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.

the_scotsman wrote:
You charge them with 10 wyches with a net just to try and keep them occupied and don't even manage to kill one dude, then they attack back and 6 of your dedicated melee-only troops are fething gone before they even get to their turn when they get to either fall back or shoot you in the face with pistols, if you have anything left after the morale check.

This seems unlikely to me when Wyches have a 4++/6+++ in melee. In fact it seems like a simple 10 strong Wych unit could kill 5 Primaris with bodies left to spare.

This is using +1S drugs. I don't know which would be best.

Round 1
3 * .666 * .5 * .5 * 2 = 1
28 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 3.1
2 Primaris die

10 * .666 * .666 * .5 * .833 = 1.8
2 Wyches die

Round 2
*Primaris no longer have a bonus and likely can't flee
** If this is round 3 then the Wyches hit on 2s, but I did 3s

1 Wych dies
1 Primaris dies and 1 spare wound

Round 3

2 Primaris die
Wyches have 7 models left.


Obviously if you shoot the choppy the you get to worry less, but Primaris are by no means guaranteed to win.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Grey40k wrote:Wel, that's the thing being discussed here. The fact that marine troops are right now too point efficient for generalist troops.

The question then becomes which way does one go about doing that - making them more expensive in points, or weaker in power?

Easy, weaker in power. The solution: no Super Doctrines is a start.

Why weaker? Why not more expensive?

Well, maybe that one of the single best gunline troops choice units in the game should not be able to win on the charge against dedicated melee units? That it would be pretty stupid and frustrating if tau fire warriors were some 30% more effective in shooting and could also beat khorne bezerkers in melee combat on the charge?

I don't think it's controversial to claim that MOST of the power budget in a unit like khorne bezerkers seems to be in their assault stats. You don't think it's a bit bizarre for a gunline unit with full effectiveness out to 30" range beats them if they get the charge?

The thing you're leaving out in all your examples as well is that the marines continue to be alive in the second round, where they get to fire their pistols and attack back again, this time before the chargers.

Also...are you forgetting Shock Assault here? In your Genestealer Example you say 3 intercessors attack back with 7 attacks. Wouldn't it be 11, with the chainsword sergeant and shock assault?

I get 3 dead genestealers round 1 between overwatch and attacks back, then another 2.5 in the following round between pistols and melee attacks.

The only way 12ppm genestealers beat intercessors with the charge is when they survive overwatch over 10 models.

The whole purpose of the thread was to show that, while there are units out there that are dedicated melee-only specialists that do beat intercessors, there are a bizarre number that lose or fight to a draw against a unit that's so crazy powerful at range.

That pretty much tracks with what my experience fighting the new marines has been like: I charge into a wall of firepower with units that I MUST remove from the table or they will literally table me before turn 3, I manage to take out maybe one key target, but then my opponent uses an interrupt or a similar stratagem and some unit of intercessors or hellblasters just clocks a dedicated assault unit off the table with their A3 and A5 sergeant, and bottom of 2/top of 3 is just the marines mopping up whatever dregs are left. When I win, I win because I have some unit that's so absurdly huge and powerful it can cripple the whole front line, or I have one of the rare units like Thousand Sons able to hold their own in gunfights in abundance.

I did mess up the Shock Assault, yes.

Still, other than the Genestealers and Harlequins, what are these melee units that fail to beat Intercessors that aren't also awful against pretty much everything else?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I did mess up the Shock Assault, yes.

Still, other than the Genestealers and Harlequins, what are these melee units that fail to beat Intercessors that aren't also awful against pretty much everything else?

"ok, sure, maybe they do return nearly triple their points in a firefight with a dedicated anti-marine unit that was in the meta for ages, and maybe they do beat a melee unit that's been common in competitive tyranid lists, and maybe they can out-shoot the most complained about unbeatable meta troop unit in the game, but you ADMIT that there DOES exist units that DO beat them!

AHA!

Marines balanced and fine CONFIRMED!"

Look, it's pretty dang clear that marines are in an imbalanced state right now in general. The purpose of the post was to highlight a secondary problem: That their current ruleset makes the units whose entire job is "Good at this one thing" seem like crap. They shoot better than fire warriors. They fight better than harlequins and genestealers. They're tougher than necrons. There's a real reason for the whole "NPC Factions" meme floating around.

Eventually, the kid who just keeps screaming "I have all the thuper powerth!" is going to stop getting invited to play-pretend.

There is no point to this if you're going to put words in my mouth. I never said Marines were fine. I said the particular complaint in the OP doesn't make sense. You're adding in a conclusion that I didn't argue for once in my post.

Martel732 wrote:
Bottom line: marines feel too elite on their turn and not elite enough on the opponent's turn. That's my take on it overall without getting into too many weeds.

Something something IGOUGO exacerbates these problems you people complain about something something

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There is no point to this if you're going to put words in my mouth. I never said Marines were fine. I said the particular complaint in the OP doesn't make sense. You're adding in a conclusion that I didn't argue for once in my post.

The complaint in the OP is that marines being cranked up to 11 with primaris makes everyone else's elites play like absolute chumps in comparison.

Grotesques are another funny example: 3 of them manage to kill a grand total of 2 intercessors the turn they charge in, and the remaining 6 intercessors cause 3 wounds and finish off the first grotesque with the pistols the following turn.

Or necron lychguard. The big melee badasses charge into equal points of primaris, kill two...and lose 2. LOL. or Tyranid warriors - 4 of them kill one guy, MAYBE, on the charge, and then lose one guy in return. whomp whomp.

I don't think you're looking at it through the right lens. If Berzerkers get charged then you're "doing it wrong".

Primaris
Single Tap : 0.8
Double Tap : 1.7
Round 1 Melee : 1.8
Round 2 Melee : 1.2

Berzerkers
Pistols : 0.6
Round 1 Melee : 7.0
Round 2 Melee : 4.8

So, yes they die if they get charged, but they do 400% more in melee otherwise.

the_scotsman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There is no point to this if you're going to put words in my mouth. I never said Marines were fine. I said the particular complaint in the OP doesn't make sense. You're adding in a conclusion that I didn't argue for once in my post.

The complaint in the OP is that marines being cranked up to 11 with primaris makes everyone else's elites play like absolute chumps in comparison.

Grotesques are another funny example: 3 of them manage to kill a grand total of 2 intercessors the turn they charge in, and the remaining 6 intercessors cause 3 wounds and finish off the first grotesque with the pistols the following turn.

Or necron lychguard. The big melee badasses charge into equal points of primaris, kill two...and lose 2. LOL. or Tyranid warriors - 4 of them kill one guy, MAYBE, on the charge, and then lose one guy in return. whomp whomp.

Say we remove Intercessors from the game as a thought experiment.

Does this solve the problem of those units? Possibly in the case of Genestealers and Harlequins. Lolno in the case of Lychguard, Howling Banshees, Striking Scorpions or Tyranid Warriors.

Most melee units have been dumpster tier for the entire edition. I'd love to change that somehow, but Intercessors is just one blip in a long line of problems plaguing melee in 40k.

The point the_scotsman is making is that Intercessors have amazing shooting potential. They shouldn't then be able to smash you in the face as well.

Saying "well if my Khorne Berzerkers teleport into charge range and successfully make a charge they clean house" is a bit meaningless. Sure, it happens - but it doesn't happen very often in game, because getting Khorne Berzerkers across the table is difficult, and even with rerolls they have a very good chance to fail a vaguely long-distance charge. Then they got and potentially counter-charged if they want to just clear off a couple of survivors. Which means you lose horribly, its not even close.

The comparison isn't with Khorne Berzerkers or Genestealers - its something like Fire Warriors. Or Kabalites. Or Guardians or some other troop choice. Most of which if clearly dedicated to shooting, pose essentially no combat threat at all.

And frankly the Intercessors are playing with a hand behind their back, because they will have a bucket load of buffs which are typically better than what other factions get.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Grey40k wrote:Wel, that's the thing being discussed here. The fact that marine troops are right now too point efficient for generalist troops.

The question then becomes which way does one go about doing that - making them more expensive in points, or weaker in power?

Easy, weaker in power. The solution: no Super Doctrines is a start.

Why weaker? Why not more expensive?

Because Super Doctrines aren't a thing that should exist to begin with.

Tyel wrote:
The point the_scotsman is making is that Intercessors have amazing shooting potential. They shouldn't then be able to smash you in the face as well.

Saying "well if my Khorne Berzerkers teleport into charge range and successfully make a charge they clean house" is a bit meaningless. Sure, it happens - but it doesn't happen very often in game, because getting Khorne Berzerkers across the table is difficult, and even with rerolls they have a very good chance to fail a vaguely long-distance charge. Then they got and potentially counter-charged if they want to just clear off a couple of survivors. Which means you lose horribly, its not even close.

The comparison isn't with Khorne Berzerkers or Genestealers - its something like Fire Warriors. Or Kabalites. Or Guardians or some other troop choice. Most of which if clearly dedicated to shooting, pose essentially no combat threat at all.

And frankly the Intercessors are playing with a hand behind their back, because they will have a bucket load of buffs which are typically better than what other factions get.

^I somewhat disagree, I think running the numbers again against just plain Tacticals would be interesting, and serve as an additional baseline.

Not that I disagree with the basic premise of the thread, but another set of numbers could show the extent of divergence Intercessors provide, one way or another. I would offer but I'm really busy today.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Grey40k wrote:Wel, that's the thing being discussed here. The fact that marine troops are right now too point efficient for generalist troops.

The question then becomes which way does one go about doing that - making them more expensive in points, or weaker in power?

Easy, weaker in power. The solution: no Super Doctrines is a start.

Why weaker? Why not more expensive?

Because Super Doctrines aren't a thing that should exist to begin with.

Yeah, agreed on super doctrines, but I'd rather have Marines being more expensive and stronger, instead of cheaper and weaker. Obviously, it can be done without stacking rules, and adding to the bloat.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Grey40k wrote:Wel, that's the thing being discussed here. The fact that marine troops are right now too point efficient for generalist troops.

The question then becomes which way does one go about doing that - making them more expensive in points, or weaker in power?

Easy, weaker in power. The solution: no Super Doctrines is a start.

Why weaker? Why not more expensive?

Because Super Doctrines aren't a thing that should exist to begin with.

Yeah, agreed on super doctrines, but I'd rather have Marines being more expensive and stronger, instead of cheaper and weaker. Obviously, it can be done without stacking rules, and adding to the bloat.

I'm not calling for stuff to be actively weaker. However we can probably agree that Super Doctrines should not have even been an idea to begin with. Getting rid of them solves SEVERAL issues with benefits on top of benefits. Intercessors are already strong with the stuff they have without that additional benefit.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you're looking at it through the right lens. If Berzerkers get charged then you're "doing it wrong".

Primaris
Single Tap : 0.8
Double Tap : 1.7
Round 1 Melee : 1.8
Round 2 Melee : 1.2

Berzerkers
Pistols : 0.6
Round 1 Melee : 7.0
Round 2 Melee : 4.8

So, yes they die if they get charged, but they do 400% more in melee otherwise.

I think saying that "you're doing it wrong" for failing a charge is rather unfair, when the ability to succeed or fail a charge is entirely dependant on a 2d6 roll. Sure, you can use points, CP, or faction traits to improve your odds, but that only makes the intercessor look better. We've been assuming the pure melee units automatic make their charge, everyone gets into melee range, and avoided overwatch, which is not realistic at all.

It really comes back to the other point scotsman was making: Space Marines feel Elite now because they make other armies elite units feel like chumps. You can hand wave it away as poor balance, but that doesn't really change the fact that no one that doesn't play marines wants to play a game where they have to outnumber the enemy ten to one to have a chance, let alone the impracticality of it. ONe could even turn this around by say that Marine were always Elite, but people didn't feel that way because of poor balance, not because they weren't already better than most options when used in the right context.

I mean, we've been talking about damage, but what about utility? Intercessors have objective secured, where as the units that *can* beat them handedly aren't. If the intercessors are sitting on an objective, it doesn't really matter if you can beat them in two combat rounds if the objective will get taken in the next turn.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you're looking at it through the right lens. If Berzerkers get charged then you're "doing it wrong".

Primaris
Single Tap : 0.8
Double Tap : 1.7
Round 1 Melee : 1.8
Round 2 Melee : 1.2

Berzerkers
Pistols : 0.6
Round 1 Melee : 7.0
Round 2 Melee : 4.8

So, yes they die if they get charged, but they do 400% more in melee otherwise.

I think saying that "you're doing it wrong" for failing a charge is rather unfair, when the ability to succeed or fail a charge is entirely dependant on a 2d6 roll. Sure, you can use points, CP, or faction traits to improve your odds, but that only makes the intercessor look better. We've been assuming the pure melee units automatic make their charge, everyone gets into melee range, and avoided overwatch, which is not realistic at all.

It really comes back to the other point scotsman was making: Space Marines feel Elite now because they make other armies elite units feel like chumps. You can hand wave it away as poor balance, but that doesn't really change the fact that no one that doesn't play marines wants to play a game where they have to outnumber the enemy ten to one to have a chance, let alone the impracticality of it. ONe could even turn this around by say that Marine were always Elite, but people didn't feel that way because of poor balance, not because they weren't already better than most options when used in the right context.

I mean, we've been talking about damage, but what about utility? Intercessors have objective secured, where as the units that *can* beat them handedly aren't. If the intercessors are sitting on an objective, it doesn't really matter if you can beat them in two combat rounds if the objective will get taken in the next turn.

Let me be clear that "doing it wrong" isn't a dig at anyone. It's just the melee specialists are hard to get to where they need to be. Getting them charged is just bad news all around (unless it is Centurions).

But that is the trade off to get a unit like what Berzerkers do or what Boyz can do and so on.

Intercessors can kill 5 guardsmen (8 or 9 if they get to double tap before charging). Berzerkers can kill 15 (and charge two units to do so). But we're not talking about that, because it isn't as sexy as "Intercessors own the world" - and in part rightfully so, because Intercessors are easier to use.

Is this equivalent points of Berserkers or equivalent models?

This thread has talked me into dusting off my Death Guard. In the OP shooting scenario, I've got Plague Marines at a slight disadvantage to the Intercessors, regardless of bolt rifle type. They would win enough that the outcome would be far from certain. Add Blight Launchers and now they kill more points than they lose.

Now I'm not a tournament player, and agree with Scotsman's points. I just thought it was interesting. DG are due for a better chapter tactic, if they got something as good as what the Scions got, then maybe there will be something there.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
It really comes back to the other point scotsman was making: Space Marines feel Elite now because they make other armies elite units feel like chumps. You can hand wave it away as poor balance, but that doesn't really change the fact that no one that doesn't play marines wants to play a game where they have to outnumber the enemy ten to one to have a chance, let alone the impracticality of it. ONe could even turn this around by say that Marine were always Elite, but people didn't feel that way because of poor balance, not because they weren't already better than most options when used in the right context.

I think that in a game where Marines are

1. the most popular faction, and therefore the baseline against which everything else is judged,

and

2. the most popular faction, and therefore the omnipresent threat that everyone builds armies to counter,

Marines will never feel elite and will always feel vulnerable, unless they're made brokenly overpowered. 30K is the extreme example, where Marines are everywhere, and everyone who isn't Marines is cramming as much AP3 weaponry as possible to counter them, further diminishing their 'elite' status. A Marine in 30K doesn't feel like an elite special forces soldier, he feels like a random mook, while Imperial Militia feel like waves of cheap trash.

You could make each Intercessor equivalent to ten Guardsmen, but when Intercessors fight other Marines more often than they fight anyone else, that doesn't make Intercessors feel elite- it just makes Guardsmen feel weak.

So I think the idea of making Marines feel 'elite' has to go out the window. No matter what you do to them, as long as they're by far the most popular army, they'll just be the baseline. If you want to play an army that feels elite, you buy Custodes.

^@catbarf, nicely put.

Marines should feel "elite" compared to who? Is the relevant question.

 Insectum7 wrote:

And frankly the Intercessors are playing with a hand behind their back, because they will have a bucket load of buffs which are typically better than what other factions get.

^I somewhat disagree, I think running the numbers again against just plain Tacticals would be interesting, and serve as an additional baseline.

Not that I disagree with the basic premise of the thread, but another set of numbers could show the extent of divergence Intercessors provide, one way or another. I would offer but I'm really busy today.

 flandarz wrote:
Is this equivalent points of Berserkers or equivalent models?

Points, but a Chainaxe/Chainsword Berzerker is 16 PPM while an Intercessor is 17 PPM so it's close either way.

This has become one of the most cringe-worthy threads on this forum right now.

It's pretty clear what Scotsman is trying to illustrate with his examples at the start of this thread.

Does anyone actually believe that Marines and in particular Intercessors are balanced right now? If the answer is 'no' then why are people picking bizarre, minor faults with the OP and using extreme, outlier examples to prove it wrong?

I get this is dakka, the place where we argue for the sake of it sometimes, but I'm still amazed at how contentious this thread has become.

Wow.. someone said that storm guardians are better than intercessors because they screen better and cover more ground..

 catbarf wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
It really comes back to the other point scotsman was making: Space Marines feel Elite now because they make other armies elite units feel like chumps. You can hand wave it away as poor balance, but that doesn't really change the fact that no one that doesn't play marines wants to play a game where they have to outnumber the enemy ten to one to have a chance, let alone the impracticality of it. ONe could even turn this around by say that Marine were always Elite, but people didn't feel that way because of poor balance, not because they weren't already better than most options when used in the right context.

I think that in a game where Marines are

1. the most popular faction, and therefore the baseline against which everything else is judged,

and

2. the most popular faction, and therefore the omnipresent threat that everyone builds armies to counter,

Marines will never feel elite and will always feel vulnerable, unless they're made brokenly overpowered. 30K is the extreme example, where Marines are everywhere, and everyone who isn't Marines is cramming as much AP3 weaponry as possible to counter them, further diminishing their 'elite' status. A Marine in 30K doesn't feel like an elite special forces soldier, he feels like a random mook, while Imperial Militia feel like waves of cheap trash.

You could make each Intercessor equivalent to ten Guardsmen, but when Intercessors fight other Marines more often than they fight anyone else, that doesn't make Intercessors feel elite- it just makes Guardsmen feel weak.

So I think the idea of making Marines feel 'elite' has to go out the window. No matter what you do to them, as long as they're by far the most popular army, they'll just be the baseline. If you want to play an army that feels elite, you buy Custodes.

I think it is possible to make Marines feel elite without breaking the game, but also I think a big part of that is people needing curbing their expectations a bit. GW needs to stop selling people on the fantasy of marines as demi-gods as much as they need to reduce the lethality and make tactical choices actually more tactical.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
and make tactical choices actually more tactical.

I'm not sure how they can really do that, without reintroducing the leadership-based mechanics (target priority tests, meaningful morale, etc) that have been systematically stripped out of the game over the years. In a system where everything comes down to mobility, offense, and defense, there's nothing fundamentally different between an Ork Nob and a Space Marine.

If the game had more of a C&C element to it, like unit activation mechanics a la Epic, then that would be the logical thing for Marines to excel at. But not having that dimension to play in puts them in a rough spot.

 catbarf wrote:
I'm not sure how they can really do that, without reintroducing the leadership-based mechanics (target priority tests, meaningful morale, etc) that have been systematically stripped out of the game over the years. In a system where everything comes down to mobility, offense, and defense, there's nothing fundamentally different between an Ork Nob and a Space Marine.

If the game had more of a C&C element to it, like unit activation mechanics a la Epic, then that would be the logical thing for Marines to excel at. But not having that dimension to play in puts them in a rough spot.

You just hit the nail on the head.

GW has responded to complaints about the game being to complex by slowly stripping out rules and the current games is the logical endpoint. People want the game simple, balanced, easy to learn, while still having differentiated units and weapons profiles, and you just can't squeeze all of that into 8th edition.

 catbarf wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
and make tactical choices actually more tactical.

I'm not sure how they can really do that, without reintroducing the leadership-based mechanics (target priority tests, meaningful morale, etc) that have been systematically stripped out of the game over the years. In a system where everything comes down to mobility, offense, and defense, there's nothing fundamentally different between an Ork Nob and a Space Marine.

If the game had more of a C&C element to it, like unit activation mechanics a la Epic, then that would be the logical thing for Marines to excel at. But not having that dimension to play in puts them in a rough spot.

^word!

Those target priority mechanics from 4th were excellent. To specify further, it took a Ld test to not fire at the closest unit (by category, infantry or vehicles/large, generally). Marines had higher base leadership, but by default every Space Marine captain lent their Ld value to every Space Marine unit on the board. Base Tactical 8, Led by Veteran sergeant 9, Captain on table 10. That was a great mechanic to express "elite".

2nd brought it's own "eliteness" terms. Things like Strategy Value, immunity/protection from gasses and blinding effects, and Targeters on heavy weapons when most other infantry didn't have them.

7th Ed. dropped the ability for units with grenades to use them all in CC. Up until 7th iirc, a unit of Marines (who often automatically came with Krak Grenades) would wreck vehicles in CC because every model could plant a Krak Grenade on it in CC. We've lost that too.

In 8th at least UM have Fall-Back-and-shoot which feels like more traditional ATSKNF, but a bunch of other stuff has been lost. Doctrines, Bolter-Disciplie, etc. help, and IMO Classics using the base codex balance out reasonably well. But I do miss some of the more subtle nods to "eliteness". Primaris stats just take a hammer to any attempt at subtlety.

- - - -

Another thing that is a big deal, imo. Up until 8th, Bolters basically ignored GEQ armor. In 2nd, Guard had Flakk armor, which was a 6+ save, 5+ against Blasts. Bolters with their AP-1 would just cut through it. 3rd through 7th had the AP mechanic in which Bolters again cut through GEQ armor. That's why Guardsmen in 8th suddenly getting a 5+ against bolters was a big change. That's not much of an issue anymore with marines shooting twice up to 24" and getting a -1AP in Tactical Doctrine, but 7th to 8th was a hefty shift in bolter shooting output vs. GEQ. And again, the ineffectiveness of blasts/templates in comparison to prior editions skewed things away from traditional results as well.

 Insectum7 wrote:

^word!

Those target priority mechanics from 4th were excellent. To specify further, it took a Ld test to not fire at the closest unit (by category, infantry or vehicles/large, generally). Marines had higher base leadership, but by default every Space Marine captain lent their Ld value to every Space Marine unit on the board. Base Tactical 8, Led by Veteran sergeant 9, Captain on table 10. That was a great mechanic to express "elite".

2nd brought it's own "eliteness" terms. Things like Strategy Value, immunity/protection from gasses and blinding effects, and Targeters on heavy weapons when most other infantry didn't have them.

7th Ed. dropped the ability for units with grenades to use them all in CC. Up until 7th iirc, a unit of Marines (who often automatically came with Krak Grenades) would wreck vehicles in CC because every model could plant a Krak Grenade on it in CC. We've lost that too.

In 8th at least UM have Fall-Back-and-shoot which feels like more traditional ATSKNF, but a bunch of other stuff has been lost. Doctrines, Bolter-Disciplie, etc. help, and IMO Classics using the base codex balance out reasonably well. But I do miss some of the more subtle nods to "eliteness". Primaris stats just take a hammer to any attempt at subtlety.

- - - -

Another thing that is a big deal, imo. Up until 8th, Bolters basically ignored GEQ armor. In 2nd, Guard had Flakk armor, which was a 6+ save, 5+ against Blasts. Bolters with their AP-1 would just cut through it. 3rd through 7th had the AP mechanic in which Bolters again cut through GEQ armor. That's why Guardsmen in 8th suddenly getting a 5+ against bolters was a big change. That's not much of an issue anymore with marines shooting twice up to 24" and getting a -1AP in Tactical Doctrine, but 7th to 8th was a hefty shift in bolter shooting output vs. GEQ. And again, the ineffectiveness of blasts/templates in comparison to prior editions skewed things away from traditional results as well.

Even just bringing back initiative and making Intercessors I3 and Tacticals I4 would make a huge deal of difference. Suddenly Intercessors fight last/simultaneously against almost anything else in the game and that takes a lot of the shine off their assault profile.

EDIT: Though I still don't think Intercessors are the problem they're being made out to be. We should buff other units to make them good, not go all 'Harrison Bergeron' on the issue.