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.

ERJAK wrote:

40k doesn't in any way have a 'how we can be better' message. Anything that ISN'T just straight up HFY, revels in the misery of the setting. Much to the audiences delight btw.

It's essentially a 20th century sanitized version of watching people getting eaten by lions in the coliseums. To the point where if anything is even a little bit positive or happy, the fandom collective loses their minds.

That doesn't mean it cannot be have a 'how we can be better' message, it just have to be a "do not do anything even close to the idiots that are being eaten by lions". A negative object lesson.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you don't understand counterpoint in literature so going any further will just be tedious.

I don't think the starting point of this thread of the conversation had to do with any sort of ethical or political forms of supremacy, tbh. I thought it was just raw "might" of the Imperium.

But traditionally in 40k, base humans have sucked. All the major xenos threats have been better than humans, and then even Space Marines, the best humans could muster, were only vaguely on par with the threats, give or take a little.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Ya know, back in the day a necron was better than a space marine, because they are. And for the most part everyone else does at least one thing better than a marine, orks melee and charge better, eldar are more agile, and guardsmen multiply infinitely.

Marines should be better than Necron Warriors, the number of one is legion, the number of the other is one measly million. Imagine playing Custodes into SM in a situation where the only things SM take is Centurions and Land Raiders, it would probably feel wrong. I don't want to be outnumbered by SM when I play Necrons.

I really like the current point ratios between Space Marines, Necron Warriors and Dire Avengers in terms of the raw number of models on the table if we ignore rules and pts efficiency and just look at how elite each faction should be. I just noticed that Dire Avengers get an extra shuriken catapult for free, damn piece of gak lazy game designers over at GW. I was going to pay for the next CA just to show my approval of continuing to put up pts for free but I don't want PL, I want pts and if someone wants to have a Exarch with a single gun instead of an Exarch with two guns then they should pay less points.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Ya know, back in the day a necron was better than a space marine, because they are. And for the most part everyone else does at least one thing better than a marine, orks melee and charge better, eldar are more agile, and guardsmen multiply infinitely.

Marines should be better than Necron Warriors, the number of one is legion, the number of the other is one measly million.

Totally illogical way of thinking. Wars aren't fought by lining up everybody's armies and just going at it. Also, Tyranid Warriors probably number in the trillions, and they're still superior to marines. (although that divide has been shrinking too, ffs.)

 vict0988 wrote:
Marines should be better than Necron Warriors, the number of one is legion, the number of the other is one measly million. Imagine playing Custodes into SM in a situation where the only things SM take is Centurions and Land Raiders, it would probably feel wrong. I don't want to be outnumbered by SM when I play Necrons.

Eh, nah. Necrons' basic footsoldiers are supposed to approximately equal the super-soldiers of other factions. But GW has gone way too far with the bolter porn spank.

Hecaton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Marines should be better than Necron Warriors, the number of one is legion, the number of the other is one measly million. Imagine playing Custodes into SM in a situation where the only things SM take is Centurions and Land Raiders, it would probably feel wrong. I don't want to be outnumbered by SM when I play Necrons.

Eh, nah. Necrons' basic footsoldiers are supposed to approximately equal the super-soldiers of other factions. But GW has gone way too far with the bolter porn spank.

The footsoldiers of what other factions? Kabalites, Genestealers and Dire Avengers? Certainly. Infantry Squads or Custodian Guard? No way. I am not expressing a fact, this is just my personal taste. I like being able to field 40 Warriors without that being a third of my list.

 vict0988 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Marines should be better than Necron Warriors, the number of one is legion, the number of the other is one measly million. Imagine playing Custodes into SM in a situation where the only things SM take is Centurions and Land Raiders, it would probably feel wrong. I don't want to be outnumbered by SM when I play Necrons.

Eh, nah. Necrons' basic footsoldiers are supposed to approximately equal the super-soldiers of other factions. But GW has gone way too far with the bolter porn spank.

The footsoldiers of what other factions? Kabalites, Genestealers and Dire Avengers? Certainly. Infantry Squads or Custodian Guard? No way. I am not expressing a fact, this is just my personal taste. I like being able to field 40 Warriors without that being a third of my list.

Are you saying infantry squads are supposed to be better than Warriors????

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Are you saying infantry squads are supposed to be better than Warriors????

Yes, Guardsmen should be on par with Custodian Guard.

Necrodermis is just as durable or moreso than power armor, then can regenerate, necrons have no mind stuff to worry about, and the guns can vaporize huge swaths of everything. They’re stronger than marines, a lot is stronger than marines just on the infantry level. It takes just a single ork in melee to literally rip the limbs from a marine (this was mentioned word for word in a 30k ultramarines book).

They have other mind stuff to worry about, mostly that 99% of the Necron race are mindless automatons. Also the basic Necron Warriors may be made of necrodermis but they have a very light design so they cannot really leverage the durability of the Necrodermis compared to the notably more chunkier Immortal.

Individually Marines are still better because they are better trained and faster and actually have individual initiative, and that alone is far more important than individual firepower or durability.

And vs Orks, while Orks can rip apart a Marine in melee, the Marine is still smarter, more skilled, better trained and a way better shooter and they can leverage that to fight several times their number in Orks.

The thing about Marines isn't that they are the strongest or have the best guns, but that they are among the most skilled forces in the galaxy. They are an army made of FPS protagonists, and if you ever played a FPS then you know that in those games you are never the strongest or best armed thing in the game. e.g In Halo Master Chief can be teared apart limb by limb by pretty much any Brute, or shot to pieces by Jackals, and he is ridiculously outmatched by Hunters in both strength and guns. Yet Master Chief is still better than 99.999% of the aliens he encounters regardless if he is physically outmatched and/or outgunned (and always outnumbered) because he is just that good.

And the hard part is that it is really hard to translate the superior skill Astartes should have into the limited D6 format 40k runs.

I’m not saying marines can’t beat their enemies by being smarter and picking choice strike battles, but that marines compared to a lot of individual dudes are just sort of worse. Their strength comes from strategy mostly, their weapons are honestly subpar to most of what’s out there.
Maybe excepting deathwatch, because they use the xeno tech.

Honestly the appeal of marines to me is that you have well trained well armored genetically enhanced super soldiers. Even they cannot just dominate the galaxy and suffer losses/struggle against it.

An ork boy if they reach a power armored space marine can and will be a challenge with a chance to beat them. An ork nob or warboss they need to get shots on target because barring centuries of experience or extreme skill they are either going to lose or take squad casualties having to fall back on training and team fighting to overcome.

Necron tech literally dissolves power armor and the marine inside splitting it to composite atoms in fractions of a second. The real question is how anything stands up against the necrons as their tech is just next level. I recommend reading the twice dead king to learn more.

Eldar of all types are blindingly fast and have better tech, they fortunately are frail but plenty of times in books when the elfs get the ambush a few can threaten a whole space marine squad.

Tyranid claws rip through power armor. there are examples of genesteelers claws carving right through the back and out the front of terminator armor opening it like a tin can. The bigger ones are even more dangerous but again teamwork plus heavy weapons, melta bombs and often sacrifices allow space marines to sometimes triumph over the more deadly foe.

If space marines were more powerful than everything else it'd be a pretty boring universe really. That is why during the horus heresey outside the orks, space marines were bodying the galaxy. Necrons were asleep, Tyranids were off eating another galaxy, eldar existed and raided but small scale and avoided legions etc.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I’m not saying marines can’t beat their enemies by being smarter and picking choice strike battles, but that marines compared to a lot of individual dudes are just sort of worse. Their strength comes from strategy mostly, their weapons are honestly subpar to most of what’s out there.
Maybe excepting deathwatch, because they use the xeno tech.

"Just sort of worse" I'm not sure you can really make that argument these days. When an Intercessor is 2w, ignoring the first AP, and firing twice at 30" range at AP-2 in Tactical Doctrine. I gotta ask "Worse than what?"

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Necrodermis is just as durable or moreso than power armor, then can regenerate, necrons have no mind stuff to worry about, and the guns can vaporize huge swaths of everything. They’re stronger than marines, a lot is stronger than marines just on the infantry level. It takes just a single ork in melee to literally rip the limbs from a marine (this was mentioned word for word in a 30k ultramarines book).

Are you talking about the yoked 30k Orks led by the Ork Emps had to take out or just regular ones?

Necrons have to teleport back to the tomb or self destruct before they take too much damage, otherwise, their technology could fall into enemy hands. It's fair enough you want the ultra-Necrons. I know that's something a massive amount of players want because that's how they were statted at first and it goes with the whole Terminator thing were each one is unstoppable instead of an army of them being unstoppable together.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Necrodermis is just as durable or moreso than power armor, then can regenerate, necrons have no mind stuff to worry about, and the guns can vaporize huge swaths of everything. They’re stronger than marines, a lot is stronger than marines just on the infantry level. It takes just a single ork in melee to literally rip the limbs from a marine (this was mentioned word for word in a 30k ultramarines book).

Are you talking about the yoked 30k Orks led by the Ork Emps had to take out or just regular ones?

Necrons have to teleport back to the tomb or self destruct before they take too much damage, otherwise, their technology could fall into enemy hands. It's fair enough you want the ultra-Necrons. I know that's something a massive amount of players want because that's how they were statted at first and it goes with the whole Terminator thing were each one is unstoppable instead of an army of them being unstoppable together.

I’m talking standard non urlakk/beast led orks, and I don’t even want one necron taking out an entire army, just something more like the early codexes for them, I thought them beaming out prematurely was cool, at the upside of them just being better. It’s funny to me that guardsmen apparently stole gauss tech, and upgraded it into hammer of the emperor for just a straight up better version of the old gauss rule.

Tyel wrote:
The question surely is "what are you trying to achieve".

Because its all very well saying "in my head cannon the boltgun is the greatest weapon in the universe" (citation needed) - but in practice for the health of the game Marines shouldn't be out-shooting units which are considerably softer and/or less punchy for their points.

Now it may upset you that Marines get outshot by fire warriors, skitarii & guardians - while getting out punched by boyz (Semper: I wish) but that's sort of how a game has to be. If you don't like that, go play 30k.

Personally, I want them to be more reflective of the lore. More powerful individually, but as Dudeface said, fewer bodies on the table to balance this out. IMO the stats of basic Astartes should be closer in some ways to those we see in Custodes troops (in terms of skill and armour anyway)... but separately to that, and being more grounded here, I think the bolter could do with a foundational buff across all factions who use it. Ditching supplementary, temporary, faction-specific doctrines and the like, and elevating the basic weapon itself for everyone who uses it.

And I think there's a big difference between a Marine doing more damage than another model and a Marine being more efficient than another model. If you look at base damage, yes, the boltgun is purported to be a devastating brute-force weapon, which is why I suggested a D2 change beyond just the AP1. Especially Astartes-sized bolters, which I could even see getting their own profile and going up +1S as well (if some other races' infantry weapons were also bumped up by +1 S, like pulse weapons). Something like a shuriken catapult shouldn't have the same Strength as as a boltgun (although more shots, greater mobility from Assault, even greater AP are a different story). If we're talking about points efficiency though, then yes, troops like the humble Guardsman and the less humble Dire Avenger should be out-shooting Marines, and things like Hormagaunts and Orks should be out-meleeing them.

Tyran wrote:Maybe instead of buffing bolters we should talk about buffing lascannons/missile launchers/autocannons/etc.

Well people have brought up the D3+3 lascannon adjustment other factions have received, which seems like a no-brainer. As for other random ideas, the lascannon could potentially get multiple profiles due to its adjustable power levels, e.g. its current 'one shot per battery pack' maximum-power profile, and a Heavy 2 lower-power one with reduced S, AP and/or Range. I've also suggested elsewhere that maybe a characteristic of las weapons could be a hit bonus of some kind, due to their lack of recoil and excelllent ballistics (negligible delay, flat trajectory, etc).

Flakk missiles (an anti-flyer option additional to frag and krak) could be interesting for missile launchers. Or giving them a fixed BS of 2+ (aren't they supposed to be guided?). Or even giving them an option for other specialised warheads, like melta or plasma. If they ever bring back armour facing, the missile launcher could take inspiration from the real-life Javelin and always attack vehicles' rear armour.

As for autocannons... IMO they're a jack-of-all-trades weapon that kinda fails to stand out among other Imperial heavy weapon options. If they are kept around (you could pretty much just fold their current profile into the lascannon as an alternative firing profile), maybe they could be made something like Heavy 2D3, Blast, D1 (apparently in the lore the Imperium lost the ability to produce explosive autocannon rounds... but if they can make Primaris and heavy bolt rounds, they can figure out how to re-add explosives to a shell). Although then you have it competing more with mortars.

(Incidentally, I wonder what multiple-shot GLs and mortars would be like at Heavy 2D6.)

Karol wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

But my question here would be "marines should be better vs. Who?". Because if you told me that they weren't lethal enough against Guardsmen, I'm on board. But right now Marines seem to wipe the floor with other models like Dire Avengers, and I'm just not cool with that. LOTS of other units which were more historically on par with Marines have plummeted in comparison.

Space marines are an example of peak trans human efficiency and the proof of human supremacy over all other races. They should be better then everyone.

Well not everyone, but they do represent human soldiery at its zenith. Obviously Custodes are more powerful, and far more human (let's not forget that Marines are indoctrinated, neutered, joyless zealots who at times more closely resemble automatons than regular human beings)... but Custodes were never intended to be legionary soldiers numbering in the millions.

I agree that, one-on-one with almost any other infantry, a Space Marine should generally come out on top.

Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:Ya know, back in the day a necron was better than a space marine, because they are. And for the most part everyone else does at least one thing better than a marine, orks melee and charge better, eldar are more agile, and guardsmen multiply infinitely.

IIRC, in 4th Ed they had the exact same profile pretty much, but half the initiative, resurrection on a 4+ against non-ID weapons, and wound rolls of 6 with gauss weapons always succeeding?

I love the idea of them being slow and tough, with extremely powerful weaponry... just this relentless, eerie, near-unstoppable advance.

Just some thoughts in relation to the other discussions about necrons.

It would be cool to see all gauss weapons becoming Assault, and auto-wounding on hit rolls of 6 (basically getting HotE, which makes way more sense for gauss weapons), or to-wound rolls automatically succeeding on a 4+ rather than a 6, or even auto-wounding in the same way that flamers auto-hit (but vice versa: gauss weapons only rolling to hit and flamers only rolling to wound).

As for the Necrons themselves... how would people feel about them being M4"? Or more outlandish combos of T and Sv (Necron Warriors with T3 Sv2+, T6 Sv 5+)?

Reanimation protocols would be cool if you just... kept rolling every turn for every destroyed model in a unit. None of this pooled dice stuff, just a flat 4+ or 5+ roll and a model comes back with one wound. Your warrior got destroyed turn one? You can keep rolling to bring it back in turn 4, it's just taking longer to reassemble. Keep trying long enough and the unit can fully reform.

If a unit dies, place a counter down where the last model was removed... and continue rolling reanimation protocols as you normally would if that unit were still alive? Any models from a fully destroyed unit that successfully reanimate are placed over/around their corresponding counter.

Reanimated models that began the game with multiple Wounds could even keep rolling reanimation protocols to regain them (max of 1 regained Wound per turn).

Autocannons need a pinning type of rule. For example, the anti Overwatch rule that Suppressors have should just be standard with any Autocannon type weapon.

I would split the Autocannon into 2 separate profiles:

Infantry-portable: Heavy 2, S7 AP1 D3
Vehicle Mounted: Heavy 2D3, S7, AP1, D3 (What's on the predator).

Changing the Infantry profile to flat damage 3 makes it a choice over a HB. Less shots but more damage (and less affected by -1D), or more shots, but less damage. But overall, they would have the potential damage output.

Changing the vehicle mounted profile means an Autocannon might actually be worth taking.

Why not make the vehicle version Heavy 4?

Thus sparing players some pointless rolling.

GW likes random rolls, because it gives the players an illusion of agency and creates those awesome gaming moments, that are suppose to give a dopamine kick high enough to overshadow those prior 99 not very fun moments.

brainpsyk wrote:
I would split the Autocannon into 2 separate profiles:

Infantry-portable: Heavy 2, S7 AP1 D3
Vehicle Mounted: Heavy 2D3, S7, AP1, D3 (What's on the predator).

Changing the Infantry profile to flat damage 3 makes it a choice over a HB. Less shots but more damage (and less affected by -1D), or more shots, but less damage. But overall, they would have the potential damage output.

Changing the vehicle mounted profile means an Autocannon might actually be worth taking.

Highly agree on D3 autocannons they are after all a a fast firing light anti tank weapon. Id probably go one further and have the predator version of the autocannon maybe be strength 8, while the other tank autocannons being the s7 version (hydra with quad autocannons, castigator which functions like a quad autocannon for some reason)

and iv been of the mind that nearly all infantry portable heavy weapons should be weaker than their vehicle counter points. take the landraider for example, its lascannon power generators are so massive it takes up transport capacity and.... has the exact same stats as a lascannon carried by a marine or a guard weapon team.(sure lore wise it could probably fire all day but that has 0 tabletop representation) (secondary weapons could probably stay equivilent, the storm bolters/heavy bolters/stubbers etc)

I am not sure using the Heavy Bolter as a set point for an updated Autocannon is that great. The HB already feels like it's falling behind, especially when you compare it to a Grav-cannon at generally the same price point (at least for infantry heavy weapons). Frankly, it might just be that the Grav-cannon is undercosted and needs to go to +15 points or that Heavy Bolter/Autocannon need to go down to +5 (for infantry anyway). But then Storm Bolters would also need to go down in price... which means Combi- probably need to go down as well.

In a different thread, I went through some common SM heavy weapons and compared them for shooting at Armor (specifically T8 3+ save), and one of the surprising results was that the Lascannon was worse at shooting Armor(actually, anything) than the Grav-cannon. Anyway, the Twin Autocannon scored barely higher than a Heavy Bolter against T8, but that isn't too surprising, since both the HB and AC are wounding on 5s against T8 and have the same AP and damage, so it comes down to number of shots.

It feels kinda weird, because the (current) Autocannon feels like it should be more of an Anti-tank weapon than the Heavy Bolter, but performs worse. Against T7, the (current) Autocannon breaks even with the Heavy Bolter, and is better against T6, but worse against anything T5 or less again. Bumping the Autocannon to Flat 3 means the tie is at T8, AC better at T5-7, and still technically better at T3&4, but only if the target has 3 wounds. Grav-cannon still wins all Toughness on 3+ save base until you start shooting at 4+ base save (ie losing the Grav-rule and going to flat 1 damage), and even then breaks even with HB for all Toughness. The extra 2 AP and 1 extra shot makes up for having half damage.

Amour of Contempt came out pretty much right as I last posted to that thread, but since the AC and HB have the same AP they are affected equally, and the comparison to the GC is the only thing that changes. And by that, I mean the flat 3 Autocannon only beats the GC against T5(and T3) 4+ save w/AoC and 3 or more wounds... but I have no idea what would have either profile. Once you get to where the extra AP from GC isn't doing anything, the HB and AC start winning again.

Comparing the flat 3 damage Autocannon to a Las Fusil from an Eliminator is actually a pretty good comparison if you ignore the 2+ BS. The additional -2 AP really makes up for having half the shots against AoC armies, and the higher strength makes the Las Fusil better for T4,7&8. Autocannon is better against armies with a weaker base save. Otherwise, it feels balanced. The Las Fusil would have been a 0.833 on the benchmark T8 3+ thread (again, shooting at 3+ BS, 2+ would be 1.04).

The Suppressors Accelerator Autocannon's extra shot makes it math out to the same as the 2 shot flat 3 damage Autocannon (unless there is -1 damage, or you overkill on flat 3) and as we found out is roughly the same as a Las Fusil. So comparing 90 pt Eliminators (3x Las Fusil) to 100 pt Suppressors, you have 2+ BS/Concealed Positions and Camo Cloak(and phobos keyword) on one side vs 12" Fly(and death from above), Suppressing Fire (and +10 points) on the other. I think they dropped the Suppressors down to 90 points they would be more balanced and people might start taking them. IE: 30 points a model, though you still might need to give them the Centurion's Decimator Protocols to not take the -1 to shooting after moving since... moving and shooting seems to be their thing. And open up the unit sizes on all of the 3/unit Primaris to 3-6 please! Feel like almost wasting a slot otherwise.

^The Grav-Cannon is definitely undercosted, especially when compared to the Heavy Bolter. Even with its buff, the Heavy Bolter hasn't made it into any of my lists if there's another option.

Yeah, the Grav Cannon has been a better AT weapon than the Lascannon since the start if 8th, lol. Lascannon needs a buff, big time.

I feel like if they moved Lascannon to d3+2 (so not better than Cognis Lascannons which get Assault and d3+3 damage), still brings the average damage to 4 on the Lascannon, which is what it needs to break even with the Grav-cannon on average. It'll always one-shot Terminators/Gravis if it gets the damage through (without a FNP), so you don't have situations where a regular marine shrugs off a failed save on a Lascannon. 1/6th of the time d3+2 is worse than d6, but 1/3rd is equal and half the time it is better.

Then balance the heavy weapons into three groups. Heavy Bolter at +5 points (along with the flat 3 Autocannon, Accelerator Autocannon, Assault Cannon, Las Fusil, and Heavy Flamer), a take-all-comers(ie, dual-statline) at probably +10 points (Missile Launcher, Plasma Cannon, Helfrost Cannon, etc), and d3+2 Lascannon at +15 points (with Grav-cannon, Multi-melta, etc). Though I feel like Lascannon needs d3+3 and Grav-cannon needs a little something else to compete with a MM.

Special/Combi Weapons, Flamer/Grav-gun/Storm Bolter down to +2-3 points, Meltagun/Plasma gun/Combi-Flamer/Combi-Grav down to +5, Combi-Melta/Combi-Plasma to +8.

The funny thing is, I wouldn't drop the cost of weapons because of their drop in effectiveness due to AoC. That's immediately starting the power creep again, and negates the whole point of AoC.

Also, before we can start to balance the weapon, we have to define the platform that holds the weapon and the target type. A LasCannon/MM/ML on a guardsman is vastly different than one on a Marine, and still a bit different on a Marine devastator squad bringing 4 of them vs. a Tac Squad bringing 1. The same goes for the target, in that a HB, while it has play into T6+, it's primary target is T5-, while the LC/MM's primary target is T7+, and anything T8+ pays a premium just for existing (I'm not bitter as a Guard player... GW).

Exactly, the point of AoC is to make certain armies more tanky. So people DON'T need to hurt units from these armies more efficiently, especially those who even benefit from AoC themselves.

And in all fairness all those weapons look already pretty cheap to me.

 vict0988 wrote:

The footsoldiers of what other factions? Kabalites, Genestealers and Dire Avengers? Certainly. Infantry Squads or Custodian Guard? No way. I am not expressing a fact, this is just my personal taste. I like being able to field 40 Warriors without that being a third of my list.

Approximately equal to Space Marines is where I was going with this. They're supposed to be an incredibly technologically advanced race, not some chumps for the Astartes to slaughter en masse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
They have other mind stuff to worry about, mostly that 99% of the Necron race are mindless automatons. Also the basic Necron Warriors may be made of necrodermis but they have a very light design so they cannot really leverage the durability of the Necrodermis compared to the notably more chunkier Immortal.

Citation needed on their lack of ability to leverage durability, since historically they've been tougher than marines. Until recently.

 Tyran wrote:
Individually Marines are still better because they are better trained and faster and actually have individual initiative, and that alone is far more important than individual firepower or durability.

Sure, but Marines have more firepower *and* more durability than a Necron now.

Hecaton wrote:


Citation needed on their lack of ability to leverage durability, since historically they've been tougher than marines. Until recently.

Sure, if you define an entire decade as ”until recently".

Hecaton wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Individually Marines are still better because they are better trained and faster and actually have individual initiative, and that alone is far more important than individual firepower or durability.

Sure, but Marines have more firepower *and* more durability than a Necron now.

Intercessors have more firepower* a tactical marine still has about equal.