Why Power Armour troops are mediocre and what can be done?

[The Unseen]

 

 

The main thing that concerns me is the inevitable power creep that will happen if Marines get buffed.

 

Marine buff---->people start whining that they're too good---->other factions get buffed to compensate and we're right back where we started.

 

Something else needs to be done other than just flat making them better.

Exactly this. I've even mentioned it a few times myself: just buffing Marines (especially buffing their stats) will inevitably lead to an arms race of army buffs that gets us into a bigger mess then issuing a points change on various armies (which can be done in CA like this just did last month).

I don't see how making the basic marines better but also more expensive is somehow power creep.

Their well under the overall power curve of the game right now, so making them better to bring them in line with that curve isn't power creep, it's called balancing.

 

Also, it doesn't matter what you do to other armies right now, tacticals will still suck in regards to other units in the codex. Scouts/intercessors do almost everything they do better, except for special weapons, which you have vets/hellblasters for.

 

Even if every other armies troops were nerfed into oblivion, I still wouldn't run tacticals, I'd still run scouts, because they actually do something, namely screen alpha strikes and grab forward objectives without requiring a transport, unlike all the members of a tactical squad except the 2 carrying plasma.

 

Nerfing horde infantry would be good, but that doesn't magically make the tactical marine good with regards to the rest of the marine book.

[BitsHammer]

Making Marines more expensive doesn't make them better just because there was a stat buff attached, instead it shrinks the number of bodies on the table and makes the army even more outgunned by hordes (see Primaris only armies for an example of this: better, more expensive Marines who can still get tabled by a horde army due to being outgunned).

 

Before any stat changes are made to anyone I'd say make the hordes more expensive first. Get games in where the hordes have 1/4-1/2 the number of bodies and units they currently bring see what that does to the game and balance and then consider adjusting stat and rules. If we change everything all at once it basically becomes impossible to balance everything properly.

 

And I disagree that Tacticals are somehow bad inside the Marine book. They're not exciting, sure, and they don't do any one job really well, but when were they ever supposed to? They're the generalists of the army. They do a little of everything okay and that's they're job.

 

But that fact that they're basically all-rounders with all the genericness and weakness that it comes it, I'm having trouble with your point about them (unless the point is that perhaps they should be able to swap bolters for chainswords like Crusaders can then I get behind that since there are a lot of CC oriented vanilla armies (like Raven Guard and their kin)). Is it you want a Marine buff but don't want it on every variety of Marine? Why? And if you do want it on every variety of Marine how does that do anything to make Tacticals less generic and weak-feeling in comparison?

 

Because let's be extremely honest here: if you make any changes to tacticals, it's going to affect every other flavor of Marine out there, making them just as "mediocre" looking in comparison.

[Claws and Effect]

This entire discussion is one of the reasons I'm not keen on mathhammer. People tend to cling to it religiously and let it dictate their choices for them. Hardcore players look at people funny if they take a unit just because they like it and don't give a hoot how mathematically advantageous it is. I'm perfectly capable of crunching the numbers and coming up with a numerically superior list. But I don't because I don't find that fun. I have noticed a strong tendency in this game for people to take only the mathematically best possible choice in any given slot. To me, that is boring. I don't want to show up with my numerically perfect army and find that it is ​exactly the same as every other army of that faction. 

 

Remember at the tail end of 7th how everyone was complaining that every Marine army looked pretty much identical to the next one? And every Eldar army, and every Tau army, and every Necron army, etc. 

 

It's happening again because people can't let go of the notion that they must have the mathematically perfect army. 

 

Look at the following choices and tell me which one sounds like more fun to you: 

 

1) Put together a list comprised of units that you like the look of or sounded like fun to play and win games because you found a creative way to play a "sub-par" list. 

 

2) Put together a mathematically perfect list that a monkey could win with and effortlessly steamroll anyone who sets up across from you. 

 

I don't know about you guys, but #1 sounds WAY more fun to me. 

 

Yeah, winning a game is awesome. But in my opinion, if winning is more important to you than how much fun both players had you're doing it wrong. 

 

I played in a small RTT tournament a few months ago. I got stomped into the dirt. But you know what? I had a freaking BLAST playing, because winning wasn't why I was there. I know that's an alien concept to some people, but it's how I roll. 

 

To that end, I don't really feel like stuff needs to constantly be tweaked so the mathhammer people are satisfied that it is the best it can possibly be. 

 

Are Tactical Marines the best Troops choice in the game? No, not even close. But are they so bad they are unusable? Also no. 

 

Leave the fixes for stuff that is actually broken, rather than expecting GW to tweak things that aren't just to appease a certain segment that demands perfection. We're not Fulgrim, and I don't feel the need to emulate him. I'd rather have a functional game than one that is in constant flux because some people just won't be satisfied unless everything is flawless. 

[SydonianDragoon404]

@Claws and Effect

 

I completely see where you're coming from and on a certain level I agree. People should bring what they like, and play what they like. The problem is when things don't work out, don't meet expectations, and people end up disappointed. 

 

Lets say that player A really loves Dark Eldar Incubi. He has 2 squads of them, well painted. He loves the look of them, the lore, and they do such damn cool things when they get into combat. 

 

Player A is matched against Player B, and while Player B isn't a power gamer or tournament goer, he brought a list that has some teeth. Lets say he's a marine player. Hurricane bolters, storm bolters, assault cannons, and a mix of things like missile launchers, flamers, lascannons. Of course, player B really likes.. IDK, Terminators. Every time he's brought Terminators, they failed to do anything because he made mistakes, had bad dice rolls, opponent had really good dice rolls. He likes them, but every time he fields them they disappoint him because they just don't seem to do much. So, having not brought any terminators, he looked online to see what other people were bringing instead. Assault cannons, storm bolters, Lascannons, etc. 

 

Player A's Incubi get mulched. And they get mulched in his next game that he plays against Tyranids. And they get mulched in his third game. After that, Player A starts to consider other options because his favorite unit keeps failing him. 

 

People don't feel good about having things that they like, put time and effort into, try to do something and fail. That's why people look at mathhammer. Because when they do that, they have a vague idea of what to expect. They don't have fluff and stories putting these wild images and ideas into their heads leading to false expectations. Yes, mathhammer can fail you when dice go a certain way or specific circumstances that can't be accounted for play out, but every time player A's Incubi got mulched when he fielded them, it wasn't fun. It didn't feel good. It wasn't cool. That's what the game is about right? Having fun, feeling good what you're doing, seeing cool battles play out? When it doesn't happen, people get discouraged. Happens all the time. That's how Player A ends up buying Dark Reapers and playing Ynnari. Because he got sick of being matched up against people who were once like him, but got beaten down into submission so hard that they looked for something powerful, something efficient to put on the table. 

 

And its a sad state of affairs. 8th edition has been by far much more balanced than 7th. Imperial Guard taking Leman Russes and heavy weapon teams? Chaos Space Marines top dog? Fire Prisms finally worth taking? There's a good chunk more of choices now that people can feel good about. But yet there is absolutely still room for improvement. Are Space Marines within that realm? I would say yes, but for reasons other than the 3+ armor save stat being a little bit overcosted. 

[BitsHammer]

You can make that arguement, but then you can make the arguement that Player A takes their losses and goes back and looks at how they're using the unit, what the unit is good at and finding ways to make them work. I used Repentia through both 5th and 6th editions despite people basically calling them worthless and not really valid and had great success blendering through enemy units (so many dead Death Company models left in their wake too).

 

7th was where I stopped really playing because my lack of new options was dragging down my enjoyment more than use of a subpar unit. Not everyone jumps on the netlist bandwagon. Plenty of us will find tactics to make up how weak a unit is alone (Grand Theft Rhino (nicking a Rhino from another squad for my Repentia to ride in) was one such method I used for instance).

 

Now I'm not saying that units can't be bad (see: Pyrovore), but not every player discards a unit they like just because they don't work right off the bat. This is a game that involves more than just plopping models on the table mindlessly to win games and even the strongest netlists can be completely derailed by something that ignores the meta and does its own thing.

 

But that's just my $.02 on that topic.

 

More on power armoured units and why they seem lack luster:

 

Basically everyone can assume that they'll be fighting Marines about 75% of the time. I mean I know I have. I even take it into consideration in how I plan on running my army and what I generally look at when I consider wargear options or building tactics into my lists. I'm willing to bet most of us do the same thing too.

 

And that in its own right might be part of the problem. We all spend a LOT of time working out the most efficient way of murdering Astartes. And while there is nothing wrong with that, it definitely colors our perception of how strong or weak they are when every army is built with the assumption that they'll be fighting Marines and ensures they have the best tools available to them to kill Marines.

 

This isn't to say that Marines don't have problems. I've highlighted a couple myself in regards to their abilities and wargear in the lore compared to the way they play table. I still feel that the core of the Marine army should be reliability. Re-roll ones basically everywhere (to-hit, to-wound (on all bolt weapons and in melee), for saves) to highlight how elite they are compared to regular humans and how much better their wargear is over what the rest of the Imperium uses.

 

Marines don't need to be stronger, faster, tougher or even have more wounds than they do now (we already can see that just adjusting statlines and slapping a larger points cost on them doesn't work thanks to the Primaris Marines). They should, however, feel like the elite and reliable warriors they are. Rerolls is the easiest and most direct way to do it without drastically changing their stats and rules.

 

Well that and giving them some more fluffy options (chainsword/bolt pistol Tacticals comes to mind since there are a LOT of melee focused chapters and the ability to trade range for extra attacks has always been something the army as a whole as needed in the troop choice).

[Beta galactosidase]

Power armor units are at bad places inside their books, definitely. It's also very possible to make the tactical squad in particular better than other PA units.

 

The Dark Eldar raider, the Leman Russ and Chimera tanks, the carnifex and lictor, these are all very central, well integrated signature parts of their armies' aesthetics. When you come to the predator, and even the centurion or dreadnought, these things are barely relevant to the army. You don't need guardians for an eldar army, because all the vehicles are clearly decadent eldritch artifacts. Same for tau or orks. A predator by itself could be in any number of other games. it's not important for the space marine aesthetic, what's important is the over-grown soldier. Nothing about a predator and not much about a dreadnought says GMO biceps and grille-faced power armor. So you always have to have PA models be the most powerful and numerous things in the codex, more than they are now.

 

As for tactical squads not having a place relative to veterans et al it's very simple. If you make base marine profiles and bolt guns very good, there isn't as much point in giving up extra tactical squads to buy combi-plasma veterans.

 

 

I think a lot can be said for designing the entire main rulebook around making combat-squadded tactical squads the featured unit of the whole game. E.g. tactical squads finish objective while being blasted by phantom titan, guard platoons brave fearsome resistance trying to retake facility from marauding tactical squads, tactical squads desperately try to hold out agains swarms of tyranids until being extracted, tactical squads with some assistance from predators storm fortified city.

 

That would be a good way to balance games - large monsters and hordes are supported with the ability to have detailed elite units fighting them too. I don't mean that all games should be tactical squads.

[Claws and Effect]

Fulkes makes a really great point above.

 

How much of our perception of basic Marines being weak is stemming from the fact that every single player builds their lists to be able to beat them?

 

Marines of various flavors are the most numerous armies by a fairly wide margin, so everyone and their Comissar's grandma builds to beat them.

 

Now a lot of people feel they are weak. But I'm of the opinion that a lot of that comes from other players building to prey on their weaknesses.

[Bryan Blaire]

But I'm of the opinion that a lot of that comes from other players building to prey on their weaknesses.

That is very likely true, however, it also begs the question that if list tailoring like that can occur, might it not mean that equipment and special rules that are better used against Marines than other opponents be a little too readily available for oppositional armies, or that Marines don't quite have the same ability to list tailor or bring the same level of readily available effective counter-weaponry for other armies?

[Captain Idaho]

I think Marines have the basic tools available but the rules for some of them are lacking. Vindicators, for example, are absolutely rubbish. They have potential as a high strength danger unit, but have too few shots or too little damage to really work compared to just a Lascannon or two, or the multitude of anti infantry options we already have.

 

Likewise, our Stratagems are lacklustre. Needing 3 Vindicators to just use a single Stratagem exasperates the problem. 3 poor units for a Stratagem that will often do little or nothing due to needing a 4+ just to hit a unit, that becomes unusable once 1 Vindicator is dead?

 

Or the Stratagem that requires 3 Psykers to use 1 extra power? Colour men impressed - They already get 6!

 

Or the fact we pay 3 CPs for a Stratagem to allow us to strike again in the combat phase, which for most people is half our CP total.

 

I won't go on as there are so many problems with our Stratagems. Too niche and too expensive.

 

***

 

Given that there are all these problems, the Tacitcal Marines issue isn't actually an issue. They're quite serviceable and would work even better if Drop Pods went down to 40pts and Rhinos went down to 50pts.

[Chaplain Killmer]

Maybe the only way to improve the "feeling" is to finally stop writing that stupid novels creating "lore" that the marines on the table cant live up to :)

[BitsHammer]

If we're asking the question if other armies killing us is why we don't seem strong and by comparison if we can do the same thing, then yes, Marines kill Marines just fine. :P

 

More seriously, the question of how to kill Marines and how to kill hordes are fundamentally different in approach and that means it's hard to really make fair comparisons between the two. Marines are killed more easily with quality (good AP and high strength) than quantity of dice (though quantity being a kind of quality holds true when you throw literal buckets of dice) while hordes need to be hit with quantity of hits more than quality (poor saves and large numbers mean you need more dice to widdle them down rather than better weapons).

 

I'd argue that perhaps because of this damage should overflow, but then that'd just lead potentially more Marines dying to D2+ weapons as people find ways to do things like Overcharge plasma into them safely.

 

Basically I'm saying that I'm not sure if we can use the fact that hordes can drown a person in dice as a fair comparison for the fact that an army with less models can't do the same to a horde.

 

Perhaps if blast weapons scaled more for consistency of hits (say, 1d3, 2d3, 3d3, 4d3, ect instead of 1d3, 1d6, 2d6 which is far more variable and doesn't provide the sort of consistency these sorts of weapons should have) and these weapons were given extra dice against larger units (say an extra die for every 10 models for a rough example) then we might have something for quantity that we'd see in more armies.

 

Alternatively perhaps the way morale works should be addressed so that we see less units that can negate it. While I appreciate the fluffiness of Orks for example being able to have Ld30, it hardly works for game balance and outright makes some abilities (like the Dark Angels' power (I think it's Mind War but I don't have a book in front of me right now) where the power is a Ld+D6 roll off between two you and your opponent to get it off) useless. Synapse working like fearless is fluffy, but without a penalty that comes with it (like perhaps the units being able to gain cover saves from terrain since the Hive Mind pushes them forward instead of having them skulk about) to make fearless less good in an edition where morale is the designed balance against horde units.

 

And that isn't even getting into the fact that Guard players are basically being told to spam 10 man units thanks to the small unit sizes, which leads to the complete avoidance of a horde army being effected by the morale system designed to balance hordes!

 

In the end, that is the biggest problem for not just Marines, but a lot of not-horde armies: the ways that morale is applied to the horde armies doesn't balance the hordes but rather is being used to protect hordes and that in turn punishes the more elite armies, like Marines.

[RandomMarine]

I probably just give all bolters mortal wounds on a 6 to hit agianst infantry to signify a clean hit so the mass reactive goes off and marine one +1 to wound on infantry to signify the larger calibre of marine bolters

[Mileposter]

Changing bolster stats would massively redistribute power balance in the game, and might not actually be a positive for Marines.

 

Altering the Marine statline is less impactful than altering the Bolter.

 

That said, the likely best scenario is changing neither and reworking the Astartes support package: Stratagems and Warlord Traits. An additional set of these would likely give those situational units more situations to be useful.

 

Some units, individually, do need being looked at - but that's always true in a PVP environment.

[Finkmilkana]

MW in bolters only makes them better against MEQ and harder targets, but doesn’t really change their impact against hordes much. If you would want to make bolters better against chaff it would probably work better to give them a second normal hit on 6+ (Or even better on any wound roll that is above toughness +2). Though that would greatly buff many vehicles etc too.

[kombatwombat]

Be very careful in trying to make Marines better by improving weapons. Remember that the only weapon profile that kills Guardsmen more efficiently than Marines is Str 2 AP 0. You’re going to struggle if you’re trying to make basic Marines stronger relative to other units by increasing their firepower.

 

Improving Str or AP just makes life worse for Marines. Improving Range or re-rolling 1s To-Hit/Wound affects all units equally, so this would just make Marines die faster. Improving damage has no effect on 1 wound models. Mortal Wounds are obscenely broken against elite units, so it’s no surprise that adding them doesn’t help. Bonuses against the Infantry keyword catches Marines too. Giving Bolters a Leadership modifying effect (like the Butcher Cannon) hurts elite armies more since it effectively adds +1 casualty, which is worse for more expensive models, and the true horde armies aren’t bothered by morale anyway. (It’s kind of astonishing just how heavily the 8th Ed deck is stacked against elite armies when you actually lay it out like this).

 

Adding extra shots against larger units isn’t a bad idea, but it ultimately just encourages MSU like 10-man Guard Squads, which also mitigates morale further.

 

No, I really think the cleanest solution will be to increase Marines’ durability. And that’s durability per point, so you can either:

 

- Reduce Marine costs per model - not a bad idea, but plays against the idea of them being an elite force when you’re heading towards a Power Armoured Tide list

 

- Increase everything else’s costs per model - this has to be a fool’s errand; you might as well launch a new edition while you’re at it given how much work this would take

 

- Increase Marines’ Toughness - again, not bad, but it provides exactly zero help against massed Strength 3 or medium-powered weaponry, and the knock-on effects for things like Death Guard might be a concern

 

- Increase Marines’ Armour Save - 2+ armour on basic troops might be pushing it. Something like All Is Dust where they get +1 Sv against 1 Damage weapons might be good idea, but it does step on Thousand Sons’ toes, and Terminators with this rule would need to be looked at

 

- Increase Marines’ Wounds - my preferred solution, as I’ve said earlier; it doubles their durability against small arms fire and brings them more into line with other units’ durability, while leaving a weakness to heavier multi-damage weaponry

[Captain Idaho]

I'd like a power armour rule. Maybe something like "it ignores the first -1 to saves".

 

Very powerful but it is Power armour and superior to just about anything else.

 

However I don't really think the Marines themselves need a buff. It's the little things around it, like Stratagems and support units.

 

Maybe a Space Marines specific Detachment would have helped? Codex Astartes Detachment for those who follow the Codex (i.e. most Chapters). It could just be a Battalion type affair but grants 5 Command Points instead of 3.

 

Though I'm very wary of bringing back the old Formations rules that broke the game.

[Toxichobbit]

If you want something to represent power armour's toughness against less powerful weaponry, how about instead of flat out ignoring AP-1, you give re-roll saves of 1 against AP of -1 or less? Or maybe just re-roll saves of 1 vs weapons with no AP. Or re-roll saves of 1 vs D1 weapons.

 

I prefer re-rolls like this to the flat out ignoring of -1 AP. The problem with ignoring -1AP is that it is essentially a straight +1 to the armour save against certain weapons, where as re-rolling a specific number is a bit more granular than just adding +1 to a dice roll. The other thing that's weird with ignoring AP-1 is that while it puts power armour to equal effectiveness against AP- and AP-1, from a certain perspective it makes power armour more effective against AP-1. What I mean is if you look at it from one way, that of the actual saving throw, you're getting an effective 3+ against both. But from another perspective, that of buffing power armour, you're only getting the bonus against AP-1, increasing the armour's effectiveness against AP-1 but doing nothing to increase it against AP-. I'm pretty sure at least some of the 40k community would look at it this way and complain. Then again, when is some of the 40k community not complaining? Anyway, point is the re-roll of a specific number avoids this because it adds effectiveness against both AP- and AP-1 attacks. The downside is it would slow the game down a bit, as it's flat out adding more rolls.

 

I completely agree that the Stratagems and support units for Marines are, in places, lacklustre. Personally I'd add the Librarius Discipline to that too. The powers feel weak and given the price (both in points and HQ slot) of Librarians, I find whenever I take one I'm always disappointed. On the other hand, whenever I take Millitarum or Tyranid psykers they always do something useful and are often cheaper to boot. Same when I face enemy Tyranid and Eldar psykers. I feel like some of the powers in the Codex discipline could use a small boost. I'd rather this than Librarians get cheaper, becuase they're not really something we should be taking many of to begin with.

 

I'd rather not see faction specific Detachments return. If Marines get one, then every other faction will want one (and rightly so). If every faction gets one then some will naturally be more powerful than others. All it then takes is for one faction that's already powerful to get a Detachment that boosts their power more than most other factions and we're back to 7th T'au and Eldar. I don't think any of us (except some T'au Riptide players) want to see that again.

[Captain Idaho]

Oh totally; the Space Marines Psychic powers are mostly rubbish. Consider Null Zone - high casting cost and short range means you'll commit your Librarian and then fail to get the power off most games.

 

I considered rerolls but it does slow the game down with endless rerolls.

[Charlo]

I don't buy the "re-rolls slow down the game" argument too much, it's not massively time consuming. I play Ad Mech with Cawl and 90% of my shooting is re-rolls to hits.

 

I do concede that re-rolling saves could get a bit boggy though, especially when dealing with specific activations like "only on 1D weapons" etc

 

I'm torn on buffing marines, defensively and offensively...

 

On the defensive side in a world of save modifiers the 3+ save & power armour is not well enough represented now; in Crunch it simply being just one step above a 4+, as opposed to a world of difference against weapons that previously culled a 4+ save and in fluff, why is inches thick fully armored super-metal compound only one step above essentially Kevlar and choice bits of lesser plating (looking at Tau/ Skitarii/ Scions as that 4+ example), not to mention the multitude of sub systems that marines have that aren't well represented. It almost makes me wish Primaris just replaced normal marines in a modelling sense and everything  got an extra attack and wound.

 

On the offence side, Marines are the baseline for weapons. Changing a bolter changes an entire weapon family that is probably the most prevalent in the game. In my head i'm thinking of something where if enough bolt weapons from the same unit shoot at something they get a +1 to wound or maybe even two units shoot all of thier bolt weapons at something it occurs, to represent the smattering of Mass Reactive shells bombarding the target. It would be a rule for marines as opposed to bolters themselves, to represent their combined arms firepower.

[Mileposter]

From a game balancing point of view, changing anything statistical on the standard Tactical Marines (their stats, their weapons stats, their abilities) is statistically the worst option to take - and is likely not going to happen.

 

You're far more likely to see a buff on Marine support units and an increase in support options instead. Possibly even a lifting of restrictions on other options already in existence.

 

A +1 somewhere may not seem like much, but if it's a static thing, it could be world shattering on your balance.

[Deschenus Maximus]

The problem with not boosting bolters is that it perpetuates the internal imbalance between Tactical Squads and say Devastators.

[totgeboren]

Any solution should in theory address three issues.

1.) Even a single Guardsman has easy access to the same anti-infantry firepower as a marine on a model-to-model basis (not points basis, but model basis!). How much more lethal should a single marine be in the shooting phase compared to a single guardsman?

2.) Tactical marines, that is, squads armed primarily with Bolters, should feel as an equally valid option as say Devastators.

3.) Marines should not be more susceptible to morale than hordes.

 

Only buffing Bolters makes marines more offensively powerful, but at the same time makes them evaporate even faster than now when under fire (by enemy astartes). There is also the issue of other armies and vehicles with bolter weapons being needlessly buffed.

Only buffing resilience (+1 W or better save), does not address the issue of being outshot on a model basis by even guardsmen, nor does it make bolter-marines a solid choice in comparison with special weapons or Devastators.

The main problem with morale is not really with marines. Perhaps ATSKNF should be "roll 2D6 pick lowest" instead of reroll, but I would prefer it if it remained as a reasonable level of "super-morale".
Synapse, Ork mobs (my brave Orks should probably be a little less brave) and morale mitigation effects for hordes probably need to be heavily nerfed.

 

So what does this give us? Something like a Marine special rule "Rapid Fire Drill: Marines can fire bolter weapons twice each time they shoot), +1 wound and A to all marines of all kinds, a points increase of between 5-10 pts per model, and some nerfing of horde morale mitigation. This will make basic marines slightlybetter on a points basis, make devastators and special weapons slightly worse (since the carrier model costs more), keep their lethality against each other on the same level, and make them feel more elite vs hordes who will suffer a bit more from morale, and thus concentrated force tactics that marines would have an easier time accomplishing due to lower model count.

 

So a new edition in short. Since we wont get that, I think we will just have to get used to marines being semi-useless redshirts used for special weapon delivery.

[Gentlemanloser]

Rapid Fire Drill would let my 10 man Strike Squads shoot 80 Storm Bolter shots (in Rapid Fire Range).

 

That makes them like a Devilgaunt squad.  10 less shots, but BS 3+ instead of 4+.  On a T4 / 3+ frame, instead of T3 / 6+.

 

Without rerolls the gaunts land 45 hits.  My Strikes would land 53.3~

 

I'm up for that super buff!

[Schlitzaf]

Couple things

1) 10 Man Gaurdsman are not real MSU, they only come in Units of 10

2) No on Bolter Drill. I can sit and go through all the Math again, but even if you add 5 points to Marines for these units it is not heavily lopsided. Those Devil Gaunts are 240 Points, take two Command Points, evaporate without a 70 Point character Tax, or if deep striking another 200 Points and finally to get those rerolls you need one squad of 30, 250 Point character or a specific hive fleet tactic

3) Hordes and Moral are not a problem. You try and fix their immunity, Hordes completely vanish. Hordes need Moral Immunity. Why? Tacticals shoot, 8 killed, then charge another 4 Dead. You and just killed nearly a whole squad post battle shock. Or 22 models assuming 3 was rolled. Hordes should not just ‘evaporate’. If you want two examples why Immunity is needed, Kroot and now Conscripts. Both functionally unplayable.

 

All that said my larger point is that, context. You can scream “Gaurdsman beat muh Marines”. That example I just gave? Apply that to Gaurdsman. Suddenly you wiped out a Squad. And reduced another to 4 Man. Or half the enemy and most of the Gaurdsman. Those same Gaurdsman in ideal similar circumstances kill barely 3 Marines. Even if all 30 are in rapid. Because you will only get about 10-12 models in close combat.

 

For being ‘worse’ in every way, exactly why is my Tactical Squad dominating these 30 Gaurdsman? Because, that 3+/T4, and BS/WS 3+. Units like Gaurd and Gaunts evaporate under small arm fire. The man might say the Bolter vs Gaurdsman gets less points per wound compared to a Lasgun vs Gaurdsman, but it neglects to mention the effective firepower reduction. Marines are balanced based on their ability to project and utilize firepower in a small mobile package. It’s why Gulliman/CM Gunlines are powerful it amplifies the natural strength of SM Armies.

[BitsHammer]

I do find it a little funny that Marines dying to Marines (something the fluff is full of happening since Marines are really good at killing something like themselves) is being seen as a downside to buffing bolters. The concern we have is the issue of Marines not being able to take on Horde armies. Marines vs Marines will always be a violent slugfest and it always should be.

 

Considering things some more, I'm still a fan of buffing the bolter so that it stands further apart from the lasgun on the table than just a slightly better wounding roll. Giving it a re-roll to wound on 1s fits the weapon well enough in my mind. Giving Marines themselves a re-roll on hit rolls of 1 also fits in my mind due to the length of training and combat experience they have. Most Marine Scouts have been fighting longer than most IG Officers after all.

 

But lets say we want to buff the bolter even further so that it can represent punching through someone and hitting the guy behind them (as it can in the lore)? I wouldn't do mortal wounds as that is the realm of the Sniper Weapon and should remain such, but rather "exploding dice". Roll a 6+ to hit and gain an extra hit (no roll required, and it doesn't generate extra hits). Not quite a horde killer alone, but definitely something that would represent the power of the bolter better in my opinion.