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.
Ok, fair enough. But to be "weaker (per points) against anti-elite weapons such as plasma or hotshots, better against small arms such as lasguns and bolters." I think that's basically Priamris with their 2W. It takes more Lasguns to take one down, but it's a better return ppw when Plasma, etc. is fired at them.
Yes! I said that. The Intercessors have the proper marine durability. This is why I think the Primaris statline should be the starting point to any attempted marine fix; it can actually work.
Do that and then there's no reason to have Intercessors. They'd just be marines with AP -1 Bolters. Which would, in turn just be worse Sternguard, who would have AP -2 bolters.
I don't think it's a good fix anyways, to just neuter the damage output of normal infantry further down than it is. When it takes 40 lasgun shots to kill a marine, I think it's too many. Imo more dynamic for the game to boost their offense.
Asherian Command wrote:
"2W would help but so would a reroll, The reroll adds more durability but slows down the game.
Possibly just giving all marines on base a 6+ Invulnerable save would probably help."
This wouldn't help. The only common weapons with AP -4 are wraithguard and melta. Everything else will leave you with a 6+ armor save, making the invulnerable unnecessary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: There is something wrong with them dying to weight of fire when the weight is so easily attainable.
Orks with 5 attacks per model with exploding 6s and baked in rerolls?
Guardsmen with 3 attacks per model? 4 shots per gun in rapid fire? Dirt cheap mortar spam, wyverns, etc?
Fire Warriors with 30" rapid fire guns wounding on 3s?
Weight of dice is a joke in this game right now.
No, weight of dice is the only thing besides plasma spam that works on marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: I think marine resilience should be such that they lose less points than guardsmen against small arms. That should be the point of the power armour. It is obviously fine for them to lose more points against dedicated anti-elite weapons, such as plasma. Intercessors actually achieve this.
So as Insectum 7 posted, keep things the same than.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I think they want 70% offense, 70% defense, and 30% utility.
Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:
1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.
2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.
3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.
4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.
5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.
So, you're willing to add 1, 2, 3, and 5 to inquisitors, both types of sisters, and custodes then?
Are they ADEPTUS ASTARTES keyword? Can you read?
I can in fact read! However, the points I referred to are equpiment based, and those armies have access to the same or better equipment. Try being less aggressively offensive, your heart will thank you.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/12/14 00:28:48
Do that and then there's no reason to have Intercessors. They'd just be marines with AP -1 Bolters. Which would, in turn just be worse Sternguard, who would have AP -2 bolters.
Forget the minimarines. Squat minimarines or combine the Intercessors with the Tacticals, I don't care. The point is that Intercessors have the profile marines need to have.
I don't think it's a good fix anyways, to just neuter the damage output of normal infantry further down than it is. When it takes 40 lasgun shots to kill a marine, I think it's too many. Imo more dynamic for the game to boost their offense.
You cannot achieve the situation where the small arms are less effective against marines than the guardsmen under the current, system, unless you give marines two wounds. Otherwise you'd need to drop the marine point cost really low, turning them into a semi horde army, and that's just wrong.
Do that and then there's no reason to have Intercessors. They'd just be marines with AP -1 Bolters. Which would, in turn just be worse Sternguard, who would have AP -2 bolters.
Forget the minimarines. Squat minimarines or combine the Intercessors with the Tacticals, I don't care. The point is that Intercessors have the profile marines need to have.
Well, I'll never agree to that. I love my minimarines and my Tac squads in Rhinos and Pods. And I'm not rebuying/repainting my reinforced company. I'd prefer to keep adding to it, rather than replace it.
I don't think it's a good fix anyways, to just neuter the damage output of normal infantry further down than it is. When it takes 40 lasgun shots to kill a marine, I think it's too many. Imo more dynamic for the game to boost their offense.
You cannot achieve the situation where the small arms are less effective against marines than the guardsmen under the current, system, unless you give marines two wounds. Otherwise you'd need to drop the marine point cost really low, turning them into a semi horde army, and that's just wrong.
OR, you make marines better against the light infantry, and use fire and maneuver tactics instead of castling defensively. Strike fast and lethal, minimize the weapons the enemy can bring to bear, and don't get bogged down. Far better way to go, imo.
OR, you make marines better against the light infantry, and use fire and maneuver tactics instead of castling defensively. Strike fast and lethal, minimize the weapons the enemy can bring to bear, and don't get bogged down. Far better way to go, imo.
But you cannot do that without at the same time making the marines better against marines too! That's the whole fething problem! Unless you start to add some weird gimmickly special rules or give marines S2 weapons with insane amount of shots, any increase in their offensive power will increase their offensive power against other marines too, in most cases in greater degree. I am not quite sure you understand the math involved here.
Crimson wrote: I really don't think this game needs more rerolls. The durability buff the marines need is to move fully to Primaris and either nerfing or increasing the cost of some of the D2 weapons in the game.
2W would help but so would a reroll, The reroll adds more durability but slows down the game.
Possibly just giving all marines on base a 6+ Invulnerable save would probably help.
A 6+ invulnerable save? This is an excellent idea, at least in the rules we use. I'll be sure to mention this idea to our group.
Of course, we don't play 8th Ed., and our 15 point marines are still viable.
Blndmage wrote: If people are worried about durability, why not have a reroll on any successful roll to wound any ASTARTIES INFANTRY.
It'd be an ASTARTIES only thing.
Rerolls slow down the game as is.
I think the best thing for marines is the ability to ignore all weapons with a strength less than the marines toughness lowers that ap - by 1.
So
Iron within Iron Without (something along those lines)
Due to having superior toughness than most beings and near inhuman ability to recover from almost any wound. Space Marines may ignore 1 ap from any ranged weapon or close combat weapon if the opposing unit or weapon has less total strength than the toughness of the space marine.
It would make bikes very powerful, aggressors incredibly durable, and all space marine tanks ungodly powerful. This would have to be fine tuned but marines are already expensive removing combat squads for that ability would make them the most durable units in the game. Especially their vechiles and dreadnoughts.
This is how you get people to refuse to play against marines.
That effects less than 10% of weapons in the entire game.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
OR, you make marines better against the light infantry, and use fire and maneuver tactics instead of castling defensively. Strike fast and lethal, minimize the weapons the enemy can bring to bear, and don't get bogged down. Far better way to go, imo.
But you cannot do that without at the same time making the marines better against marines too! That's the whole fething problem! Unless you start to add some weird gimmickly special rules or give marines S2 weapons with insane amount of shots, any increase in their offensive power will increase their offensive power against other marines too, in most cases in greater degree. I am not quite sure you understand the math involved here.
Yes, yes you can do that. The bad ap system from 3rd - seventh editions did exactly that it made bolsters much better against guardsman than marines. You are right that blanket ap-1 on bolters is a bad idea, that’s what happened in second edition and marines almost never got their 3+.
It’s also true that basic troops in the intro army shouldn’t have a raft of bespoke special rules, rerolls, or exploding attacks those are all terrible. The situation of tough marines with feeble attacks is not a good base for an army, so using the basic rules of the game, marines have to be good at killing 5+ and even 4+ save units.
The great thing about the solution of giving OldMarines +1W/+1A and AP-1 on their basic bolter/chainsword weaponry is that it's already been playtested for 18 months. Intercessors are just fixed Tactical Marines. They aren't going to set the world on fire but they do a decent job of filling the role of troops, they have reasonable firepower and durability, and most importantly they feel like Space Marines to play. Their only real issue is that they could stand to drop a couple of points - I would say the sweet spot is 15pts for an Intercessor with a Bolt Rifle.
Yes giving Marines AP-1 hurts Marines more than other units, but by also giving them an extra wound they have a net gain in durability. You can't just do one part of the solution (+1 Wound OR +1 Attack OR an extra AP on Bolters/Bolt Pistols/Storm Bolters/Hurricane Bolters/Heavy Bolters/Chainswords/Combat Knives), you need to go the whole hog and give all 3 to have a working solution.
It's time to lay OldMarines to rest. Its 200+.M42 now; all the OldMarines have died from attrition or taken the Rubicon process to become Primaris. Keep all the old favourite loadouts like Tactical Squads and Terminators and Crusader Squads and Long Fangs, but accept that they have steel cables in their muscles now and fix the rules with a solution that has been proven to work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: But you cannot do that without at the same time making the marines better against marines too! That's the whole fething problem! Unless you start to add some weird gimmickly special rules or give marines S2 weapons with insane amount of shots, any increase in their offensive power will increase their offensive power against other marines too, in most cases in greater degree. I am not quite sure you understand the math involved here.
The maths show that the only possible weapon profile that is more efficient at killing Guardsmen than Marines is Str2 AP0 with a bucketload of shots. But that doesn’t work either, since such a weapon is weirdly effective at tank-hunting; it causes the exact same number of wounds against a Warhound Titan as it does a Space Marine!
2 wounds is the solution to Marines’ durability, and +1 Attack and AP-1 on their basic weaponry is a workable solution to their lack of offensive punch. We’ve already seen this in the wild - I don’t understand how people could take issue with the Primaris statline (aside from it being perhaps a touch too expensive).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/14 01:29:29
Blndmage wrote: If people are worried about durability, why not have a reroll on any successful roll to wound any ASTARTIES INFANTRY.
It'd be an ASTARTIES only thing.
Rerolls slow down the game as is.
I think the best thing for marines is the ability to ignore all weapons with a strength less than the marines toughness lowers that ap - by 1.
So
Iron within Iron Without (something along those lines)
Due to having superior toughness than most beings and near inhuman ability to recover from almost any wound. Space Marines may ignore 1 ap from any ranged weapon or close combat weapon if the opposing unit or weapon has less total strength than the toughness of the space marine.
It would make bikes very powerful, aggressors incredibly durable, and all space marine tanks ungodly powerful. This would have to be fine tuned but marines are already expensive removing combat squads for that ability would make them the most durable units in the game. Especially their vechiles and dreadnoughts.
This is how you get people to refuse to play against marines.
That effects less than 10% of weapons in the entire game.
By number, not by deployed on the table top. When you look at them by deployment it's closer to 80%
That way I see it, there are three possible solutions to the Power Armor Problem aka MEQ Stat line sucks:
Reprice Infantry: Reevaluate the points value of all basic infantry in the game with around the comparable effectiveness of a specific unit (Infantry Squad or Tactical Marine). This keeps the MEQ Statline as it is for all those Marine Models in existence. It is the path of least resistance as it doesn't require a rewrite of the rules and publishing of 8 new Marine Codexes (Imperial and Chaos), just new points values.
Primarisize Them: Abandon the old Marine Statline by upgrading all non-Primarus Marines that have 1 wound (or 2 in Terminator Armor) with an extra wound and extra attack. Suddenly Marines are a lot more resilient and a lot more dangerous in Close Combat. Their Shooting isn't any better, but Marines are shock troops, not a gunline.
Special Rules: Load up Marines with Special Rules to increase their effectiveness. They should be simple and fast, but not anything that changes the actual rules for the wargear they have causing knockoff effects to other armies. The big problem I see here is that so many good Marine +1 abilities are already in use that their really isn't anything to give them that doesn't steal somebodies thunder. Death Guard have FNP sowed up. Thousand Sons grabbed +1 Save versus D1 weapons. Extra Hits/Attacks on rolls of 6 are already claimed by multiple Factions or weapons.
So really, I think that repricing Infantry overall is the right way to go. Given the effectiveness of large models like Knights, I'm hesitant to suggest increasing the cost too much on the low end, so I think 5 Point Infantry Squad and 11 Point Tactical Marine are the right waypoints to evaluate Infantry Model cost around.
alextroy wrote: That way I see it, there are three possible solutions to the Power Armor Problem aka MEQ Stat line sucks:
Reprice Infantry: Reevaluate the points value of all basic infantry in the game with around the comparable effectiveness of a specific unit (Infantry Squad or Tactical Marine). This keeps the MEQ Statline as it is for all those Marine Models in existence. It is the path of least resistance as it doesn't require a rewrite of the rules and publishing of 8 new Marine Codexes (Imperial and Chaos), just new points values.
Primarisize Them: Abandon the old Marine Statline by upgrading all non-Primarus Marines that have 1 wound (or 2 in Terminator Armor) with an extra wound and extra attack. Suddenly Marines are a lot more resilient and a lot more dangerous in Close Combat. Their Shooting isn't any better, but Marines are shock troops, not a gunline.
Special Rules: Load up Marines with Special Rules to increase their effectiveness. They should be simple and fast, but not anything that changes the actual rules for the wargear they have causing knockoff effects to other armies. The big problem I see here is that so many good Marine +1 abilities are already in use that their really isn't anything to give them that doesn't steal somebodies thunder. Death Guard have FNP sowed up. Thousand Sons grabbed +1 Save versus D1 weapons. Extra Hits/Attacks on rolls of 6 are already claimed by multiple Factions or weapons.
So really, I think that repricing Infantry overall is the right way to go. Given the effectiveness of large models like Knights, I'm hesitant to suggest increasing the cost too much on the low end, so I think 5 Point Infantry Squad and 11 Point Tactical Marine are the right waypoints to evaluate Infantry Model cost around.
That’s a good write up of the situation, but I think it misses something critical: player satisfaction.
The last option, special rules, makes the game big and unwieldy. A good example is Custodes in 30k - they have the rules they need to make them play how they should, but there just so many rules going on that both players lose track of what’s happening. I think we can eliminate this as an option.
The first option, points rescaling, is as you say the path of least resistance. But it also offers the least player satisfaction - Marines end up as a semi-horde army that doesn’t play how people want them to play.
The second option, Primarisising, gives the most player satisfaction by making the army play how people want them to play, without bogging down the army in a mire of special rules.
OR, you make marines better against the light infantry, and use fire and maneuver tactics instead of castling defensively. Strike fast and lethal, minimize the weapons the enemy can bring to bear, and don't get bogged down. Far better way to go, imo.
But you cannot do that without at the same time making the marines better against marines too!
OR, you make marines better against the light infantry, and use fire and maneuver tactics instead of castling defensively. Strike fast and lethal, minimize the weapons the enemy can bring to bear, and don't get bogged down. Far better way to go, imo.
But you cannot do that without at the same time making the marines better against marines too!
So what? I really don't see that as a problem.
"The only thing that could an Astartes, is another Astartes" - Horus Rising
I don't see it as a problem either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/14 03:38:48
"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.
To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle
You don't see it as a problem that it is impossible to have a weapon that is better against guardsmen than it is against marines? Well, we're not going to agree then, I think it is a pretty huge problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/14 07:46:47
AP-1 on bolters is a bad idea. I mean it could be ok, but only if ALL the other former AP5 weapons in the game got AP-1 as well. That means that the former AP4 become AP-2 now (like heavy bolters, autocannon, etc...), the current AP-3 become AP-4 (yeah more powerful diss cannons)....
I don't think SM need more powerful weapons, they've already got a grapton of effective options to chose from, they don't need to be more resilient as well. They lack one thing only: synergies between the army that aren't pure re-rolls on shooting. Psychic powers, stratagems and auras, synergies in close combat. Those things SM need.
You don't see it as a problem that it is impossible to have a weapon that is better against guardsmen than it is against marines? Well, we're not going to agree then, I think it is a pretty huge problem.
I may be missing some context but i'm pretty sure a boltgun kills more guardsmen per shot than it does marines. The rest is just points.
You don't see it as a problem that it is impossible to have a weapon that is better against guardsmen than it is against marines? Well, we're not going to agree then, I think it is a pretty huge problem.
I may be missing some context but i'm pretty sure a boltgun kills more guardsmen per shot than it does marines. The rest is just points.
Yes, the points are kinda big deal. It kills more points of marines than guardsmen. For that not to be the case marines should cost ten points. Do we want that?
You don't see it as a problem that it is impossible to have a weapon that is better against guardsmen than it is against marines? Well, we're not going to agree then, I think it is a pretty huge problem.
I may be missing some context but i'm pretty sure a boltgun kills more guardsmen per shot than it does marines. The rest is just points.
Yes, the points are kinda big deal. It kills more points of marines than guardsmen. For that not to be the case marines should cost ten points. Do we want that?
What's your point? This has been the case since the RT days. And it will continue to be true as long as a SM costs more pts than a guardsman.
You don't see it as a problem that it is impossible to have a weapon that is better against guardsmen than it is against marines? Well, we're not going to agree then, I think it is a pretty huge problem.
I may be missing some context but i'm pretty sure a boltgun kills more guardsmen per shot than it does marines. The rest is just points.
Yes, the points are kinda big deal. It kills more points of marines than guardsmen. For that not to be the case marines should cost ten points. Do we want that?
10-11 pts sounds about right for a marine, given the context of other infantry, so yes we want that. Though I'd prefer that overperformers (guard, skitarii, DE) go up rather than marines go down because it keeps that space from getting crammed. I had hoped 5 pt cultist and 7 pt boyz heralded as much but... no.
Keep your fancy marine fixes for next edition, cuz they ain't happening anytime soon.
What's your point? This has been the case since the RT days. And it will continue to be true as long as a SM costs more pts than a guardsman.
No, it hasn't always been the case. Due the AP change guard resilience against small arms has markedly increased, whilst the marines remained the same. Do the math.
What's your point? This has been the case since the RT days. And it will continue to be true as long as a SM costs more pts than a guardsman.
No, it hasn't always been the case. Due the AP change guard resilience against small arms has markedly increased, whilst the marines remained the same. Do the math.
True, but marines became more resilient against the former AP2 and AP3 which completely bypassed their save in the previous edtitions and now they roll 5+ or 6+ saves.
As I said if bolters become AP-1 then all the other weapons in the game should follow the same example and SM will become even less resilient than now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/14 08:44:47
to me the issue is less "power armour" but GWs inability to price the robustness and survivability of models generally, when the game was mostly infantry the T4 3+ save marine was pretty good, especially with the old AP system. The problem is now the game is larger, there are a lot more heavier weapons so the marine, while still identical in stats, like a lot of "elite" models simply isn't as effective as they were because they are a lot easier to remove.
with the current point system there are as I see it three potential solutions.
1. re-work the cover system to make *all* infantry more robust, .g. give heavy weapons -1 to hit v infantry, when they hit they hit hard but they don't hit as often - you use faster firing anti infantry weapons v infantry - in effect give infantry some cover v some weapon types all the time
2. make more elite models cheaper, to reflect they die reasonably easily, applies especially to the basic marine, less so to the 2W primaris and less still to those with 3+ wounds. side effect of this is you start to see a fair few more marines on the table and other elites
3. up the cost of the cheaper infantry to be more in line with the elites, creates space for the truly dire and makes infantry more equal, also means you will seldom see it and the game focuses on larger models
of the three personally I'd suggest a combination of 1 & 2, essentially saying that infantry can fight infantry well, and anti-infantry weapons become the weapons of choice for shooting infantry, not anti armour ones. plus a smaller reduction in infantry costs.
this promotes more of a combined arms approach, you can then have elite infantry more expensive than the troops of the same faction, but more capable and critically, more survivable
to me the issue is less "power armour" but GWs inability to price the robustness and survivability of models generally, when the game was mostly infantry the T4 3+ save marine was pretty good, especially with the old AP system. The problem is now the game is larger, there are a lot more heavier weapons so the marine, while still identical in stats, like a lot of "elite" models simply isn't as effective as they were because they are a lot easier to remove.
with the current point system there are as I see it three potential solutions.
1. re-work the cover system to make *all* infantry more robust, .g. give heavy weapons -1 to hit v infantry, when they hit they hit hard but they don't hit as often - you use faster firing anti infantry weapons v infantry - in effect give infantry some cover v some weapon types all the time
2. make more elite models cheaper, to reflect they die reasonably easily, applies especially to the basic marine, less so to the 2W primaris and less still to those with 3+ wounds. side effect of this is you start to see a fair few more marines on the table and other elites
3. up the cost of the cheaper infantry to be more in line with the elites, creates space for the truly dire and makes infantry more equal, also means you will seldom see it and the game focuses on larger models
of the three personally I'd suggest a combination of 1 & 2, essentially saying that infantry can fight infantry well, and anti-infantry weapons become the weapons of choice for shooting infantry, not anti armour ones. plus a smaller reduction in infantry costs.
this promotes more of a combined arms approach, you can then have elite infantry more expensive than the troops of the same faction, but more capable and critically, more survivable
Except 3 is needed as fundamentally different power models are being costed the same as the granularity has been wiped from the game with the current points.
1&2 probably need to happen aswell but fundamentally powrr armour of all flavours stops looking so trash tier if 4ppm Guard are 5ppm especially if combined with 40ppm CC order bags.
As I said if bolters become AP-1 then all the other weapons in the game should follow the same example
Why?
What law set in stone mandates that this be true?
If your justification is only that ‘last edition bolters were AP5 like Shuriken Catapults and Shootas and so on, so they should be the same AP now’ is the same ‘7th Edition thinking in 8th Edition’ that have us the travesty of a Mortal Wound mechanic.
If your justification is that Marines don’t need the boost, have you played Marines this edition?
If your justification is that AP-1 would be too big a boost on Marines, have you played Primaris Marines this edition?
If your justification is that it doesn’t make lore sense for Marines to have stronger guns, there is no basic infantry in 40k lore can go 1-1 with a Marine and expect to win. (Aside from Custodes, but they’re kind of a special case.) Bolters are described as doing ungodly things to fleshy targets and pushing through armour effectively. Also remember that Gauss weapons have AP-1 and Shurikans have rending.
Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:
1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.
2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.
3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.
4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.
5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.
So, you're willing to add 1, 2, 3, and 5 to inquisitors, both types of sisters, and custodes then?
Yes I regularly play SW and they do fine outside tournaments lists. Not a single time I felt like bolters should have been AP-1. We already have heavy bolters, assault cannons and we can spam stom bolters for dirt cheap to clear infantries. We've got a crapton of ranged effective anti tank weapons as well.
I don't play primaris because I despise the models.
I think marines need other kinds of boosts. More effective psychic powers, stratagems, chapter traits, characters' auras that are not flat re-rolls on shooting and more synergies in close combat.
The AP-1 on bolters not only is unfair, but also un-needed since you can boost SM a lot in the shooting phase but if you keep playing them like they were AM-1 or tau they will always struggle. Weapons like orks deffguns, which are meant to be devastating and huge, get AP-1. Heavy bolters also, etc... it would be a bad game design to give regular bolters a better AP.
At the moment no basic infantry will win against a marine in a 1:1 match.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/14 11:02:32
For everyone calling for point decrease on a marine to anywhere between 10-13 points I see that having a significant knock on effect compared to other troops.
My elder Guardian defenders are 8ppm, have to buy a platform to field special weapons (so costs significantly more than having marine #143 a plasma gun) 3 T, 5+ and a 12" gun. The shuriken catapult might be a better gun once in range but short of CP spending or investing in other methods of getting that guardian upfield its pretty crappy.
Dire Avengers are what, 11-12 points each in recent CA and I think they're fair for the cost, and I view marines in the same way. Just give Astartes Bolters (all 'Bolters' Storm Bolters, bolt carbines, Stalker bolters, bolt rifle, but not heavy bolter, no need to step on Ass cannons feet) +1 shot and call it a day.
Marines are relatively durable individually and are supposed to be shock troops, extra shots on the infantry weapons would help I believe and give incentive to move into rapid fire range to really lay the hurt, wjhilst letting that Tac squad output reasonable fire whilst bunkering down.
Next best is to embrace your Primaris overlords and let us Eldar and Chaos daemon players wish we had as much access to 3+ on troop choices. (I miss T4 bloodletters, seriously!)
Isn't the problem the over abundance of high powered weaponry? Why not increase the price of all weapons. Perhaps start with doubling the cost of all weapons and modify from there.
5300 | 
2800 | 
3600 | 
1600 | 
