Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
That's going to be an interesting take, if in 2 months marines, admech, nids and harlies etc are having around a 50% winrate is that not evidence that general balance has improved?
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives). But it's the overall outcome that's more important than the method here imo.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
That's going to be an interesting take, if in 2 months marines, admech, nids and harlies etc are having around a 50% winrate is that not evidence that general balance has improved?
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives). But it's the overall outcome that's more important than the method here imo.
External balance? yeah
Internal balance is really the issue here however.
I never use the physical codex. At best, I buy it, register the code, then toss it on a shelf to collect dust while I use the app since the codex is going to be wrong and out of date anyways. Generally I just find someone else who doesn’t use the app and get their code from them though. The sooner GW stops wasting paper on books and goes all digital the better, but then they lose the excuse to overcharge repeatedly, so it so it ain’t gonna happen.
All it would mean is you pay same for just the code.
Or are you assuming by being digital it would be free? Digital!=free automatically
Also don't forget to increase the cost of the models by another couple of %.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives)
This is 100% a lie. There have been hundreds of suggestions on how to improve Marines.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives)
This is 100% a lie. There have been hundreds of suggestions on how to improve Marines.
Care to share? It's just been endless "they did it wrong" in here beyond the suggestion of make the marines cheaper and then cut the weapon option costs a little to give the exact same net outcome.
Care to share? It's just been endless "they did it wrong" in here beyond the suggestion of make the marines cheaper and then cut the weapon option costs a little to give the exact same net outcome.
Oddly enough that would give a worse outcome in most cases. By reducing the per-model points cost further than GW already did, we'd end up with skew lists where cheaper vehicles or 2W models can just be spammed. Most players will continue not paying any extra points for a storm bolter like before.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
That's going to be an interesting take, if in 2 months marines, admech, nids and harlies etc are having around a 50% winrate is that not evidence that general balance has improved?
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives). But it's the overall outcome that's more important than the method here imo.
The 'take' is I don't care about some sort of karmic balance in the reporting of winrates at curated and selected events. I want a fun game with good (or at least decent) mechanics. That's the only overall outcome that's important. The 'throwing crap at the walls and do it again 6 months later' doesn't matter for anything except some vague reporting of fuzzy statistics that don't affect much of anything beyond the scale of GW's over-reaction.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
That's going to be an interesting take, if in 2 months marines, admech, nids and harlies etc are having around a 50% winrate is that not evidence that general balance has improved?
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives). But it's the overall outcome that's more important than the method here imo.
The 'take' is I don't care about some sort of karmic balance in the reporting of winrates at curated and selected events. I want a fun game with good (or at least decent) mechanics. That's the only overall outcome that's important. The 'throwing crap at the walls and do it again 6 months later' doesn't matter for anything except some vague reporting of fuzzy statistics that don't affect much of anything beyond the scale of GW's over-reaction.
Is a fun game with interesting mechanics entirely divorced from a factions ability to win games? I do understand what you're saying because as a casual player who doesn't have to deal with meta lists etc I can field normal looking stuff and still have acceptably fair games. But surely it's better to have all factions have a capacity to be "good" at events?
Do you consider paying points for a gun a fun mechanic for that matter?
Marines having all their upgrades (or most) for free feels like 7th edition with marines having 600 points of free razorbacks per army and still sucking.
It is just a concesiong that they are utter garbage. I don't expect free upgrades to survive into 10th.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Free upgrades would be fine if GW hadn’t spent a lot of effort removing things that make war gear choices more significant.
It’s a symptom of a game that no one thing can fix it, and a company with no care to fix it,
The shift will happen, positive hype will sell lots of 40k for 10th and people say it’s popular so game is good.
It’s a bit sad honestly, because I can see a lot of effort from the writers seeming to try and please both a player base and a clueless management at times.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives)
This is 100% a lie. There have been hundreds of suggestions on how to improve Marines.
Care to share? It's just been endless "they did it wrong" in here beyond the suggestion of make the marines cheaper and then cut the weapon option costs a little to give the exact same net outcome.
There's a bunch in the Proposed Rules section over the last few months. Do you want me to spoon feed you the suggestions?
EviscerationPlague wrote: This is 100% a lie. There have been hundreds of suggestions on how to improve Marines.
Were any of them good suggestions?
It'd be foolish to pretend all were good suggestions obviously, but there's solid ones. Since I've joined this forum there has been absolutely been horrible ideas as there have been good ones. Main difference is that the bad ones here were basically half-baked whereas GW paid someone for this. Wargear shouldn't be free, period.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
That's going to be an interesting take, if in 2 months marines, admech, nids and harlies etc are having around a 50% winrate is that not evidence that general balance has improved?
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives). But it's the overall outcome that's more important than the method here imo.
The 'take' is I don't care about some sort of karmic balance in the reporting of winrates at curated and selected events. I want a fun game with good (or at least decent) mechanics. That's the only overall outcome that's important. The 'throwing crap at the walls and do it again 6 months later' doesn't matter for anything except some vague reporting of fuzzy statistics that don't affect much of anything beyond the scale of GW's over-reaction.
Is a fun game with interesting mechanics entirely divorced from a factions ability to win games? I do understand what you're saying because as a casual player who doesn't have to deal with meta lists etc I can field normal looking stuff and still have acceptably fair games. But surely it's better to have all factions have a capacity to be "good" at events?
Do you consider paying points for a gun a fun mechanic for that matter?
Is the gun a flat upgrade to the weapon it's replacing, yes or no?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/01/09 08:29:40
Voss wrote: So what exactly do you expect GW to do?
Expect? Nothing.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives)
This is 100% a lie. There have been hundreds of suggestions on how to improve Marines.
Care to share? It's just been endless "they did it wrong" in here beyond the suggestion of make the marines cheaper and then cut the weapon option costs a little to give the exact same net outcome.
There's a bunch in the Proposed Rules section over the last few months. Do you want me to spoon feed you the suggestions?[/spoiler]
Going back to June we have repeated "get rid of AoC" with no solutions given in the OP or combined with suggestions that equate to "lower the games AP". Give bolters better AP, which would level the playing field this edition but not actually help the core problem, a request for better missile launchers and an imperial fist wet dream asking for more AP and damage. Without resorting to "rewrite the AP values" I don't see any sensible or helpful suggestions.
If you know better then yes, I asked to be spoon fed.
Again: taking the current wargear costs of the most extreme example you're looking at a 5 man tac squad with multi melta, combi melta and thunder hammer for 135 points. That unit is now 90 points, so if you wanted to keep wargear costs and reach that points value you then need to drop marines to a whopping 9 points. Does that seem better? Lets assume not.
If you reduce them to 13 points, which is still an absurd number to be honest, make special weapons +5, heavies +10, fists/hammers +5, combi weapons +5 as flat rates you get a unit at the same price but suddenly you might as well only bring multimeltas and plasma again because they still cost the same. If you want to variance them out, feel free but I don't know how you'd make all those weapons be reasonable decisions inside a 5/10 point bracket. You'd also likely drop the sgt equipment to spam 5 man MM squads at 75 pts.
There is no solution without fixing the survivability of the models holding the guns which is a game wide change.
EviscerationPlague wrote: This is 100% a lie. There have been hundreds of suggestions on how to improve Marines.
Were any of them good suggestions?
It'd be foolish to pretend all were good suggestions obviously, but there's solid ones. Since I've joined this forum there has been absolutely been horrible ideas as there have been good ones. Main difference is that the bad ones here were basically half-baked whereas GW paid someone for this. Wargear shouldn't be free, period.
It's cost you nothing and not come out of your pocket, don't complain about pay.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
That's going to be an interesting take, if in 2 months marines, admech, nids and harlies etc are having around a 50% winrate is that not evidence that general balance has improved?
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives). But it's the overall outcome that's more important than the method here imo.
The 'take' is I don't care about some sort of karmic balance in the reporting of winrates at curated and selected events. I want a fun game with good (or at least decent) mechanics. That's the only overall outcome that's important. The 'throwing crap at the walls and do it again 6 months later' doesn't matter for anything except some vague reporting of fuzzy statistics that don't affect much of anything beyond the scale of GW's over-reaction.
Is a fun game with interesting mechanics entirely divorced from a factions ability to win games? I do understand what you're saying because as a casual player who doesn't have to deal with meta lists etc I can field normal looking stuff and still have acceptably fair games. But surely it's better to have all factions have a capacity to be "good" at events?
Do you consider paying points for a gun a fun mechanic for that matter?
Is the gun a flat upgrade to the weapon it's replacing, yes or no?
It is but that has nothing to do with whether buying upgrades with points is a "fun mechanic". Try answering the question rather than deflecting like normal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/09 09:15:52
I myself do find list building, of many types fun. Points, payments systems, campaign systems.
And what gear to take a fun part of a good meta game.
This goes for RPG and mechanics within a system that make choices relevant.
This of corse means upgrades, for a fun system like it. It’s very hard to build every option as effectively the same but different, when they are designing the game so focused on damage output as its primary interaction.
Apple fox wrote: I myself do find list building, of many types fun. Points, payments systems, campaign systems.
And what gear to take a fun part of a good meta game.
This goes for RPG and mechanics within a system that make choices relevant.
This of corse means upgrades, for a fun system like it. It’s very hard to build every option as effectively the same but different, when they are designing the game so focused on damage output as its primary interaction.
I think this sums it up perfectly, often there is a right/wrong choice with upgrades in 40k, often not due to the points itself but because everything is a linear kills more/less situation. There's fewer specialisations and meaningful upgrade options and those that are there are usually overshadowed by the kill more choice.
Dudeface wrote: There is no solution without fixing the survivability of the models holding the guns which is a game wide change.
Might be nitpicky, but you can do that indirectly. Increasing point costs for special weapons across the board for everyone and/or reducing the damage characteristic for a lot of weapons would be a viable approach. 40k is in a state where a significant change like this can not happen in a vacuum by itself. Which does not excuse why it should not be done.
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
Apple fox wrote: Free upgrades would be fine if GW hadn’t spent a lot of effort removing things that make war gear choices more significant.
It’s a symptom of a game that no one thing can fix it, and a company with no care to fix it,
The shift will happen, positive hype will sell lots of 40k for 10th and people say it’s popular so game is good.
It’s a bit sad honestly, because I can see a lot of effort from the writers seeming to try and please both a player base and a clueless management at times.
They've added tons to make various wargear significant.
In older editions you had plasma, because it killed literally everything.
Now, taking melta means you risk a swingy damage roll if you're not in half range and short range. Plasma lets you pick up W2/4, but comes at the risk of death to the user and still at a middling range. Lascannons are swingy, but beat the T8 breakpoint and do it from long range. Grav cannons are better than plasma at killing MEQ, but quickly become less useful outside that set of targets.
Flamers are the red headed step child, but marines CAN now pick up AP1. If they extended the CSM +3 to all basic flamers then they'd be a good option.
People might think there's no choice, because things are free, but if you follow community list building discussions it will be difficult to find a consensus on what the best list will be.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
That's going to be an interesting take, if in 2 months marines, admech, nids and harlies etc are having around a 50% winrate is that not evidence that general balance has improved?
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives). But it's the overall outcome that's more important than the method here imo.
The 'take' is I don't care about some sort of karmic balance in the reporting of winrates at curated and selected events. I want a fun game with good (or at least decent) mechanics. That's the only overall outcome that's important. The 'throwing crap at the walls and do it again 6 months later' doesn't matter for anything except some vague reporting of fuzzy statistics that don't affect much of anything beyond the scale of GW's over-reaction.
Is a fun game with interesting mechanics entirely divorced from a factions ability to win games? I do understand what you're saying because as a casual player who doesn't have to deal with meta lists etc I can field normal looking stuff and still have acceptably fair games. But surely it's better to have all factions have a capacity to be "good" at events?
Sure. But nothing GW has done actually does that for all factions. Or, honestly, any faction. Shuffling the karmic 'meta debt' around from faction to faction is a shell game, not a fair one.
Do you consider paying points for a gun a fun mechanic for that matter?
... no? I don't consider it a mechanic at all, for one thing, since it takes place outside the game, and is only a tiny piece of list building. That's like asking if each individual french fry is a meal.
Plus, I find fun in the system as a whole, not in the little pieces and sub-systems.
I think its a very necessary part of the point system that they currently use, since the various guns are very much not equal to each other.
If they want to overhaul and change the entire point system (or weapon system, like the Epic rules that generalizes small arms & AT weapons), we can talk about if points for weapons are truly necessary. In the system that currently exists? They absolutely are.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/01/09 14:57:27
Galas wrote: Marines having all their upgrades (or most) for free feels like 7th edition with marines having 600 points of free razorbacks per army and still sucking.
It is just a concesiong that they are utter garbage. I don't expect free upgrades to survive into 10th.
Still not a fan of people attempting to rewrite history. 7th edition SM were one of the top 3 armies. You had Eldar BS, you had Tau and you had Marines. If you really wanted to argue you could go back and forth between Marines and Necrons with their Decurion but realistically they were top tier.
Galas wrote: Marines having all their upgrades (or most) for free feels like 7th edition with marines having 600 points of free razorbacks per army and still sucking.
It is just a concesiong that they are utter garbage. I don't expect free upgrades to survive into 10th.
Still not a fan of people attempting to rewrite history. 7th edition SM were one of the top 3 armies. You had Eldar BS, you had Tau and you had Marines. If you really wanted to argue you could go back and forth between Marines and Necrons with their Decurion but realistically they were top tier.
Hm. I remember Eldar, Tau and Demons being the top tier at the end of the edition. Space Marines were good with grav-spamming biker senanigans and deathstars with invisibility, not spamming free razorbacks.
But I was not attempting to bring that chaos to this conversation. Just a point of feeling wrong to have your upgrades just free.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/09 17:26:27
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
That's a function of people being innately bad at statistics. The Sieglers and Cheemas probably already know the generic "best" option, although most of us have a practical fog of war and there may be dependencies
BrainFireBob wrote: That's a function of people being innately bad at statistics. The Sieglers and Cheemas probably already know the generic "best" option, although most of us have a practical fog of war and there may be dependencies
Okay, so what the dependency for a Bolter to be better than a Plasma Gun?
Voss wrote: So what exactly do you expect GW to do?
Expect? Nothing.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives)
This is 100% a lie. There have been hundreds of suggestions on how to improve Marines.
Care to share? It's just been endless "they did it wrong" in here beyond the suggestion of make the marines cheaper and then cut the weapon option costs a little to give the exact same net outcome.
There's a bunch in the Proposed Rules section over the last few months. Do you want me to spoon feed you the suggestions?[/spoiler]
Going back to June we have repeated "get rid of AoC" with no solutions given in the OP or combined with suggestions that equate to "lower the games AP". Give bolters better AP, which would level the playing field this edition but not actually help the core problem, a request for better missile launchers and an imperial fist wet dream asking for more AP and damage. Without resorting to "rewrite the AP values" I don't see any sensible or helpful suggestions.
If you know better then yes, I asked to be spoon fed.
Again: taking the current wargear costs of the most extreme example you're looking at a 5 man tac squad with multi melta, combi melta and thunder hammer for 135 points. That unit is now 90 points, so if you wanted to keep wargear costs and reach that points value you then need to drop marines to a whopping 9 points. Does that seem better? Lets assume not.
If you reduce them to 13 points, which is still an absurd number to be honest, make special weapons +5, heavies +10, fists/hammers +5, combi weapons +5 as flat rates you get a unit at the same price but suddenly you might as well only bring multimeltas and plasma again because they still cost the same. If you want to variance them out, feel free but I don't know how you'd make all those weapons be reasonable decisions inside a 5/10 point bracket. You'd also likely drop the sgt equipment to spam 5 man MM squads at 75 pts.
There is no solution without fixing the survivability of the models holding the guns which is a game wide change.
EviscerationPlague wrote: This is 100% a lie. There have been hundreds of suggestions on how to improve Marines.
Were any of them good suggestions?
It'd be foolish to pretend all were good suggestions obviously, but there's solid ones. Since I've joined this forum there has been absolutely been horrible ideas as there have been good ones. Main difference is that the bad ones here were basically half-baked whereas GW paid someone for this. Wargear shouldn't be free, period.
It's cost you nothing and not come out of your pocket, don't complain about pay.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
That's going to be an interesting take, if in 2 months marines, admech, nids and harlies etc are having around a 50% winrate is that not evidence that general balance has improved?
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives). But it's the overall outcome that's more important than the method here imo.
The 'take' is I don't care about some sort of karmic balance in the reporting of winrates at curated and selected events. I want a fun game with good (or at least decent) mechanics. That's the only overall outcome that's important. The 'throwing crap at the walls and do it again 6 months later' doesn't matter for anything except some vague reporting of fuzzy statistics that don't affect much of anything beyond the scale of GW's over-reaction.
Is a fun game with interesting mechanics entirely divorced from a factions ability to win games? I do understand what you're saying because as a casual player who doesn't have to deal with meta lists etc I can field normal looking stuff and still have acceptably fair games. But surely it's better to have all factions have a capacity to be "good" at events?
Do you consider paying points for a gun a fun mechanic for that matter?
Is the gun a flat upgrade to the weapon it's replacing, yes or no?
It is but that has nothing to do with whether buying upgrades with points is a "fun mechanic". Try answering the question rather than deflecting like normal.
1. There's been redoing of various Chapter Tactics, consolidation of unit entries, ways to redo the base weapon, redoing the statline itself, and THEN there's suggestions regarding fixing core rules that affect them OR how a bunch of armies having AP-1 base, which was just Necrons and Primaris Marines initially, and getting rid of that.
2. It doesn't matter if it costs us nothing. It's legit pathetic that GW paid for it and you're eating it up as brilliant.
3. Paying for a better weapon than a base weapon isn't a "mechanic", it's part of the list building, and free wargear is why a majority of players look at PL as a bunch of clowns making rules.
1. There's been redoing of various Chapter Tactics, consolidation of unit entries, ways to redo the base weapon, redoing the statline itself, and THEN there's suggestions regarding fixing core rules that affect them OR how a bunch of armies having AP-1 base, which was just Necrons and Primaris Marines initially, and getting rid of that.
2. It doesn't matter if it costs us nothing. It's legit pathetic that GW paid for it and you're eating it up as brilliant.
3. Paying for a better weapon than a base weapon isn't a "mechanic", it's part of the list building, and free wargear is why a majority of players look at PL as a bunch of clowns making rules.
1. OK, great, I meam half of those don't such as consolidation of profiles doesn't "fix" anything. Reducing AP across the board is the one thing we know they won't do, as previously mentioned.
2. I never said it was brilliant, it's actually one word nobody has used.
3. Glad you speak for the majority, welcome to the circus.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/01/10 06:52:40
1. There's been redoing of various Chapter Tactics, consolidation of unit entries, ways to redo the base weapon, redoing the statline itself, and THEN there's suggestions regarding fixing core rules that affect them OR how a bunch of armies having AP-1 base, which was just Necrons and Primaris Marines initially, and getting rid of that.
2. It doesn't matter if it costs us nothing. It's legit pathetic that GW paid for it and you're eating it up as brilliant.
3. Paying for a better weapon than a base weapon isn't a "mechanic", it's part of the list building, and free wargear is why a majority of players look at PL as a bunch of clowns making rules.
1. OK, great, I meam half of those don't such as consolidation of profiles doesn't "fix" anything. Reducing AP across the board is the one thing we know they won't do, as previously mentioned.
2. I never said it was brilliant, it's actually one word nobody has used.
3. Glad you speak for the majority, welcome to the circus.
You'd be in complete denial to think PL is the way even 15% of players make a list. It's irrelevant and frankly an lost building mechanic that the GW "rules writers" should be embarrassed about, because the concept itself is absurd and embarrassing.
Also how do none of those things in Point 1 fix anything? You asked what had been proposed, I have a quick list, and you just say "nah it doesn't fix it"? Bull gak
1. There's been redoing of various Chapter Tactics, consolidation of unit entries, ways to redo the base weapon, redoing the statline itself, and THEN there's suggestions regarding fixing core rules that affect them OR how a bunch of armies having AP-1 base, which was just Necrons and Primaris Marines initially, and getting rid of that.
2. It doesn't matter if it costs us nothing. It's legit pathetic that GW paid for it and you're eating it up as brilliant.
3. Paying for a better weapon than a base weapon isn't a "mechanic", it's part of the list building, and free wargear is why a majority of players look at PL as a bunch of clowns making rules.
1. OK, great, I meam half of those don't such as consolidation of profiles doesn't "fix" anything. Reducing AP across the board is the one thing we know they won't do, as previously mentioned.
2. I never said it was brilliant, it's actually one word nobody has used.
3. Glad you speak for the majority, welcome to the circus.
You'd be in complete denial to think PL is the way even 15% of players make a list. It's irrelevant and frankly an lost building mechanic that the GW "rules writers" should be embarrassed about, because the concept itself is absurd and embarrassing.
Also how do none of those things in Point 1 fix anything? You asked what had been proposed, I have a quick list, and you just say "nah it doesn't fix it"? Bull gak
I think there's about 4 of you on here that share your total disdain for PL, the vast majority seem to not really give a gak. It's used by the minority but the vast majority don't care that it exists in the first place contrary to your beliefs.
Also to quote my point prior to this chain:
There is no solution without fixing the survivability of the models holding the guns which is a game wide change.
But to respond comprehensively:
There's been redoing of various Chapter Tactics
Without further context that's like me saying "adjust points" which given one suggestion was "imperial fists can be in any doctrine they like with extra AP and damage", I'll pass.
consolidation of unit entries
How does this help rebalance marines beyond removing bolter variants or redundant options?
ways to redo the base weapon
This increases lethality which might help in 9th "kill or be killed" but is adding to the problem, not solving it
redoing the statline itself
Again, no context = no use, I'm pretty sure if you start making marines into custodes people will get upset and we begin the stat inflation all over again.
THEN there's suggestions regarding fixing core rules that affect them OR how a bunch of armies having AP-1 base, which was just Necrons and Primaris Marines initially, and getting rid of that.
Which they're not going to drop in a dataslate, but is ultimately the way forwards.
They've added tons to make various wargear significant.
In older editions you had plasma, because it killed literally everything.
Now, taking melta means you risk a swingy damage roll if you're not in half range and short range. Plasma lets you pick up W2/4, but comes at the risk of death to the user and still at a middling range. Lascannons are swingy, but beat the T8 breakpoint and do it from long range. Grav cannons are better than plasma at killing MEQ, but quickly become less useful outside that set of targets.
Flamers are the red headed step child, but marines CAN now pick up AP1. If they extended the CSM +3 to all basic flamers then they'd be a good option.
People might think there's no choice, because things are free, but if you follow community list building discussions it will be difficult to find a consensus on what the best list will be.
And that nuance was why, prior to the new codex after the IG patch came out, all the successful IG infantry squads had a lascannon and plasma.
5500 pts 
6500 pts 
7000 pts 
9000 pts 
13.000 pts 
