Board Thread:Warhammer 40k General Discussion/@comment-24228596-20140130122711/@comment-3258762-20140205163431

.Talik wrote: then again, so is armor, yet the space marines still use that. Anyways, I disagree because naval ships have the capacity to build a much larger platform for weapons than land, so I think they could use antiorbital weaponry to counter orbitting starships. And anyways, most of the firepower still isnt aerospacecraft, its land vehicles and battleships and cruisers. Armor is not redundant, either version of it. If you meant tanks, they can carry stronger weaponry than any Space Marine ever could. If you mean body/power armor, you're just silly if you think that's not helpful.

How can a naval ship build a larger platform for weapons than anything land based? Land is often times bigger than a ship. Land can also take more weight than a ship. Ships sink, solid landmasses don't.

Battleships and cruisers fire in space, not often onto a planet. It's too devastating, it's like saying "Yeah, aircraft don't do much because we have nuclear bombs." land vehicles were explained above. Aircraft strafe over the battlefield, but a tank stays put. No, naval warfare is nearly redundant in the era of efficient Void-to-Orbit aircraft.