I have be wondering this for a while and since i am starting my own game soon i would like to ask every one what modern weapon system would u count the heavy stubber has. To me in my mind i see it as an M-60 style weapon. Does this sound right to u or is it more like a .50 cal browning.

Your thoughts on this would be help full as i am planning on mounting one on a 6x6 scout car for the team later on in the game. thank you

An M60 is a pretty good equivalent, though it's a bit bulkier. (As with all things 40k.)

I'm with the M60 camp. Seems about a good estimate.

I'm actually going to disagree here and say that a .50 cal Browning is a better approximation of a Heavy Stubber than a M60.

Heavy Stubbers are large, bulky things, and while an M60 is big, there's no trouble at all running around with it, although the aim is likely terrible unless you brace.

Do a quick search for Heavy Stubber on Google and look at the pictures. Then do the same for a .50 Cal Browning and M60. A Heavy Stubber, with a few exceptions, looks like it's directly inspired by the .50 Cal Browning.

That said, there are easily room for some interpretation, and there's nothing wrong with approximating it to an M60. Either would probably work mounted on a scout car, anyway.

Put me in the .50 or other Heavy MG camp

I thought that M60s were .50 cal...? In any event, basic weapon terms in 40K are broad enough to encompass multiple designs. For example, an 'Autogun' can be anything from a modern AR15 to a WWI Thompson.

M60s are chambered in 7.62mm.

But I certainly agree that the term allows for multiple interpretations. The "classic" heavy stubber that you sometimes see depicted on artwork or miniatures looks very much .50 Browning'ish to me (based solely on size and shape), but that doesn't mean that this has to be the only valid design. After all, there is nothing to prevent people from building smaller (or larger) weapons based on the very same principle; they'd just potentially slip into a different category depending on what exactly you end up with.

Now, is an M60 a light Heavy Stubber, or a Heavy Autogun? You decide. It could even depend on the planet, if you look at the Catachans.

(on the right: Games Workshop / Citadel Miniatures Arbites/Enforcer with Heavy Stubber, Necromunda)

I'm gonna go with a Browning 1919A6.

I like the

browning 1919A6 a 30-06 round makes more sense to me. To me a .50 cal would be a vehicle mount so i will go with both as a heavy stubber..

I always thought the heavy stubber was the equivalency of the MK19 40mm machine gun.

How about a Bolter? What modern weapon would that be?

My bet is: the AA12:

Because it fires these babies:

It even comes as a stormbolter pintle mount!

I always thought the heavy stubber was the equivalency of the MK19 40mm machine gun.

Another good example!

Me, I'd probably classify as the other end of the scale, as opposed to an M60 being a "lite" version and the .50 Browning being the happy medium.

Hmm. Makes me wonder whether an M249 would still be a "small heavy stubber" or a "heavy autogun", now. Where would you people draw the line, given that there seems to be a fluid transition from one category into the other?

How about a Bolter? What modern weapon would that be?

My bet is: the AA12

It's the best equivalent I can think of, too. It's almost the same calibre, too (12G = cal .729).

"Just" take its explosive rounds and add a rocket motor. Done!

Bolters really have no modern comparison.

Perhaps the closest would be the gyrojet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet

We are talking about firearms with incredible penetration power and explosive power.

Some bright sparks did the calculations that a Space Marine bolter round could penetrate the front armour of an M1 Abrams tank.

Bolters really have no modern comparison.

Perhaps the closest would be the gyrojet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet

We are talking about firearms with incredible penetration power and explosive power.

Some bright sparks did the calculations that a Space Marine bolter round could penetrate the front armour of an M1 Abrams tank.

Hee hee. 'Calculations' of 40k things amuse me. They're realistically impossible, though, because the canon can't make up its mind how powerful anything is, or even what anything *does*. Are Bolters powerful anti-infantry weapons capable of taking down light tanks, or are they powerful armor-piercing rounds with the capability of taking down infantry? Even the explosive capacity is sometimes strong enough to always kill a humanoid in one shot, utterly devastating anything weaker than a Space Marine, to taking several shots to reliably kill anyone. Sometimes Bolter Rounds can penetrate Power Armor with only minor difficulty, other times it bounces off it like water guns against, well, Power Armor.

(And this is nothing next to the canon issues with Lasguns, which range from flashlights that sting when they touch you, all the way up to tank-melting superguns.)

(And this is nothing next to the canon issues with Lasguns, which range from flashlights that sting when they touch you, all the way up to tank-melting superguns.)

Since they have introduced hot shot lasguns in second edition, this should somewhat ease your pain.

The problem with the lack of canon has come up in my games before, but as to guns and ammo, it isn't that big of a problem in my opinion. In Deathwatch they introduced different patterns for the same gun. I really like that notion and it gives you a lot of freedom to give more options to your players. It is also a great explanation for the differences in power levels between the "same" weapon.

"Man, those guardsman can't shoot for ****!"

"Yeah, but can you blame them? The Administratum really have been busting their balls, sending them those Infuriator -pattern lasguns."

"Throne on Terra, those men are fragged. Wasn't the Infuriator the one with which you could more easily shoot around a corner than in a straight line?"

"That's the one mate. I'm pretty sure the local PDF is better equipped than these buggers."

(And this is nothing next to the canon issues with Lasguns, which range from flashlights that sting when they touch you, all the way up to tank-melting superguns.)

Since they have introduced hot shot lasguns in second edition, this should somewhat ease your pain.

The problem with the lack of canon has come up in my games before, but as to guns and ammo, it isn't that big of a problem in my opinion. In Deathwatch they introduced different patterns for the same gun. I really like that notion and it gives you a lot of freedom to give more options to your players. It is also a great explanation for the differences in power levels between the "same" weapon.

I'm less referring to Dark Heresy rules issues, and more with the 40k Canon as a whole. Not that I have an issue with the weapon powers being different: My issue is when people try and translate 40k Gear into real life, or compare it to other game or movie universes. I saw an argument once comparing Master Chief to a Space Marine (Who would win, etc,) and people in support of the Space Marine winning kept referencing the toughest possible versions of Space Marines when arguing that they would win, and everyone in favor of Master Chief winning kept referencing the weakest possible version of Space Marines. (On the Tabletop, ten or eleven grots will beat a Space Marine in a shootout. In Dark Heresy, four or five Acolytes are about an even match, and that's at level 4-5, in some books, one Marine will beat two or three Bloodletters, or be outclassed by one, or hold back dozens. And this isn't including some of the more far-fetched examples.

I'm less referring to Dark Heresy rules issues, and more with the 40k Canon as a whole. Not that I have an issue with the weapon powers being different: My issue is when people try and translate 40k Gear into real life, or compare it to other game or movie universes. I saw an argument once comparing Master Chief to a Space Marine (Who would win, etc,) and people in support of the Space Marine winning kept referencing the toughest possible versions of Space Marines when arguing that they would win, and everyone in favor of Master Chief winning kept referencing the weakest possible version of Space Marines. (On the Tabletop, ten or eleven grots will beat a Space Marine in a shootout. In Dark Heresy, four or five Acolytes are about an even match, and that's at level 4-5, in some books, one Marine will beat two or three Bloodletters, or be outclassed by one, or hold back dozens. And this isn't including some of the more far-fetched examples.

Assault on Blackreach is a beautiful example of high-end Space Marine feats. 100 Space Marines solo a Waaagh, and took less than a dozen casualties, one individual literally going toe-to-toe with a Killakan and fighting it to a draw with his bare hands, while another squad took a hit from a tactical nuke, and the only one that actually died was the one the nuke landed on (and there was still enough of him left afterwards to identify and recover the gene seed).

Though in general, we can use Tabletop stats to get an approximate estimate of Space Marine capabilities. As far as Tabletop stats are, we need to realize that a Space Marine can literally dismantle a light tank with his bare hands, shrug off pretty much anything short of anti-vehicle weaponry most of the time, and is tough enough that anything weaker than a Bolter has immense difficulty causing one significant injury. A Space Marine in Tabletop can literally be INSIDE an exploding vehicle and walk out without a scratch on him. This seems consistent with the average Space Marine feats, outliers being particularly exceptional or relatively poor Space Marines (excluding the Horus Heresy novels from this assessment).

Also, with regards to Acolytes, a group of 4-5 Acolytes is generally pretty formidable. No, they're not godslaying heroes, but assuming the Acolytes are somewhere around rank 5-7, they're already on their way to becoming Interrogators or Inquisitors themselves, and have quite a bit of experience under their belts. They're formidable adversaries for the most part, exceptions being to non-combat specialists, and I'd still favor the Space Marine in a bout with all but the most well equipped group of Acolytes.

Perhaps the closest would be the gyrojet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet

Why gyrojets? Bolt weapons, at least how they are commonly understood nowadays, have a two-stage firing mechanism - they're not just missiles, but the rounds are ejected through the barrel by a conventional charge. Hence they have casings.

Whether you add a casing and propellant to a gyrojet missile, or a rocket motor to a shotgun slug, sounds like the same to me. However, with the AA-12 you at least get about the same calibre and ruggedness already built-in as part of the package.

Though in general, we can use Tabletop stats to get an approximate estimate of Space Marine capabilities. As far as Tabletop stats are, we need to realize that a Space Marine can literally dismantle a light tank with his bare hands, shrug off pretty much anything short of anti-vehicle weaponry most of the time, and is tough enough that anything weaker than a Bolter has immense difficulty causing one significant injury. A Space Marine in Tabletop can literally be INSIDE an exploding vehicle and walk out without a scratch on him. This seems consistent with the average Space Marine feats, outliers being particularly exceptional or relatively poor Space Marines (excluding the Horus Heresy novels from this assessment).

With the tabletop, are you referring to Games Workshop's game? If so, I think you may be overestimating the stat differences. They are undoubtedly notable, but are (1) apparently reachable by non-Astartes Humans and (2) do not have a gap as vast as you make it sound like.

I mean, even with lasguns it's "only" a difference between 50% (vs T3) and 33% (vs T4) to incapacitate the target.

As far as I'm concerned, I certainly like to think of the tabletop as a good indicator for a balanced perspective of the setting, as it was created by the fathers of the IP and is one of the very few sources that provides us with cold, hard numbers whilst treating every race equally instead of having "plot armour" as it exists in some stories - but what I am drawing from there doesn't sound very similar to your summary.

Also, I have a feeling that what is an "average" Space Marine feat depends a lot on what kind of books one has read, given how so many authors have so many different ideas on this subject.

Though in general, we can use Tabletop stats to get an approximate estimate of Space Marine capabilities. As far as Tabletop stats are, we need to realize that a Space Marine can literally dismantle a light tank with his bare hands, shrug off pretty much anything short of anti-vehicle weaponry most of the time, and is tough enough that anything weaker than a Bolter has immense difficulty causing one significant injury. A Space Marine in Tabletop can literally be INSIDE an exploding vehicle and walk out without a scratch on him. This seems consistent with the average Space Marine feats, outliers being particularly exceptional or relatively poor Space Marines (excluding the Horus Heresy novels from this assessment).

That's not really accurate, though, the way you describe. I was being serious when I mentioned that ten grots of all things will beat a Space Marine on the tabletop. Let's go down some things piece by piece:

For 'Literally dismantling a light tank with his bare hands', that's true of tanks with a rear armor value of 10, yes. On average, though, it's also never, ever going to happen with a single Space Marine. Even assuming he charges the vehicle every turn, it'll take THIRTY TURNS to destroy a vehicle with 3 Hull Points. (Which almost every light transport does, with very few exceptions.) Thirty Turns isn't very specific, but I think a turn is about thirty seconds per turn. Give me a chainsaw and fifteen minutes, I could also disable a transport vehicle with no armor plating.

Shrugging off Anti-Vehicle weaponry: Once again, only technically true. (And I think you mean anti- armor , since hotshot lasguns and other low Strength high AP weapons still ruin a Space Marines day.) It takes about ten S3 hits to kill a Space Marine, assuming average dice. For reference, ten Guardsmen could put out twice that much firepower in one turn, and once you account for their average BS than you've got one dead Space Marine. Shrugging off a single shot from a Lasgun is not impressive, even a Guardsman will survive a single Lasgun hit about 60% of the time. An Ork Boy with 'Eavy armor will survive a Lasgun hit around 82% of the time. At 90% of the time, a Space Marine is only barely tougher than an Ork Boy with some metal plates welded to his chest. (And once again, that's not particularly durable.)

Being inside an exploding vehicle is once again technically true, but equally misleading. Like everything else. For people who don't play the tabletop game, if you're in an exploding vehicle you take a single S4 hit. (A unit of ten guys would take 10 S4 hits.) That is the same strength as a Bolter hit. And, to use a similar metaphor to a moment ago, even a Guardsman will survive this about half the time, and a slightly-armored Ork Boy will survive this nearly as well as a Space Marine.

Now, let's compare this to some of the things you mentioned in the Black Reach books:

Assault on Blackreach is a beautiful example of high-end Space Marine feats. 100 Space Marines solo a Waaagh, and took less than a dozen casualties, one individual literally going toe-to-toe with a Killakan and fighting it to a draw with his bare hands, while another squad took a hit from a tactical nuke, and the only one that actually died was the one the nuke landed on (and there was still enough of him left afterwards to identify and recover the gene seed).

100 Space Marines versus a WAAAGH: Heh heh, nope. That would never, ever happen on the tabletop. You don't mention the size of the WAAAGH, but even if it were just a thousand Ork Boys, the Marines wouldn't stand a chance. Even if it were a thousand Ork Boys versus Terminators all armed with Lightning Claws and Cyclone Missile Launchers, it would be *close*, and way more than a dozen Marines would die.

A Space Marine versus a Killa Kan? Well, a Space Marine has a 1/9 chance of even glancing a Killa Kan in combat (If he uses Krak Grenades,) can't hurt him with 'Hand to hand', and a Killa Kan has a 50/50 (or so) chance of out-right killing an average marine in one hit. So... Nope. Not gonna happen. Keep in mind, Killa Kans are the *weakest* close-combat Walker in the game.

Tactical Nuke: Hee hee, no. That squad is dead. The closest thing to a Tactical Nuke on the tabletop is a Destroyer Weapon, which has a 5/6ths chance of causing at least D3+1 automatic wounds. Seeing as Space Marines all have one wound...

My point is, you're making a silly comparison.

I was using the Assault on Blackreach as an example of High-End Space Marine feats-- probably the higher end, at that, while I'd consider the depiction of Space Marines in the Ciaphas Cain novels to be a little closer to what I'd consider the average (they're impressive, but not withstanding tactical nuke impressive).

Incidentally the Waaagh in Assault on Blackreach was a couple hundred thousand strong. I believe the only "onpage" casualties was the one that took the nuke to the face, and a Terminator that ended up going up against the Warboss and was shredded by its Power Klaw.

And no, I meant Anti-Vehicle weaponry, since, as you pointed out, anti-armor weaponry tends to ruin a Space Marine's day. By the same token though, a Space Marine can take a direct hit from a Tyranid Tyrannofex's Rupture Cannon, and is going to be ok, more than fifty percent of the time. Fire that same Rupture Cannon at a Rhino or Devilfish and odds are that vehicle's going belly-up.

As for the dismantling vehicles with their bare hands, I concede that I originally made that analogy way back in 5th Edition when glancing hits could still result in vehicles losing weapons or becoming permanently immobilized-- ie. A Space Marine could literally rip the main gun off a Predator tank with his bare hands in a single round.

... or chew it off with his acid saliva!

... or chew it off with his acid saliva!

Speaking of, that's one of the most ridiculous things in the Daemonhunters book. A Space Marine's saliva is arguably a more effective weapon than a frigging battleaxe (at least against anyone wearing armor).

At least acording to the fluff not all chapters can do it. (Cause they don't possess the implant organs)

Yeah i gotta agree it's a bit silly. I can just see a bunch of space wolves taking their helmets off...

Space wolf sergeant: " Right lads 'ere they come! Le'em 'ave it! skronk, chrrrr ptui!"

And they all start spitting at the enemy. LOL!

I love the idea of acidic saliva, can see it having lots of practical applications for a Space Marine, I just think the profile they gave it in the Daemonhunters book was absolutely ridiculous. Granted, most of a Space Marine's gear is better but dear god, it has comparable armor penetration to a plasma gun, if I remember right (I seem to remember it having a penetration value of 5 or so).

Good lord, that's a caustic loogy!