It occurs to me - the rules don't say Marauders are 2 Dice Per Marauder - the rules say that they lose half as many dice (rounding down).
It could easily be argued (and I'll probably house rule it) that the player losing Dice allocates them to the Marauders Group or to the Normal Troops Group rather than to individual Marauders and Troops (with the caveat that you cannot allocate more dice than a group is able to lose).
In LBH's example of 3 Marauders and 2 normal Troops, when I allocate 3 of those dice to my Marauders, I don't say "This hit goes to Marauder 1, this hit to Marauder 2 ... " I say, "These three Hits to go my Marauders, so I lose one."
That way, Marauders are (IMHO) better balanced. They're still a force to be reckoned with, but they're not unstoppable juggernauts that are a Must-Have. It also means that the Hazat Galliot (which holds 10 Troops) isn't an unstoppable juggernaut. Because there is no way you can stop ten Marauders without either using the S&P Troops or having Ten Marauders yourself.
It also means the "rounding down" reference in the rules makes sense. (Page 16, again, BTW).
It could easily be argued (and I'll probably house rule it) that the player losing Dice allocates them to the Marauders Group or to the Normal Troops Group rather than to individual Marauders and Troops (with the caveat that you cannot allocate more dice than a group is able to lose).
In LBH's example of 3 Marauders and 2 normal Troops, when I allocate 3 of those dice to my Marauders, I don't say "This hit goes to Marauder 1, this hit to Marauder 2 ... " I say, "These three Hits to go my Marauders, so I lose one."
That way, Marauders are (IMHO) better balanced. They're still a force to be reckoned with, but they're not unstoppable juggernauts that are a Must-Have. It also means that the Hazat Galliot (which holds 10 Troops) isn't an unstoppable juggernaut. Because there is no way you can stop ten Marauders without either using the S&P Troops or having Ten Marauders yourself.
It also means the "rounding down" reference in the rules makes sense. (Page 16, again, BTW).