like Cadia or Boros Prime.

 

Well that would make Planetstrike a rather pointless game, wouldn't it...?

 

I’m not sure how games stats matter. If Space Marines were like the fluff then that would make every tabletop game with them quite pointless now would it?

 

That's a lot of void shields... The main hive(s) may have one (ala Verunhive, Helsreach, etc) but I don't expect every single military installation to have one. It's just not practical. That would be like expecting every US military base in the Cold War to have been hardened against nuclear attack. It's just not feasible.

 

And why would these bases not be placed inside the void shield’s protection of the main hives?

 

EDIT: Apologies I posted a second after you did I did not see your statement JamesI

 

It seems to me that this thread almost immediately slipped off topic after the previous moderator intervention.

 

The topic is not could a Space Marine chapter attack and conquer a world. It is a legion.

 

Lets not have this become even more circular. In my opinion, the discussion of biased sources is irrelevant to the discussion. One author can decide to write where marines are basically immortals who smash aside any opposition, and in another source write how 20 guardsmen repelled a marine invasion. It comes down to what works for that particular story as the authors are not required to keep consistent with previous works.

 

Keep it to the capabilities of a marine legion and not how the sources are biased or this thread will go away with prejudice.

 

However a Heresy-era Legion force is divided into chapters. These chapters would logically be expected to take a world. Thus determining their capabilities is entirely relevant to that of a Legion’s overall conquest power. If we are investigating a Legion’s capabilities then naturally it will come to Chapter sizes as they are a sub-unit of the Legion.

[Marshal Rohr]

Legions also have things chapters dont. Tank companies (Battle of Tallarn), Air Wings (Dark Angels Short Story), Combat Serfs (Calibanite Jaegers), Assault Companies (World Eaters), Dedicated space combat forces (Soul Drinkers Novels), etc.

 

These things add entirely new capabilites to marine forces unseen in Chapters.

[Gree]

Legions also have things chapters dont. Tank companies (Battle of Tallarn), Air Wings (Dark Angels Short Story), Combat Serfs (Calibanite Jaegers), Assault Companies (World Eaters), Dedicated space combat forces (Soul Drinkers Novels), etc.

 

These things add entirely new capabilites to marine forces unseen in Chapters.

 

Oh I do note that, I was trying to detirmine if the Astartes themselves could take a planet without those additions.

 

But correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Chapters have assault companies?

[Marshal Rohr]

They have Assault Companies comprised of assault squads. Thats way different to an assault company who acts as the assault element in missions.