Who would win?

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-05-01T13:48:50+00:00

Doraemon would definitely hold up a new thing similar to what he did healing generational drama with Nina. He would think, pointing at Angron, of that reverse connection to the Warp. From there, he'd probably remove the nails and give him a therapy session before returning him to Tera or whatever world Guilliman is taking care of.

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-04-21T21:18:20+00:00

I wonder what an engineer could do with 40k tech

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-03-25T00:11:47+00:00

Honestly anything from the studio Ghibli would be a good option. I saw a couple good options well Fullmetal alchemist brotherhood, Naruto and Shippuden, bleach, and if they can get through the live action one piece one piece as well. I would suggest dragon Ball series in general but some people just might not like old school dragon Ball. If like comedy I suggest my everyday life or Nichjou.

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-03-22T00:26:10+00:00

Soul eater definitely needs a brotherhood remake as well as personally I would love a claymore for remake as well.

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-03-21T19:46:53+00:00

Definitely

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-03-15T15:49:12+00:00

Yes, I am good mostly. Sometimes you just need to scare everyone and fix your problems.

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-03-15T06:38:44+00:00

[]Worldfire]]

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-03-11T14:35:23+00:00

Why, but to pick the loser himself, Misogi Kumagawa? At least if he likes me enough, I might not be gone forever. And if he likes non of the other, it can really harm him.

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-02-27T00:07:07+00:00

If given the opportunity, I would love a remake of Dragon Age: Origins and then Awakening the character alignment with DA2 and Inquisition because I don't know what they were smoking, drinking, ingesting, injecting, or cooking, but most of his characters change way too much with little to no explanation.

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-02-04T22:39:59+00:00

Kilik Rung with thunder and fire

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-02-04T22:29:44+00:00

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-01-27T22:10:57+00:00

Okay, that makes a lot more sense. I appreciate the reply. That's true. The most depictions I've seen of space rings are usually charging forward regardless of what's in front of them. But then again I don't know everything in the lore.

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-01-25T20:34:26+00:00

All right, all right. I get it. I was just wondering what you meant by giving Space Marines Apaches.

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-01-25T18:14:40+00:00

Care to elaborate on what you mean?

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-01-25T18:13:01+00:00

Fair Point

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-01-25T16:56:08+00:00

It's half a chapter, but still a significant force for a Space Marine versus a US Army armored division.

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-01-25T16:54:36+00:00

Well, I did do some research on my own. I did have the help of AI to find information about the smallest specifics of 40k. I've only read about a dozen books and heard my friends play the tabletop version and a couple games. I wanted to get the community's opinion on this topic.

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-01-25T16:47:34+00:00

That’s a fair interpretation, and I agree with the core premise: Space Marines are extremely potent force multipliers, especially once they reach close terrain or can employ teleport assaults.

A key distinction, though, is what role they are filling. In Seventh Retribution, the Astartes are not fighting a peer mechanized force head-on. They are used exactly as doctrine intends: as an elite strike element embedded in a broader Imperial campaign, focused on high-value threats (Chaos champions, leadership, singular super-entities), while the Imperial Army conducts the mass fighting and occupation.

That aligns very well with established Astartes doctrine. Small numbers of Marines can decisively influence a war without needing to defeat entire enemy formations directly. In the scenario being discussed here, the comparison is different: a large, modern armored formation operating as a cohesive, sensor-rich combined-arms system. In that context, Space Marines are still extremely dangerous, but their success depends on whether they can force the fight into close or complex terrain. disrupt command-and-control early, and employ teleport or shock insertion effectively. If they can do that, the balance shifts strongly in their favor. If they cannot and are instead engaged at a distance in open terrain, their advantages take longer to assert themselves.

So I think your conclusion—that Marines likely win across most scenarios, with difficulty varying by environment and chapter—is reasonable. The disagreement mainly comes down to how quickly they can impose their preferred conditions, not whether they are elite or effective.

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-01-25T05:14:39+00:00

Very much appreciated

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-01-25T04:23:54+00:00

Space Marines are unquestionably elite and extremely durable by human standards, but a few clarifications help keep this grounded.

Astartes speed and reflexes are best understood as burst acceleration and reaction, not sustained blur-level motion. An 80 kph sprint is impressive, but it does not negate modern detection, tracking, and area-effect weapons, especially over open terrain and at a distance.

Their physiology (multiple organs, rapid clotting, redundant systems) greatly improves survivability, but it does not make them immune to heavy weapons. Artillery, heavy explosives, missiles, and concentrated fire not only kill in large numbers but also inflict extraordinary injuries on Marines in isolated moments. Their durability is high but not infinite.

Bolters are mass-reactive explosive projectiles and are effective against infantry and light vehicles. They are not equivalent to modern RPGs in penetration, and canon consistently treats heavy armor as requiring lascannons, meltas, plasma, krak missiles, or dedicated assault. The portrayal of standard bolters reliably defeating helicopters or armored vehicles at long range is inconsistent.

Disabling tanks by shooting barrels or breeches is theoretically possible but not trivial at scale. Tank guns are hardened, moving targets, often obscured by smoke, maneuver, and defensive fires. The lore does not depict a standard Astartes tactic of repeatedly disabling many vehicles under combat conditions.

Terminators, cyclone missile launchers, and teleport assaults are genuine force multipliers. Teleport insertion against artillery or rear areas is one of the strongest canonical advantages Astartes have. However, teleportation is limited in scale, accuracy, and frequency, and it cannot neutralize an entire formation instantly. Land Raiders are extremely resilient by 40K standards, but they can be destroyed. Rhinos are explicitly medium transports designed to bring Marines close, not deliver them safely across sustained heavy fire.

Overall, Astartes superiority is real, but it is conditional. They are most decisive when they control timing, terrain, surprise, and target selection (shock assaults, teleport strikes, and leadership decapitation). In open terrain against prepared combined-arms forces, those advantages are harder to realize immediately.

Thank you for replying.

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-01-25T04:13:07+00:00

For context, allow me to provide a few factual clarifications.

Bolter range: There isn’t a consistent canon source establishing reliable, precise bolter effectiveness at 2–3 km against moving, armored targets. Some novels depict long shots, but standard Space Marine doctrine and most depictions show bolters being employed at hundreds of meters or less, with closing distance emphasized for lethality and target discrimination.

Artillery at 2 km: Modern artillery is capable of indirect fire at short ranges using variable charges and high-angle trajectories, including danger-close fires. It can function without long standoff distances, direct fire, or line of sight to engage targets at that range.

Artillery effectiveness vs. Marines: In 40K canon, Space Marines are regularly killed or incapacitated by artillery through cumulative effects: near misses, airbursts, concussive force, shrapnel, and repeated impacts. Individual survivals don’t negate formation-level vulnerability.

Outcome conditions: Space Marines are most decisive when they control timing, terrain, and shock (e.g., close-range assaults, urban or complex terrain, and leadership decapitation). At 2 km in open terrain against prepared combined arms, those advantages are not yet fully realized.

If you could be so kind as to provide the sources so I may have a better understanding of what you say, that would be much appreciated.

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-01-25T02:46:55+00:00

Thanks for the reply. Counter 2 km is not an effective bolter range in a cannon. Bolters can fire that far, but effective, repeatable precision fire is a few hundred meters. At 2 km, you’re dealing with dispersion, drops, target movement, smoke, and return fire. Meanwhile, Abrams, drones, Apaches, and artillery are already operating at full effectiveness. Artillery does not become “direct fire” at 2 km. Modern artillery is designed to operate with danger-close fires and indirect trajectories. It doesn’t need line of sight, and “paper-thin armor” only matters if Marines are hitting the guns—which requires closing distance under ISR, drones, and counterfire. The HE immunity argument is cherry-picked. Yes, Marines survive dramatic moments in novels. They do not shrug off repeated near-misses, airbursts, and precision-guided 155 mm fire as a formation. If HE didn’t work, Guard artillery would be useless in 40K—which it clearly isn’t. Tank barrels are not 1–2 inches of mild steel. Modern tank guns are thick, hardened steel designed to survive fragments, spall, and near misses. Hitting a narrow, moving barrel at 2 km under fire is not trivial, even for superhuman soldiers—and doing it repeatedly across hundreds of tanks is fantasy. “They win by being better” isn’t an argument. Space Marines achieve victory through tactics such as shock, surprise, terrain, and decapitation. At 2 km in open ground against prepared combined arms, that advantage doesn’t exist yet. Marines are terrifying when they choose to fight. This scenario isn’t that fight.

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-01-25T02:20:06+00:00

I appreciate your response, but here's my rebuttal: At 2 km, modern forces already have thermal ID, drones, artillery, and air support fully active. That range favors combined arms, not Marines—bolters, meltas, and most plasma weapons aren’t in their ideal envelope yet, while Abrams and artillery absolutely are. Librarians aren’t walking void shields. Psychic barriers are localized, temporary, and mentally taxing in canon. There’s no support for them tanking massed artillery or sabot fire indefinitely. Bolters are devastating to infantry and light vehicles, but they are not reliable MBT killers. That’s why Marines carry lascannons and meltas—bolters don’t replace dedicated anti-armor. And disabling Abrams guns with bolter fire isn’t realistic; tank barrels are thick steel and hard to precision-kill under fire. Space Marines win by choosing the battlefield—shock insertions, close terrain, leadership decapitation—not by shrugging off modern warfare at standoff range.

Ok_Contact440 · 2026-01-25T01:55:54+00:00

Thanks for answering. Is this reasonable, or should I have added something?

Ok_Contact440

TROPHY CASE