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.

Tygre wrote:
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.

Its 5 fold

1) We almost double the shots from older editions, TL is now strait double the shots and its easier to get more weapons due to Detachments, I can have 18 units of 4 HB, or 4 ML, etc.. now. NO other edition could do this
2) AP breaks armor a bit everytime now, Marines used to always get 3+ saves on a large majority of weapons (Will add more to this in cover saves) and to add Bolters didnt get any ap at all...
3) Re-rolls are way to common now. Re-rolls used to be rare for hits and even more rare for wounds, now you can get at least re-rolls 1's to both for your full army without trying, and re-roll all kinda easily
4) Cover is MUCH harder to get and cover use to be an Invul save if it broke your army (well a save that cant be modified), so now with Cover only being a +1 sv, before when behind good cover Cover (there was 4 types of cover, 6+, 5+, 4+, 3+) it was at least a 4+ or 5+ save. AND much EASIER to get. Currently if a -3AP shot shoots you and in cover you only get a 5+ where before you could have gotten a 4+ (Cough, cough DE Dis Cannons), but it was easy to get 4+ as battlements were 4+ saves, and those are 100% gone now, Heck even against -4ap at least you could get a 5+ for behind behind almost anything.
5) This is Minor but its still important, SM lost attacks more than most armies (could have 3 attacks in melee, Sargent's could have 4 making PS's worth it, this is why Assault Marines are hot trash atm as well, lack of any damage other than from 2 specials. So they lost 2/3 of their melee hitting power as well. Marines used to be the "jack of all" but they completely lost their melee abilities, they are a joke in melee now.

SO...... TLR

At least a 50% increase in the amounts of Shots
AP always removes a part of the save
At least 33% in wounding shots via re-rolls Hits/Wounds
Cover is a joke
Melee is lacking by at least 50%

Tygre wrote:
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.

It is part of the problem but not the biggest problem. Even if you toned down all the shooting, all weapons would still kill more points of marines than of guard.

 Crimson wrote:

Tygre wrote:
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.

It is part of the problem but not the biggest problem. Even if you toned down all the shooting, all weapons would still kill more points of marines than of guard.

A: That's not auto-bad.

B: Are you taking morale into account?

I was really excited for 5ppm Guardsmen and 12ppm Marines. It would have really helped that issue. But without across-the-board nerfs to killiness, it wouldn't have done enough.

Most AP-1 needs to be AP0
Most AP-2 needs to be AP-1

Most good weapons need to cost more

 Insectum7 wrote:

A: That's not auto-bad.

I strongly disagree.

B: Are you taking morale into account?

Kinda, though it is rather difficult. Morale matters less in this edition than in the previous; that is another boost the guard got in the relation to the marines.


But frankly, if you're OK with super fragile marines with more offence, you can just play your Tacticals as Sternguard.

Just a complete aside, would there be any value to reducing Guard to getting 1 shot with their Lasguns and only getting Rapid Fire with orders - or would it make Guard infantry total trash?

As I recall, in early version of 40K only marines got rapid fire for a couple editions until it spread around to the likes of the guard.

 Stormonu wrote:
Just a complete aside, would there be any value to reducing Guard to getting 1 shot with their Lasguns and only getting Rapid Fire with orders - or would it make Guard infantry total trash?

As I recall, in early version of 40K only marines got rapid fire for a couple editions until it spread around to the likes of the guard.

Just giving marines their ap - 1 would be enough. People who say "well that will break the game!" Don't remember marines always having ap -1 on all their units.

Rapid Fire for guard is fine, its just that marines cannot do enough damage, giving them the ability to have far more damaging weapons will increase per a wound damage for a tactical marines. If a marine rapid fires into a squad of guardsmen right now there is a 2/6 chance of the guardsmen saving himself. With an AP-1 bolter now there is a 1/6 chance. (This is not counting all the previous damage)

Ap-1 would give marines far better options and would make terminators quite formindable as their main weapon is a storm bolter or combi-bolter.

It'd take a new edition, but if RF were just " you get one shot", and Marines special rule was "Your RF weapons get two shots at half range", it'd be interesting.

But the history of that rule is one of the reasons I'm so resistant to special rules for Marines. It's just an escalation. Special Rules nearly always propogate to others.

The other reason is look at CWE Aspect Warriors. They're basically "Marines, but super specialists instead of Super Soldiers". GW keeps giving them special rules. How fun is it to face all their special rules? Do you think we should have more of those in the game? And that's before you consider that the special rules don't always even make the unit good. When was the last time you saw DAs, Fire Dragons, Banshees, Scorpions, Spectres, Hawks, or Spiders at top tables? Spears and Reapers are hated for being Aspect Warriors, but most Aspect Warriors have special rules and aren't that great.

So I really don't think the answer is just tacking more special rules onto Marines. It won't help long term, and just makes the game worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Just giving marines their ap - 1 would be enough. People who say "well that will break the game!" Don't remember marines always having ap -1 on all their units."
Do you recall the stats of the other basic weapons at the same time? Didn't they also have much better stats?

1. This isn't true in the slightest. Twin linked wasn't common enough to double, or even give a 25% increase.
2.If looking at weapons in an absolute this is correct. But in practice everyone was maxing on plasma, grav, and melta, which all just flat out ignored 3+ armor. Now you're getting at least a 6+ against it, and a 5+ in cover.
3. For space marines. Rerolls are rarer for the other armies.
4. Yeah, cover isn't broken now. What do you mean that bush makes you immune to anti-tank lasers?
5. Space marines lost as many attacks by model, and fewer by army. Each army had something that could spam 3+ attacks/model without being a character. Take off the rose colored glasses.

So TL/DR
A slight increase in shot due to twin linked changes, and more due to larger armies in general.
AP only removes part of the save, rather than flat out ignoring it.
More like 16.5% increase in hits.
Cover is less broken.
Melee in still roughly balanced across all armies. Why are you trying to charge tac marines into ork boyz?




And I disagree with you. Strongly.

Moral hurts guard the most. Have you read the rules for commissars?


Automatically Appended Next Post:


This would make guard utter trash. Lasguns have been rapid fire since 3rd ed, as have (to my recollect) bolters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


As long as you change everyone's bolters, sure. Go for it.

Bharring wrote:
It'd take a new edition, but if RF were just " you get one shot", and Marines special rule was "Your RF weapons get two shots at half range", it'd be interesting.

But the history of that rule is one of the reasons I'm so resistant to special rules for Marines. It's just an escalation. Special Rules nearly always propogate to others.

The other reason is look at CWE Aspect Warriors. They're basically "Marines, but super specialists instead of Super Soldiers". GW keeps giving them special rules. How fun is it to face all their special rules? Do you think we should have more of those in the game? And that's before you consider that the special rules don't always even make the unit good. When was the last time you saw DAs, Fire Dragons, Banshees, Scorpions, Spectres, Hawks, or Spiders at top tables? Spears and Reapers are hated for being Aspect Warriors, but most Aspect Warriors have special rules and aren't that great.

So I really don't think the answer is just tacking more special rules onto Marines. It won't help long term, and just makes the game worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Just giving marines their ap - 1 would be enough. People who say "well that will break the game!" Don't remember marines always having ap -1 on all their units."
Do you recall the stats of the other basic weapons at the same time? Didn't they also have much better stats?

To answer this universal special rules used to be all over the place so... No. Infact many space marine units lost their special rules. Terminators, Vanguard, Sternguard for example all lost their special rules that made them quite powerful. Terminators lost their relentless special rule, Sternguard lost their special ammunition. Vanguard lost their heroic intervention ability. Land Raiders lost their ability to fire even when shaken etc. The whole point is marine squads were dumbed down too much. Their special rules mean nothing if they can't be used. Combat Squads is and will never be used now that CP generation is now a factor.

Ap-1 on bolters would go a long way to make marines viable. They have always had it. And most those other 'basic weapons' already have the correct stats or something to make up for it, bolters overall were completely nerfed, as were heavy bolters and storm bolters in terms of effectiveness.

As long as you change everyone's bolters, sure. Go for it.

Thats fine with me honestly.

Bolters are supposed to be terrifying on the field, and it would boost the power of grey knights to ludiciorus degree which I am a fan of. It will help every single faction that uses bolter weapons and that is completely fine. It also punishes eldar, orks, and tau considerably. And makes a Chaos Space Marine squads, Paladins, Deathwing, Sisters of Battle, very good and I am all for making all those races super viable like they are supposed to be.

 Asherian Command wrote:

As long as you change everyone's bolters, sure. Go for it.

Thats fine with me honestly.

Bolters are supposed to be terrifying on the field, and it would boost the power of grey knights to ludiciorus degree which I am a fan of. It will help every single faction that uses bolter weapons and that is completely fine. It also punishes eldar, orks, and tau considerably. And makes a Chaos Space Marine squads, Paladins, Deathwing, Sisters of Battle, very good and I am all for making all those races super viable like they are supposed to be.

The problem with that though is that the armies you want to punish already get shellacked by bolter fire. Sure they're more resilient than in 7th, but massed S4 hurts them.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

As long as you change everyone's bolters, sure. Go for it.

Thats fine with me honestly.

Bolters are supposed to be terrifying on the field, and it would boost the power of grey knights to ludiciorus degree which I am a fan of. It will help every single faction that uses bolter weapons and that is completely fine. It also punishes eldar, orks, and tau considerably. And makes a Chaos Space Marine squads, Paladins, Deathwing, Sisters of Battle, very good and I am all for making all those races super viable like they are supposed to be.

The problem with that though is that the armies you want to punish already get shellacked by bolter fire. Sure they're more resilient than in 7th, but massed S4 hurts them.

Not in terms of saves. S4 only helps a small bit. not completely as ap is generally how 'killy' a weapon can be against infantry. Strength helps with wound rolls but if it is a s10 ap0 its not going to do as much damage as a s10 ap-1. that changes the die by 1/6.

Bolters should be more powerful and would make some lacking armies much more powerful and have actual killing potential cause currently bolters are overpriced and not worthwhile compared to guardsmen with lasguns.

"Ap-1 on bolters would go a long way to make marines viable. They have always had it."
If you're talking AP5, then so did Pulse, Shuriken, Shootas, and Splinter. But I'm sure you're not talking about giving ap-1?

On the point of AP and cover for the basic Marine unit...

In the previous 3E AP paradigm, yes Marines always got their 3+ if they got to take a save. However, they got it straight up entirely ignored much of the time as well. In fact, for most of that paradigm, there were complaints about too much AP2/3 in the game making MEQ armor worthless. There's lots of threads about that over many editions.

The weapons that modify a marines armor now act differently than they used to. What used to entirely ignore a marines save (Battlecannons, Disintegrators, Plasma Guns, Dark Lances, Lascannons, Starcannons, etc) now allows a modified save of 5+ or 6+. Weapons with middling AP are the only place SM armor is worse now, stuff like Heavy Bolters and the like (though they still better off than against say, 2E ASM's where a marine only got a 4+ against lasguns and a 6+ against heavy bolters). That said, AP-1 weapons aren't a primary headache for Marines in this edition either.

Cover in previous editions was a 5+ or 4+ alternative save that was pointless for Marines against most weapons. Now this applies against all attacks (allowing marines a 2+ save against small arms fire that cover did nothing for in previous editions), and in fact against most weapons they'd have needed Cover against in previous editions they do just as well now (e.g. battlecannon or plasma gun still gives 4+ or 5+ saves in cover).

AP and cover aren't hurting marines this edition, at least not anything more than anyone else. The issue is that the scale of the game has upshifted over time such that we're all playing small games of Epic rather than a skirmish game with a couple dozen infantry. A Space Marine is very impressive next to an Ork or Guardsmen when there's only a couple dozen infantry models on the board. A Knight, Shadowsword, battery of intermediate range cruise missiles, orbital bombardments, hundreds of infantry, etc however don't find such distinctions as relevant however.

 Stormonu wrote:
Just a complete aside, would there be any value to reducing Guard to getting 1 shot with their Lasguns and only getting Rapid Fire with orders - or would it make Guard infantry total trash?

As I recall, in early version of 40K only marines got rapid fire for a couple editions until it spread around to the likes of the guard.

That was 2E. However, that was also when infantry had firing arcs, Lasguns had a -1 ASM, basic shuriken catapults had a -2 ASM, Marines only got a 6+ save against Heavy Bolters, and 3 shots was about the most any weapon in the game had, barring some sustained fire dice weapons and accompanying jam/explodes potentials. A full sized naked tactical squad was 300pts.

Within the current paradigm, I think such a change would do more harm than good, especially with how relatively little offesive damage output most basic infantry weapons do anyway in most games.

Bharring wrote:
"Ap-1 on bolters would go a long way to make marines viable. They have always had it."
If you're talking AP5, then so did Pulse, Shuriken, Shootas, and Splinter. But I'm sure you're not talking about giving ap-1?

Shurikens have Rending on 6+

Shootas get an additional attack when shot. (They are fine)

Pulse have farther range and strength of 5 rapid fire 1. I think giving them on a roll of 6+ Ap - 2 would be fair.

Splinter has Deteriment strength Rapid Fire 24" and Poisoned profile.

These are all fine overall. The dark eldar and eldar don't need more buffs.

The bolter is 24" Rapid fire, S4, AP0 1D

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Tygre wrote:
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.

It is part of the problem but not the biggest problem. Even if you toned down all the shooting, all weapons would still kill more points of marines than of guard.

A: That's not auto-bad.

B: Are you taking morale into account?

Morale is that thing you either never roll or just use 2 cp on, right?

Shuriken catapults are not fine. Their range is absurd. It is even more absurd for a weapon for the citizen militia whose main purpose is to guard heavy weapon platform with long ranged weapons. I know it was the second edition when they last had proper rules, but I will never get over this.

 Crimson wrote:
Shuriken catapults are not fine. Their range is absurd. It is even more absurd for a weapon for the citizen militia whose main purpose is to guard heavy weapon platform with long ranged weapons. I know it was the second edition when they last had proper rules, but I will never get over this.

I run eldar, my guardians kill more than I would like to admit, an entire terminator squad dead in one round of shooting. 40 shots / 6, that would be 6 - 7 ap -3 weapons with 2 shuriken cannons firing as well. Guardians are very powerful with an attached warlock. Their range should be short cause they have so many options for movement. Uthwe allows me to teleport all over the field. They also have a lot of power in terms of sheer weight of fire. The only time the army struggles is against tau. But even then I just throw out my windriders or wave serpent brigade and they carry them out into combat.

Guardians have far more utility than a tactical squad now and have strategems that support them extremely well. (Also having a 6+++ across 20 models is kind of erm... stupid.)

I'm not saying DE and CWE need buffs. I'm just pointing out that Marines didn't "lose" AP-1 any more than most of the other factions did. AP5 became AP0. AP4 became AP-1. There were changes atop that as well, but Marines didn't lose AP-1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"I run eldar, my guardians kill more than I would like to admit, an entire terminator squad dead in one round of shooting. 40 shots / 6, that would be 6 - 7 ap -3 weapons with 2 shuriken cannons firing as well."
THat's 5.1 pseudorends, not 6-7. And that's all-in on a max squad.

I think it's strong enough. What it really needs are:
1. To be a 'side arm' again. You don't field militia as standing troops. You field them to man a weapon. Or to escort specialists. Or, if you're really boned, to fill space. So their platforms, special weapons, or artillery pieces should be doing the damage, with the sidearms only for if the enemy gets close. That'd be the ideal.
2. CWE needs to lose WWP. Many of our infantry are predicated on it being hard to bring to bear easily/cheaply. WWP removes that.

Bharring wrote:
I'm not saying DE and CWE need buffs. I'm just pointing out that Marines didn't "lose" AP-1 any more than most of the other factions did. AP5 became AP0. AP4 became AP-1. There were changes atop that as well, but Marines didn't lose AP-1.

Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?

How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?

How would you make morale more of a constant?

How would you give space marines more power in close combat?

How would you give space marines their fire power back?

Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.

Marines lost out on having powerful equipment everyone else was given special rules or additional power to their weaponry while space marines stayed in the back with a terrible weapon. AP-1 would not harm everyone as marines already have an ap-1 bolter but only for primaris.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?

How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?

How would you make morale more of a constant?

How would you give space marines more power in close combat?

How would you give space marines their fire power back?

Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.

Apart the morale Primaris have this pretty much covered. Stalker and Auto Bolt Rifles need a boost, and they need more units in general, but they're a solid starting point.

 Crimson wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?

How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?

How would you make morale more of a constant?

How would you give space marines more power in close combat?

How would you give space marines their firepower back?

Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.

Apart the morale Primaris have this pretty much covered. Stalker and Auto Bolt Rifles need a boost, and they need more units in general, but they're a solid starting point.

I still disagree fundamentally with giving marines +1 wound. That makes em too effective. I agree with giving all sarges +1 wound though.

Ideas

Give sarges +1 wound.

Or maybe just give marines a 'shoot twice' mechanic for bolter equipment?


Issue
But that doesn't fix their close combat issue. Maybe giving All marines +1 attack on charge always?

Another issue is staying power and punishing opponents for leaving close combat... Maybe a factionwide "Sweeping Advance." (or just make it a universal rule for all factions?)

 Asherian Command wrote:

I still disagree fundamentally with giving marines +1 wound. That makes em too effective.

Well, you're simply wrong. Do the math.

What I'd do?
-Merge Prmairs + Real Marines: same statlines, even the same datasheet for Tacs and Intercessors
-Drop AP across the board and nerf invulns
-5ppm Guardsmen, 12ppm Marines

I think Marines wouldn't be bad.

Bharring wrote:
What I'd do?
-Merge Prmairs + Real Marines: same statlines, even the same datasheet for Tacs and Intercessors
-Drop AP across the board and nerf invulns
-5ppm Guardsmen, 12ppm Marines

I think Marines wouldn't be bad.

They'd be far too effective at 12ppm, 13ppm is a bit balanced with a +2 pt increase if they want the primaris 'upgrade'.

Giving marines +1 wound doesn't help their damage output. It only increases durability which isn't the issue. It could be an issue but I don't really think it is.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

As long as you change everyone's bolters, sure. Go for it.

Thats fine with me honestly.

Bolters are supposed to be terrifying on the field, and it would boost the power of grey knights to ludiciorus degree which I am a fan of. It will help every single faction that uses bolter weapons and that is completely fine. It also punishes eldar, orks, and tau considerably. And makes a Chaos Space Marine squads, Paladins, Deathwing, Sisters of Battle, very good and I am all for making all those races super viable like they are supposed to be.

The problem with that though is that the armies you want to punish already get shellacked by bolter fire. Sure they're more resilient than in 7th, but massed S4 hurts them.

Not in terms of saves. S4 only helps a small bit. not completely as ap is generally how 'killy' a weapon can be against infantry. Strength helps with wound rolls but if it is a s10 ap0 its not going to do as much damage as a s10 ap-1. that changes the die by 1/6.

Bolters should be more powerful and would make some lacking armies much more powerful and have actual killing potential cause currently bolters are overpriced and not worthwhile compared to guardsmen with lasguns.

They are more powerful. They wound guard on a 3+ and marines on a 4+. They're currently -0- points. Sorry but you're not going to convince me that bolters are weak if you're comparing them to lasguns.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

As long as you change everyone's bolters, sure. Go for it.

Thats fine with me honestly.

Bolters are supposed to be terrifying on the field, and it would boost the power of grey knights to ludiciorus degree which I am a fan of. It will help every single faction that uses bolter weapons and that is completely fine. It also punishes eldar, orks, and tau considerably. And makes a Chaos Space Marine squads, Paladins, Deathwing, Sisters of Battle, very good and I am all for making all those races super viable like they are supposed to be.

The problem with that though is that the armies you want to punish already get shellacked by bolter fire. Sure they're more resilient than in 7th, but massed S4 hurts them.

Not in terms of saves. S4 only helps a small bit. not completely as ap is generally how 'killy' a weapon can be against infantry. Strength helps with wound rolls but if it is a s10 ap0 its not going to do as much damage as a s10 ap-1. that changes the die by 1/6.

Bolters should be more powerful and would make some lacking armies much more powerful and have actual killing potential cause currently bolters are overpriced and not worthwhile compared to guardsmen with lasguns.

They are more powerful. They wound guard on a 3+ and marines on a 4+. They're currently -0- points. Sorry but you're not going to convince me that bolters are weak if you're comparing them to lasguns.

The models that require bolters are expensive mate. Stormbolters gaining an AP-1 would be very helpful and would justify the cost it takes to for the unit that can take them.

I am comparing bolters to lasguns because a lasgun is only 1 strength less than a bolter? So that justifies them being almost as powerful as a bolter? In a previous addition a bolter was AP5. So a -1 ap to 6+ saves. Now they are so close in profile its laughable.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Bharring wrote:
"Ap-1 on bolters would go a long way to make marines viable. They have always had it."
If you're talking AP5, then so did Pulse, Shuriken, Shootas, and Splinter. But I'm sure you're not talking about giving ap-1?

Shurikens have Rending on 6+

Shootas get an additional attack when shot. (They are fine)

Pulse have farther range and strength of 5 rapid fire 1. I think giving them on a roll of 6+ Ap - 2 would be fair.

Splinter has Deteriment strength Rapid Fire 24" and Poisoned profile.

These are all fine overall. The dark eldar and eldar don't need more buffs.

The bolter is 24" Rapid fire, S4, AP0 1D

Shurikens used to be AP:5 and had rending. If we're going to make bolters AP: -1 then no reason not to do the same with shurikens.

Pulse weapons were AP: 5. If we're going to make bolters AP: -1 then no reason not to do the same with pulse weapons.
Shootas were AP: 6. I wouldn't really change them either.
Spinter used to be AP: 5. If we're going to make bolters AP: -1 then no reason not to do the same with splinters.

As for Eldar, the units that primarily carry shuriken and splinter weapons aren't the units that people complain are broken.

These Dakka 'How to Fix Marines' threads are always so fething pointless.

Poster 1: "How to fix problem X, Y and Z on marines'
Poster2: "Primaris have fixed the problems X, Y and Z."
Poster1: "Noo, Primaris bad! No Primaris!"

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

A: That's not auto-bad.

I strongly disagree.

Well, why? If Guard are intended to be a tough unit, and they function as a tough unit, what's wrong with that? There's not really a strong reason to make Marines tougher per-point than Guard.

 Crimson wrote:

B: Are you taking morale into account?

Kinda, though it is rather difficult. Morale matters less in this edition than in the previous; that is another boost the guard got in the relation to the marines.

But frankly, if you're OK with super fragile marines with more offence, you can just play your Tacticals as Sternguard.

Not taking morale into account is disingenuous, as it is part of unit durability.

20 Bolter shots kills about 6 Guardsmen. At which point they have a 50% chance (4+) of losing 3 more. For a total loss of (9x4) 36 points. (average roll would be 3.5, so 34 points if you want to count it that way)

20 Bolter shots kills 2.2 Marines. No losses to morale. For a total loss of 28ish points.

So when you're dealing with small amounts of small arms, Guard are more durable pp, but when dealing with larger amounts of small arms, Space Marines are more durable.

Not to mention the effect of cover, in which Space Marines halve the damage dealt to them by small arms.