PA Armies in general: How to improve them? Yep, again...

[Panzer]

 

 

 

Considering CA introduced no changes, and at another significant forum a vocal group of posters keep arguing that PA are fine currently, it is starting to look like PA is in perfectly balanced place, atleast in GW's view.

 

You may not like it, but this is what peak performance at 13 points per model looks like, atleast according to GW.

CA isn't going introduce changes like that. It's not what the book is for. It is for points adjustment and new missions. These kind of changes can only come from a codex

Fiends.. Bloodcrushers? Sorry but what was actually in CA contradicts your theorizing about what should or should not be inside of it.

They didn't make sweeping changes to an entire faction though did they? They added what, 3 new data sheets, for different armies? So no, that's not what CA is or ever will be.

 

 

Also those new Datasheets don't exactly originate from the CA. They got new Datasheets because the Wrath&Glory box gives us new models and they required a bit more love so GW including them in the CA18 already is just nice to have as those Datasheets would've made available via Errata eventually anyway.

[duz_]

=][=

sfPanzer just hit the nail on the head.

 

Lets get back on topic: How to improve power armour

=][=

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Making all Troops, Guardsmen included, better doesn't make Marines good either tho. That's some seriously flawed logic here. Not to mention that this topic is about all Marines, not just Troops.

 

 

Guard are better at generating CP than just about any other fraction (admech are real good at it now, and sisters are close). Holding objectives is different they aren't that great at it, they can't hide in transports like in 5th. Marines are better at it (intercessors especially) and if that becomes relevant than there is a reason to take them.

 

That said if the only reason to take a troop is generate CP why wouldn't you take the cheapest option? None of the people that dislike my suggestion have offered a single reason.  

 

I know that marines would need buffs in addition to this and haven't stated otherwise once. I just don't feel that there is a point to elite troops in this edition, and giving them incremental bonuses won't change that. As long as that's the case PA is going to struggle.

 

Edit: I think a single fraction CP bonus based on game size would help marines out immensely, point drops, and ignoring AP -1 are the best way forward. I just think that troops have to matter more for marines to be good.  

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

 

 

 

Considering CA introduced no changes, and at another significant forum a vocal group of posters keep arguing that PA are fine currently, it is starting to look like PA is in perfectly balanced place, atleast in GW's view.

 

You may not like it, but this is what peak performance at 13 points per model looks like, atleast according to GW.

CA isn't going introduce changes like that. It's not what the book is for. It is for points adjustment and new missions. These kind of changes can only come from a codex

Fiends.. Bloodcrushers? Sorry but what was actually in CA contradicts your theorizing about what should or should not be inside of it.

They didn't make sweeping changes to an entire faction though did they? They added what, 3 new data sheets, for different armies? So no, that's not what CA is or ever will be.

 

CA is whatever GW says it is at any given moment which can change if they decide.  They are clearly not averse to data sheet adjustments within CA.  Sisters for example did get sweeping changes in their beta codex.  If it becomes clear that the state of power armor is negatively impacting sales, then you will likely see changes in CA which is a far cheaper platform for boosting model sales than designing new models with new rules from scratch.  Railing against all the suggestions for sweeping changes to power armor on the grounds that CA isnt the proscribed place for said changes is fairly irrelevant to this issue.  

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

 

 

Considering CA introduced no changes, and at another significant forum a vocal group of posters keep arguing that PA are fine currently, it is starting to look like PA is in perfectly balanced place, atleast in GW's view.

 

You may not like it, but this is what peak performance at 13 points per model looks like, atleast according to GW.

CA isn't going introduce changes like that. It's not what the book is for. It is for points adjustment and new missions. These kind of changes can only come from a codex

Fiends.. Bloodcrushers? Sorry but what was actually in CA contradicts your theorizing about what should or should not be inside of it.

They didn't make sweeping changes to an entire faction though did they? They added what, 3 new data sheets, for different armies? So no, that's not what CA is or ever will be.

CA is whatever GW says it is at any given moment which can change if they decide. They are clearly not averse to data sheet adjustments within CA. Sisters for example did get sweeping changes in their beta codex. If it becomes clear that the state of power armor is negatively impacting sales, then you will likely see changes in CA which is a far cheaper platform for boosting model sales than designing new models with new rules from scratch. Railing against all the suggestions for sweeping changes to power armor on the grounds that CA isnt the proscribed place for said changes is fairly irrelevant to this issue.

I agree with you but I think Power Armour sales are pretty much guaranteed to be good no matter how bad the actual rules are. I’m not saying the rules will have no effect on sales but as soon as they bring out a new Primaris kit They will sell loads of it, no matter whether the rules for it are good or not.

 

I think if the poor rules/state of marines were going to have a negative impact on sales it would’ve happened already and GW would’ve pushed the panic button a while ago and boosted marines dramatically.

 

To be honest, that’s probably the only thing that will spur them on to release that new codex or really fix them, If the next big marine release doesn’t sell well, but that won’t happen. People (probably myself included) will still buy it.

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

 

 

 

 

 

Considering CA introduced no changes, and at another significant forum a vocal group of posters keep arguing that PA are fine currently, it is starting to look like PA is in perfectly balanced place, atleast in GW's view.

 

You may not like it, but this is what peak performance at 13 points per model looks like, atleast according to GW.

CA isn't going introduce changes like that. It's not what the book is for. It is for points adjustment and new missions. These kind of changes can only come from a codex

Fiends.. Bloodcrushers? Sorry but what was actually in CA contradicts your theorizing about what should or should not be inside of it.

They didn't make sweeping changes to an entire faction though did they? They added what, 3 new data sheets, for different armies? So no, that's not what CA is or ever will be.

CA is whatever GW says it is at any given moment which can change if they decide. They are clearly not averse to data sheet adjustments within CA. Sisters for example did get sweeping changes in their beta codex. If it becomes clear that the state of power armor is negatively impacting sales, then you will likely see changes in CA which is a far cheaper platform for boosting model sales than designing new models with new rules from scratch. Railing against all the suggestions for sweeping changes to power armor on the grounds that CA isnt the proscribed place for said changes is fairly irrelevant to this issue.

I agree with you but I think Power Armour sales are pretty much guaranteed to be good no matter how bad the actual rules are. I’m not saying the rules will have no effect on sales but as soon as they bring out a new Primaris kit They will sell loads of it, no matter whether the rules for it are good or not.

 

I think if the poor rules/state of marines were going to have a negative impact on sales it would’ve happened already and GW would’ve pushed the panic button a while ago and boosted marines dramatically.

 

To be honest, that’s probably the only thing that will spur them on to release that new codex or really fix them, If the next big marine release doesn’t sell well, but that won’t happen. People (probably myself included) will still buy it.

 

Show some discipline!  I have only purchased primaris models from ebay or friends.  Until the rules dont suck GW isnt getting any $$ from me.

[Panzer]

 

Show some discipline!  I have only purchased primaris models from ebay or friends.  Until the rules dont suck GW isnt getting any $$ from me.

 

 

Eh, I play Primaris Marines because I like the models and the fluff of that chapter in general, not because of the rules. I continue to buy them because I want them to continue producing such models. Speaking with my wallet. There are too many factors of why someone buys a model. Not buying them won't give GW a reason to change the rules. If you want the rules to get changed then give them proper feedback and show them on tournaments that Marines with their current rules don't work.

[Ishagu]

Primaris Marines don't suck lol. My best Marine lists include significant elements of Primaris. If you think they suck you must really hate the rest of the codex lol

[Lemondish]

Show some discipline!  I have only purchased primaris models from ebay or friends.  Until the rules dont suck GW isnt getting any $$ from me.

 

Discipline? That's a silly thing to say. I think there's a bit of an issue in this thread that needs to be pointed out. First, let's get one thing straight - fun units with cool models are going to sell, and I don't see any reason to disparage people for that. You don't want to pay GW for their stellar kits? That's fine. You don't have to. Doesn't mean everybody else feels like you do. 

 

Some people aren't going to like this next bit.

 

But as a whole, marines are not nearly as bad off as you think they are. That's why the hyperbole is so strong here - it's necessary to paint a (false) picture of a worthless, broken force that cannot possibly be balanced in its current form. Despite being largely balanced and capable now, there's constant references to the top end of tournament play, of which we all supposedly enjoy a spot, right :P

 

Not everybody agrees marines need an "absolute rebuild"™ to make them play better on the board. I think people are advocating for a complete rebuild because they don't like how the army fights and think it should work in an entirely different way. The only way a complete rebuild makes sense is to make real the idea that they're hopelessly impossible to balance. That's why the hyperbole is so strong - without it, reality sets in and all of a sudden marines aren't in need of a complete rewrite...

 

Primaris give GW an opportunity to establish a new identity for the faction. So if you want a complete rebuild of the army identity..well, that's already happening. It's called Primaris. Jump on board or don't, that's up to you.

 

Therefore, I think these threads will go much better if the expectation is that the faction's missing foibles can, should, and ultimately will be addressed without a fundamental rebuild of the entire faction. Black_Star has pulled on a great thread in this tangle - the reason to bring troops outside of CP generation. There isn't one. That says to me a change to the purpose of troops alongside rules specifically regarding CP generation will help resolve this. Neither of those actually require a new, complete rewrite of the marine codex...because like it or not, the plight of power armour troops is the same plight held by every elite armour troop choice. 

[Kallas]

Not everybody agrees marines need an "absolute rebuild"™ to make them play better on the board. I think people are advocating for a complete rebuild because they don't like how the army fights and think it should work in an entirely different way. The only way a complete rebuild makes sense is to make real the idea that they're hopelessly impossible to balance. That's why the hyperbole is so strong - without it, reality sets in and all of a sudden marines aren't in need of a complete rewrite...

 

In your opinion/experience: how do Marines fight? Like, what is/are their strength/s? What is/are their weakness/es?

 

I believe that Marines definitely need help because they can't actually hit all that hard, and they certainly can't take a punch well. They're not fast; they're not tough; they're not punchy; they're not tricksy or evasive. About all I can say is that they're generalists that can make a unit do a couple of different things thanks to wargear options...but that's not a good strength because a unit's wargear options don't equate to flexibility on the table (and units that do mix their weapon loadouts tend to perform poorly when the dice hit the fan...).

 

Marines are portrayed as a force that can strike hard and fast - pretty much everything about Marines screams in your face that they're a rapid strike force that overwhelms an opponent quickly to achieve their goal; their enhanced physique enables them to take hits that would kill lesser beings several times over and not only not die but keep on trucking. This is not what actually happens on the table.

 

Personally, my successes have come from my characters which have pretty much carried my lists in their entirety, or from misplays from my opponent (eg, my opponents not being as good at paying attention to the objectives) and not from the Marines actually being good on the table. My Marines die in droves, even when I try to field enough bodies (while simultaneously trying to not lack in all of the constituent areas that I need to compete in, such as anti-tank, anti-horde, anti-flyer/negative modifiers, etc); or I field transports and my basic Marine bodies do sweet :cuss all while my characters and actual useful units accomplish anything of note. Mostly, the only reason I can win is because my characters get in where I need them and then distract the opponent/threaten to destabilise their capabilities and in so doing absorb an inordinate amount of my opponent's attention.

 

My Grey Hunters do basically nothing - they might kill a few chaff models, but if I try to engage enemies with them then they flat out die. So they sit in transports, or out of LOS on objectives and do literally nothing all game. That certainly wins me the game (again, because I was playing the mission better than my opponents/my characters were out there killing/distracting) but that's definitely not MARINES. Marines aren't made to cower in fear of a dozen Lasguns, they're supposed to get involved and actually take objectives, supposed to get in to the enemy and actually kill things. Marines aren't meant to get Grots, or Termagants, intended to die in droves to absorb the enemy's firepower; they're meant to actively take the fight to the enemy.

 

Am I somehow misinterpreting everything that GW has ever established about Marines? Are the countless books about Marine heroics (in innumerable sources) and capabilities wrong, or that I've somehow parsed that background information incorrectly? Am I supposed to be taking forty Grey Hunters/Tacticals/whatever and just hiding them away from my opponent's most basic troops?

 

8th Edition brought an opportunity to make Marines actually behave like Marines, but instead they became far worse as the AP system and modified Strength of various weapons, plus the switch from rerolls to volume of fire, means that the fabled Marine resilience is functionally worse than just more bodies. Plasma, that most ubiquitous of weapons, essentially invalidates Marines as a whole faction - while that might be a little hyperbolic, that's only because it's not simply Plasma that's the issue, just that it's the most endemic; there are a plethora of weapons in the game that shred through Marines easily thanks to AP and S against the high base cost of a Marine body, but they struggle against hordes because bodies absorb damage far better than a marginal increase in T and Sv.

 

Simply: the Marine statline is horribly outdated. And even though it often gets touted (usually by Ishagu) the Primaris aren't 'fixing' the issue, they're a band aid at best - they're still hit by the same issues as the OldMarines (namely, high S/AP, poor cost on the base platform, and lacklustre output).

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

I wouldn't mind marines so much but they are just bland atm.  Their stratagems are boring and siutational, their psychic powers are hot garbage, many of their units are hobbled by clunky rules(land speeders, land raiders, drop pods, etc), and everyones favourite... chapter tactics not applying to vehicles.   

[Panzer]

 

Show some discipline!  I have only purchased primaris models from ebay or friends.  Until the rules dont suck GW isnt getting any $$ from me.

 

Discipline? That's a silly thing to say. I think there's a bit of an issue in this thread that needs to be pointed out. First, let's get one thing straight - fun units with cool models are going to sell, and I don't see any reason to disparage people for that. You don't want to pay GW for their stellar kits? That's fine. You don't have to. Doesn't mean everybody else feels like you do. 

 

Some people aren't going to like this next bit.

 

But as a whole, marines are not nearly as bad off as you think they are. That's why the hyperbole is so strong here - it's necessary to paint a (false) picture of a worthless, broken force that cannot possibly be balanced in its current form. Despite being largely balanced and capable now, there's constant references to the top end of tournament play, of which we all supposedly enjoy a spot, right

 

Not everybody agrees marines need an "absolute rebuild"™ to make them play better on the board. I think people are advocating for a complete rebuild because they don't like how the army fights and think it should work in an entirely different way. The only way a complete rebuild makes sense is to make real the idea that they're hopelessly impossible to balance. That's why the hyperbole is so strong - without it, reality sets in and all of a sudden marines aren't in need of a complete rewrite...

 

Primaris give GW an opportunity to establish a new identity for the faction. So if you want a complete rebuild of the army identity..well, that's already happening. It's called Primaris. Jump on board or don't, that's up to you.

 

Therefore, I think these threads will go much better if the expectation is that the faction's missing foibles can, should, and ultimately will be addressed without a fundamental rebuild of the entire faction. Black_Star has pulled on a great thread in this tangle - the reason to bring troops outside of CP generation. There isn't one. That says to me a change to the purpose of troops alongside rules specifically regarding CP generation will help resolve this. Neither of those actually require a new, complete rewrite of the marine codex...because like it or not, the plight of power armour troops is the same plight held by every elite armour troop choice. 

 

 

Nah, I'd like a complete rewriting of the Codex because I think it's pretty bland and bloated design-wise because it's whole design philosophy comes from a time when 40k was very different still. Not because I think it's weak.

There are tons of things how Marines could be made much stronger without touching a single design element. Easiest would be to make them cheaper. It's not what most people want tho. We want to play an army of elite soldiers in tough armour who are capable to fight against multiple enemy soldiers toe to toe, not Guardsmen in expensive gear that has to rely on numbers to get their job done. Now that still doesn't warrant a rewriting of the Codex since they could just Errata in some fancy special rules or adjusted stats, but I'd say the changes would be so widespread that it would warrant at least a new version of the Codex.

 

Anyway, I agree that Marines are much less "unplayable" than some people make it sound. The gap between the worst army and the top tier armies in 8th is much smaller than it was in 7th and so there's basically no army that can't compete for the mid-tier placements ... or without tournament terms: every army is very capable to win in semi-competetive games as is, and that's the most played kind of 40k in the community I'd say.

 

About Troops.

Firstly I don't see the problem of Troops being just there for CP generation. Most other units are just there to have more damage output as well and nobody minds that straight forwardness there either.

Secondly Troops have another purpose and it's called board control. They are cheaper than other units and thus can occupy more space on the board more easily (this also includes things like screening).

Thirdly there are Troops that do more. Namely Scouts with their Infiltration which is a super valuable special rule (even more without the beta rules for reserves) or T'au Firewarriors who can put out quite a respectable amount of firepower if you add just a single cheap HQ everybody already takes anyway.

And lastly, buffing Troops to have more purpose doesn't solve any existing problem at all as I've mentioned before already (and especially not a problem that all Marines suffer from, not just Tacticals). Marines would still be worse at all those jobs than Guardsmen. The only way to make competetive player take more Marines and less Guardsmen is to equalise CP generation and/or to reward taking all detachments from the same Codex.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I want the base rules for Space Marines redesigned because they don’t have enough resiliency now with this AP system. I’d love to see some more competitive rules too like letting snipers shoot into melee.

[MARK0SIAN]

I’m not sure about snipers shooting into melee but I would like snipers to be a genuine threat to characters, which they’re simply not. They can’t even kill a platoon commander reliably.

[Ishagu]

For everyone asking for a Rebuild, ground up, isn't that what Primaris are?

 

You could make an argument that Astartes suffer because they are generalists (you could have a generalist army as a whole but that doesn't need to apply to every unit within it). The Primaris have a dedicated role, purpose, and unique wargear across units to distinguish them from one another.

 

Although this is a different point from the one I made earlier the solution is still the same: Patience. More will come in the near future. There are already a lot of whispers about a new codex.

 

Edit: Typo

[Kallas]

For everyone asking for a Rebuild, ground up, isn't that what Primaris are?

 

You could make an argument that Astartes suffer because they are generalists (you could have a generalist army as a whole but that doesn't need to apply to every unit within it). The Primaris have a dedicated role, purpose, and unique wargear across units to distinguish them from one another.

 

Called it!

 

And even though it often gets touted (usually by Ishagu) the Primaris aren't 'fixing' the issue, they're a band aid at best - they're still hit by the same issues as the OldMarines (namely, high S/AP, poor cost on the base platform, and lacklustre output).

 

Thing is, it's not the wargear that is the issue, it's the overvaluing of the statline. GW thinks that the 3+/3+/4/4/1/1/7/3+ statline is great, but it isn't, it's barely better than a Guardsman. That is their problem as generalists, not the fact that they could have Plasma, Flamers, Meltas and/or Grav.

 

Primaris are still demolished by the wealth of high S/AP weaponry that's available; they are similarly not very cost effective for the base unit*; and they tend to have lacklustre output**

 

* Some of the Primaris stuff is decently cost effective, such as Bolter Inceptors. That's not to say that everything Primaris is awful, or that everything Primaris is fine. There are some OldMarine units that are cost effective (Captains!) but there's still an underlying issue.

 

** Similar to the above, Primaris do have some units that are capable (Aggressors vs hordes; Hellblasters vs hard targets), as do OldMarines, but the issue is when those units (from both sides) get inserted in to the game as a whole, they're just not competitive because they carry the baggage that all Marines do - the statline.

[Ishagu]

Primaris play pretty well on the tabletop and are true to lore. Are you asking for units that can't be killed?

 

The weapons that hurt Primaris also hurt Custodes.

 

If you play killteam they are pretty resilient. That could be more to your taste

[Kallas]

Are you asking for units that can't be killed?

No, no one is. But the basic Marine, Primaris included, has an overvalued statline which doesn't mean as much as GW tends to think. Sure, if all of your Marines are always in cover and are only getting shot at by Lasguns it's great, but that's not the game - it's chock full of Heavy Bolters, Plasma, and assorted other weapons which have enough volume of fire to threaten the low numbers of Marines, such as Leman Russ Battle Cannons, which are ostensibly an anti-tank weapon but pack enough shots to be a major threat to Marines, or Ravager Disintegrators which shred Marines (including Primaris, and vehicles) like they're made of wet paper.

 

As I said before Marines, including Primaris, have the same issue. Which is why Primaris aren't the fix to the problem.

 

The weapons that hurt Primaris also hurt Custodes.

 

And? Have I said that Custodes aren't deserving of a buff? Custodes certainly are more expensive, and they are definitely hurt by the plethora of high S/AP/D weapons floating around. On the flip side, they do get a significant T/Sv difference (T5 is a major tipping point, and Sv2+ with a 4++ is a big difference from Sv3+, and when those are combined with 3W it does make them pretty tough) but they're main problem is that they tend to lack output, which Bolters (well, for Custodes, Master Crafted Bolters) generally lacking in punch particularly against anyone that brings more than 20 models...

 

I'm not saying that Marines are alone in having balance issues, but this thread is about (and most of them have been) Marines. Necrons have a similar issue, with their Warriors not being particularly resilient (cheaper Marines with a lower Save but with Reanimation Protocols) and they appear to pay for RP under the assumption that they actually get to use it, whereas in reality players tend to focus fire (and not just against Necrons, but especially against Necrons) because allowing a unit to roll for RP when you could otherwise just get it removed from the table is a bad play. At least Warriors have come down to the same cost as Scouts now, and with some of the other elements of their synergies can combine to make them reasonably effective, even though they're probably not quite where they need to be (and it's probably because of the headaches that RP create in the balancing process).

 

Marines got points drops in CA, but those weren't fixes to the Marine Problem. Whirlwinds are now pretty damn cheap, but they still hit like the ghost of a wet noodle's fart; Vindicators are an ostensibly tough unit for not too much, but they don't actually do anything; Tactical Marines are about as hard hitting as a roast potato, with the resilience of an uncooked potato...

 

We can either drop Marines down in cost enough to make them worth their overvalued statline, somewhere around 9/10pts probably for the basic Marine, but then we lose the lore that we've had for literally decades where Marines are an elite strike force and we get a medium level horde army. Or we could redesign Marines, and make them actually decent, but I honestly doubt that will happen without a major shift in 8th Edtion as I believe that will require quite a large change in a lot of statlines as too many things are packed into the 3-5 range to enable accurate portrayal of differences.

[Schlitzaf]

I mean issue v Gaurdsman and Marine is that Points Efficieny when talking about in terms of value gained or lost. Will almost always be in favor of the lower pointed model. And secondly despite the marines fragility. What is lost on the gaurdsman and marine comparison.

 

Is that yes a Gaurdsman earns ‘3’ points on average when shooting a marine. That means a single Gaurdsman on average only results in a 0.3 failed Wounds. Which means in actual battlefield scenario you are talking having 30-40 gaurdsman shooting 1 Marine Squad.

 

It seems obvious to state. But gathering all those gaurdsman in rapid range and in position. And furthermore the marines have ‘more’ marines than you have lasguns. Gaurdsman brigades have around 80 infantry or enough to kill in this world 15 marines outside cover.

 

To be blunt, that where the comparison starts breaking down. Marines are inefficient per point spent compared to Gaurdsman. But Marines on the tabletop take an ‘absurd’ amount of units firing (not points but killing 10-15 marines takes quite a few (3-6) units actually shooting them where a gaurd squad would die to a unit staring at them. Or we are talking Leman Russes And Plasmas. Which should be killing marines).

 

Do I think Marines need to be fixed? Honeslty no. At best one point reduction for tacticals, there equivalent and units that share their chassis. And for taking larger non MSU marine squads grant a CP. Maybe having PA marines count as 2 for ObjSec. Small things to encourage a more dynamic playstyle.

 

The Marine players I have seen most often complain about there army. Is the marine players who do the 3 MSU Tacticals no Razor list. Or 3 Scout MSU list. And just load up on fully geared veterans or otherwise. Often in a single raider or Raven.

 

And when those lists die first turn because they are made of literal papermache. It doesn’t surprise me.

[Kallas]

Do I think Marines need to be fixed? Honeslty no. At best one point reduction for tacticals, there equivalent and units that share their chassis. And for taking larger non MSU marine squads grant a CP. Maybe having PA marines count as 2 for ObjSec. Small things to encourage a more dynamic playstyle.

Ignoring the points per kill thing, as that's really not the crux and tends to distract.

 

If you gave Marines all three of those things you suggested (-1pt, +1CP for max, count as 2 for ObSec) then it'd definitely help, but it'd still be an issue. There's still not enough of an incentive to run max squads, even with +1CP for doing so, as they wither easily, have little output and become susceptible to Morale.

 

The Marine players I have seen most often complain about there army. Is the marine players who do the 3 MSU Tacticals no Razor list. Or 3 Scout MSU list. And just load up on fully geared veterans or otherwise. Often in a single raider or Raven.

 

And when those lists die first turn because they are made of literal papermache. It doesn’t surprise me.

 

The Schlitzaf Special 

[Lemondish]

 

Do I think Marines need to be fixed? Honeslty no. At best one point reduction for tacticals, there equivalent and units that share their chassis. And for taking larger non MSU marine squads grant a CP. Maybe having PA marines count as 2 for ObjSec. Small things to encourage a more dynamic playstyle.

Ignoring the points per kill thing, as that's really not the crux and tends to distract.

 

If you gave Marines all three of those things you suggested (-1pt, +1CP for max, count as 2 for ObSec) then it'd definitely help, but it'd still be an issue. There's still not enough of an incentive to run max squads, even with +1CP for doing so, as they wither easily, have little output and become susceptible to Morale.

 

The Marine players I have seen most often complain about there army. Is the marine players who do the 3 MSU Tacticals no Razor list. Or 3 Scout MSU list. And just load up on fully geared veterans or otherwise. Often in a single raider or Raven.

 

And when those lists die first turn because they are made of literal papermache. It doesn’t surprise me.

 

The Schlitzaf Special 

 

 

Well, I think the +1 CP would be an amazing bonus to running large squads, which you could easily combat squad down if you desired - I'd very quickly run max Intercessor squads if it awarded me 8 CP just from one detachment...

[Panzer]

+1CP wouldn't convince me to run max squads. I'd rather just take the same number of Marines and get free Sergeants and put them in another Battalion for +5CP instead of +3CP.

[Lemondish]

+1CP wouldn't convince me to run max squads. I'd rather just take the same number of Marines and get free Sergeants and put them in another Battalion for +5CP instead of +3CP.

Along with at least 100 points of HQ tax?

 

Maybe you're right.

 

Honestly, I'm just desperate for more than just Ultra characters as a source of extra CP lol

[Panzer]

HQs are one of the best things in the Codex currently, so yes. :D

[Dracos]

More CP are like reducing point cost per model is ineffective. Everyone will take it but it isn’t going to “fix” Marines. The Codex needs an overhaul that improves characters like the Chaplain, gives Librarians better powers, improves stratagems and tactics to better reflect different and effective Chapter fighting styles .... and armor rerolls to reflect ATSKNF, it’s the only simple answer I can see to fix the AP issue that is contained to the Marines Codexes.

 

Seriously GW, at least fix the Chaplain. :)