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.

 0XFallen wrote:
I like how everyone always compares infantry to guardsmen, guardsmen are just flat out the best infantry right now, not only for ds denial, output and CP, but because they get VPs with their Move move move order, which shouldnt really exist.

To add:
Skitarii vanguards went from AP5 to AP0 and nerfed special rule
Skitarii rangers went from AP4 to AP0, lost their special rule and now have -1ap on a 6 to wound, both losing their fnp and going from LD 10 to LD 6/7

My point is: Marines are fine, especially now with the bolter rule. IMO they should do less damage gunning in comparison to others, but be good at holding objectives.
The problems are CP generation, soup, and guardsmen orders.

There's plenty of other units that have gotten shafted. But Guardsmen aren't the whole problem. Marine infantry fails to hold up against plenty of other cheaper troops in the 5-8pts ranges too. Guard are just the most egregious case, which is why the argument starts with them.

Also, why should marines do less damage in comparison to others? They should do more because they have the downsides of heavy infantry, and don't have the upsides of hordes (board control, screening, etc.)

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 0XFallen wrote:
I like how everyone always compares infantry to guardsmen, guardsmen are just flat out the best infantry right now, not only for ds denial, output and CP, but because they get VPs with their Move move move order, which shouldnt really exist.

To add:
Skitarii vanguards went from AP5 to AP0 and nerfed special rule
Skitarii rangers went from AP4 to AP0, lost their special rule and now have -1ap on a 6 to wound, both losing their fnp and going from LD 10 to LD 6/7

My point is: Marines are fine, especially now with the bolter rule. IMO they should do less damage gunning in comparison to others, but be good at holding objectives.
The problems are CP generation, soup, and guardsmen orders.

There's plenty of other units that have gotten shafted. But Guardsmen aren't the whole problem. Marine infantry fails to hold up against plenty of other cheaper troops in the 5-8pts ranges too. Guard are just the most egregious case, which is why the argument starts with them.

Also, why should marines do less damage in comparison to others? They should do more because they have the downsides of heavy infantry, and don't have the upsides of hordes (board control, screening, etc.)

Only wanted to say that they should be more resilient than deal damage in comparison to themselves.

As a side note. One advantage they have is that cover is really good for marines, going from 3+ to 2+ is no joke.

They also pay for the versatility of having good melee with WS 3+, S4. Grenades helping in charges and pistols in melee.

What do you think about scouts? I think they are one of the main reasons we dont see tacticals very often. Their movement straight onto objectives and cover is just really good.

 0XFallen wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 0XFallen wrote:
I like how everyone always compares infantry to guardsmen, guardsmen are just flat out the best infantry right now, not only for ds denial, output and CP, but because they get VPs with their Move move move order, which shouldnt really exist.

To add:
Skitarii vanguards went from AP5 to AP0 and nerfed special rule
Skitarii rangers went from AP4 to AP0, lost their special rule and now have -1ap on a 6 to wound, both losing their fnp and going from LD 10 to LD 6/7

My point is: Marines are fine, especially now with the bolter rule. IMO they should do less damage gunning in comparison to others, but be good at holding objectives.
The problems are CP generation, soup, and guardsmen orders.

There's plenty of other units that have gotten shafted. But Guardsmen aren't the whole problem. Marine infantry fails to hold up against plenty of other cheaper troops in the 5-8pts ranges too. Guard are just the most egregious case, which is why the argument starts with them.

Also, why should marines do less damage in comparison to others? They should do more because they have the downsides of heavy infantry, and don't have the upsides of hordes (board control, screening, etc.)

Only wanted to say that they should be more resilient than deal damage in comparison to themselves.

As a side note. One advantage they have is that cover is really good for marines, going from 3+ to 2+ is no joke.

They also pay for the versatility of having good melee with WS 3+, S4. Grenades helping in charges and pistols in melee.

What do you think about scouts? I think they are one of the main reasons we dont see tacticals very often. Their movement straight onto objectives and cover is just really good.

Ah, yeah I agree that they should be focused more on resilience than offense (for the troop versions, then for elites you pay to up the offense.)

Is cover actually more beneficial to better armor saves? Each +1 to save is ~16% more durability. If are getting hit by high ap weapons, then cover could contribute nothing (eg ap-3 vs 5+ save, cover makes you 4+, but you're still totally penned.) But overall, i don't think marines are benefiting more from cover than anyone else. They are however easier to fit into it since there's less models (one of the few advantages of elite/heavy infantry.)

They are paying for better melee stats, but their melee performance is still worse per point in most cases, even compared to non-melee cheaper infantry.
For example, let's compare 1 tac marine (13pts) vs 2 DE warriors (12pts). Warriors are hardly considered to be a good melee unit, and are not particularly competitive.
We'll do both attacking t4 3+ armor, which is in the tacs favor.
The tac's single s4 attack kills .11 space marines, or .0084 per point
The warrior's 2 s3 attacks kill .15 space marines, or .0125 per point.
The warrior's are about 50% more effective in melee per point than the space marines, even in a matchup they are supposed to be bad at. And they do it while having similar survivability vs ap0 (the marine's save is better once some ap comes in, but 2w also had advantages of its own, like can't be killed by a single attack, etc.) The warriors fall behind a bit due to t3 of course, but then power from pain 6+++ compensates for it.

So marines are just not good at melee, despite appearing to be due to their nice stats. They'll beat maybe firewarriors and guardians due to their worse BS and cost, but they still lose to most others 5-8pt shooty troops, even though marines are meant to be a more balanced unit.

Scouts are in a better place because they are more efficient due to their points, despite being worse in some stats. If we didn't have scouts we would see more tacs, but only for lack of any other options. Or more likely, we'll see even less use of marines, and more soup troops instead. Tacs aren't underused because scouts are good. Scouts still barely compete with other troops, and even then only because those other troops are often lackluster (warriors again.)

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

[...]
Is cover actually more beneficial to better armor saves? Each +1 to save is ~16% more durability.

Common mistake.
Lets say the unit is wounded 6 times.

Guardsmen without cover lose 4 guys
Guardsmen with cover lose 3 guys

Marines without cover lose 2 guys
Marines with cover lose 1 guy

Looking at it the other way around, how many wounds does it take to kill 1 guy?
Guardsman without cover? 1.5 wounds to kill
Guardsman with cover? 2 wounds

Marines without cover? 3 wounds
Marines with cover? 6 wounds

Cover reduced Guardsmen casualties by 25%, but reduced Marine casualties by 50%. Alternately, it requires 33% more firepower to kill each Guardsman in cover, but 100% more firepower to kill each Marine in cover.

Either way, it's much bigger for Marines.

The problem comes from the fact that Cover only matters for 1/6th of all Wounds - which sounds like it applies equally. But you don't care how many wounds didn't go through because of cover - you care about how many wounds did go through, total. To further show this, imagine what the numbers would be if you went from a 2+ to a 1+ (and ignored that 1s always failed)? The change still only applies in 1/6th of all Wounds, but the Marine is clearly better than Guardsman (who would then save on a 3+) - because he's unkillable.

Cover means *half* of all AP0 wounds that would otherwise kill a Marine now don't. It's quite a swing.

If are getting hit by high ap weapons, then cover could contribute nothing (eg ap-3 vs 5+ save, cover makes you 4+, but you're still totally penned.)

It requires AP-5 for Marines to not care about cover. There aren't a lot of weapons with that kind of AP...

But overall, i don't think marines are benefiting more from cover than anyone else. They are however easier to fit into it since there's less models (one of the few advantages of elite/heavy infantry.)

The problem is there's far too much AP-1/-2 in the game, combined with 13ppm being a little too high for what you get, even with cover factored in. But, in cover, Marines each require 12 S4 AP- hits to kill on average. GEQ require 3.

Ah, you are correct then. Good explanation!

This is why flayed skull is a nigjtmare for power armor.

Old marines should have had the actual primaris profile, and so the bolter.

But GW came out with primaris thing, and need to
1 sell primaris
2 substitute primaris to old marines

They choose to make marines meh and primaris good, sales are going accordingly, and will be the players to substitute the old marines willingly.

For starters, all marines should be primaris. 2 wounds and attacks each. Thr beta bolter rule helped but it really wierd. Bolter weapons should have something like re-rollable 1s to wound. Its not too powerful but helps them be more reliable without needing an LT. who could be baby sitting somethin else like devs. Really, I dont know what else. I would ad those two to start because they make marines more slightly more powerful and its fluffy. GW usually buffs a unit when they get a bigger model like the oblits and greater daenons for example, yet csm got new marines but were untouched. Does a space marine really look like it has only one wound? Why do primaris marines get a whole wound and attack more than an old marine, but old marine have the same wounda and attacks as a guardsmen. A normal every day human.

Its too bad though. GWs incompetence can really leave me dumbfounded.

Let Marines fight twice in combat baseline. Adjust anything that'd get silly (i.e. Guilliman) to compensate. Boosts to shooting are all well and good, but Marines are supposed to be generalists, not gunline castle-huggers.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Let Marines fight twice in combat baseline. Adjust anything that'd get silly (i.e. Guilliman) to compensate. Boosts to shooting are all well and good, but Marines are supposed to be generalists, not gunline castle-huggers.

I think that's a bit extreme. Either a 3cp stratagem free into their baseline without paying, or buff up their price accordingly cause I have to pay through the NOSE for my Khorne Berserkers to do the same thing. (admittedly KB tend to murderize anything they touch, but do have a price point to match considering they are still no more durable than a TAC)

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Let Marines fight twice in combat baseline. Adjust anything that'd get silly (i.e. Guilliman) to compensate. Boosts to shooting are all well and good, but Marines are supposed to be generalists, not gunline castle-huggers.

I think that's a bit extreme. Either a 3cp stratagem free into their baseline without paying, or buff up their price accordingly cause I have to pay through the NOSE for my Khorne Berserkers to do the same thing. (admittedly KB tend to murderize anything they touch, but do have a price point to match considering they are still no more durable than a TAC)

I play Khorne Marines as well. Khorne Berzerkers would still outfight any melee unit from Codex: Space Marines point for point (with the exception of Ironclad Dreadnoughts and TH/SS Terminators against high-toughness targets, but that doesn't really sound unfair to me), the innate S5 of the Berzerkers and the cheapness of the Chainaxe makes them come out almost equivalent to a Vanguard Veteran. A fights twice Vanguard Veteran with a Chainsword and a Power Sword would do on average 1.333... wounds to an MEQ opponent, whereas the Berzerker would do 1.185... wounds. That's Berzerkers almost equalling Vanguard Veterans against a target that the Vanguard Veteran is specialized to fight, and the Berzerkers can get an Icon to get into combat more reliably as well. The Berzerkers are 17 PPM with an extra 10 for the icon, while the Vanguard Veterans would be 18 PPM without Jump Packs. The Berzerkers are better against Guardsmen, Orks and other more lightly armoured infantry or things like Daemons where the better AP of the Power Sword is less valuable.

In other words, this would bring Marine melee units up to par with Khorne Berzerkers for their cost, but would not power-creep the Berzerkers out of existence. If that's "a bit extreme" then just consider what that means for the current state of Marine melee units.

True, loyalist marine units lack a good close combat MEQ unit, but just taking the ability of a khorne berserker and slapping it onto a unit which has access to a lot more toys seems a bit too much. Lets not forget, in your example vanguards also get access to;

- super cheap stormshield for 3++ (2 pts a model!!!)
- any model in the unit can take a crazy array of weapons, including power axes, thunderhammers, lightning claws and so on, vs the Khorne Berserker unit champion who has less access to such an array of weapons)
- much better choices of vehicles to carry them into battle, I'd love a Stormraven for my Chaos codex!
- options for jet packs, every Khorne Berserker player has wanted to strap rockets onto these bad boys!

vanguard vets get pricy, but they can take such a huge array of weapons and be kitted out for any situation, you don't even need to invest a transport for them in you just strap a jet pack, hell even your choice of transports aren't exactly bad compared to Chaos.

Marines need something else to set them apart, but I don't agree with taking a core identity of another unit and slapping it baseline for all marines is a fair thing either. Yes marines should be generalists and def need some help in that regard, but you don't stick an ability which is a hallmark of a super heavy close combat unit across the board and expect it to be fair balance. does your proposed buff affect all Chaos Meq's aswell? If so Khorne Berserkers have lost a lot of identity when Chosen with Power Mauls can do the same job but with more customization, ability to not have to take MoK whilst occupying the same Elites slot. also works out to maybe 1 point more on the chosen side.

Vanguard Veterans pay for their upgrades, and if you take a Storm Shield you lose two attacks from the Chainsword that you're no longer taking, meaning that the Khorne Berzerkers have better offense again. Same for variations on Power Weapons, they're not free. Khorne Berzerkers can grab a Mark of Khorne to get rerolls to charges, which is huge for a melee unit.

I'd happily trade Storm Ravens for Warptime and charge after running. Khorne Berzerkers are much easier to deliver without costing a quarter of your list in transportation than anything Vanilla Marines have. If you take Jump Packs you've now got a more expensive unit, which should be better than Berzerkers by virtue of costing more points, no?

Berzerkers would still have a niche over Chosen, they just wouldn't be flat-out superior melee units 100% of the time. How is this bad? How is it a drawback that Khorne Berzerkers would stop being the only viable melee unit for CSM that isn't a Daemon Prince or a vehicle? You could still take Khorne Berzerkers as Troops with WE, for example, which Chosen can't. Chosen also don't get a Chainsword to go with the Power Maul, as both of those require replacing the Bolter, so Berzerkers would still have 6 attacks to a Chosen's 4 Maul attacks.

To hell with the flavour of Khorne Berzerkers (and, again, I play them too!) if it means making a whole host of other units viable. Bringing other units up to the level of Berzerkers doesn't mean Berzerkers cannot be played.

Stormravens are indeed useless crap.

The best fix is to reduce the effectiveness of cheap units and weapons that cost appropriately for its role. There's not enough granularity and design space to make SM into demi-gods

BS4 7 pt plasmagun has 16% less accuracy at 63% of cost of BS3 11 pt plasma. Seriously, GTFO.

"OH BUT PLASMAS AREN'T THE REAL ISSUE BECAUSE [REASONS]. YOU'RE JUST SOUR BECAUSE YOUR ARMY'S NOT AS GOOD! DON'T DRAG DOWN IG WITH YOUR SUCKINESS!"

The fact of the matter is the game balance is based on two things: guardsmen & knights.

Why are DE so good right now in the meta? Because it's good at dealing with both hordes and knights.

Give BS5 to GEQ and 6 pt plasma makes sense. BS4 plasma should cost no less than 8 points, preferably 9.
BS4 S3 T3 Sv5+ 4ppm model serving as the baseline for the definition of "durability" in 8th ed is spiraling balance to death by doom vortex.

@ Bharring - but how many points are lost per wound?

Doesn't matter. Marines being enslaved to cover is an asinine mechanic.

 skchsan wrote:

[...]
@ Bharring - but how many points are lost per wound?

The same number of points are lost per wound regardless of the save.

50% fewer wounds are lost by going from a 3+ to a 2+. Whether those are 13 points or 50 points per wound, it's still 50%.

Now, if side A is twice as good as side B, and you reduce casualties on side A by 25% and side B by 50%, then side A is still clearly better off. That post was *NOT* arguing that Marines are better than Guardsmen; it was only showing that Marines gain more from cover than Guardsmen.

Fix Drop Pods.
Jack up the cost to 80ppm and change their reserves rule to drop them in BEFORE the movement phase and you’ll fix Drop Pods, Marines, Flamers and Melta weapons at the same time.

There might be another way to improve marines without changing the stats/rules. I think that if GW is to have rules upgrades published they need to be dead simple, like the beta bolter rules and designing such rules are hard, I understand that the purpose of this thread is to aid GW with that. But I think that marines should have better stratagems. The current once are lacking and I think that there is a lot of design space for improving the stratagems. I sometimes look at the Stratagems that are available to me during a game and think; these really don't do much. I would like to be able to: have a unit fire twice, charge reliability after deep strike, have a devastating charge with assault units, fire the guns of my landrider even if a snottling is within 1". I think that stratagems can actually play a big part in addressing the short comming of marines, what do you think?

Theyd still die too fast and cause too little damage.

 Insectum7 wrote:
My biggest beef with marines vs. Hordes is flamers and whirlwinds, both of which used to be excellent for horde clearing duty. Flamers were amazing at killing GEQs, and the Whirlwind packed flamer artillery.

2nd is the Drop Pod. I'd like it to be able to strike on turn 1.

3rd is Land Raiders being shut down by CC engagement. For a tank that has long had an assault ramp, with versions sporting Frag Launchers and main weapons like Flamers, having a single model within 1" preventing it from firing is a big problem.

I think the beta bolters went a long way to helping marines vs. GEQ already, so just those three things are my top picks atm.

All tanks should be able to shoot even when locked in CC. A bunch of guys crawling on you while you shoot is pointless. They can't do anything to the tank to keep it from firing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rackapulsare wrote:
There might be another way to improve marines without changing the stats/rules. I think that if GW is to have rules upgrades published they need to be dead simple, like the beta bolter rules and designing such rules are hard, I understand that the purpose of this thread is to aid GW with that. But I think that marines should have better stratagems. The current once are lacking and I think that there is a lot of design space for improving the stratagems. I sometimes look at the Stratagems that are available to me during a game and think; these really don't do much. I would like to be able to: have a unit fire twice, charge reliability after deep strike, have a devastating charge with assault units, fire the guns of my landrider even if a snottling is within 1". I think that stratagems can actually play a big part in addressing the short comming of marines, what do you think?

This is a great point. When compared to their Hertical cousins, the basic Marine strats are pure garbage.

Hordes are badly costed. Revamp all the costs of horde units and TAC won’t be in the bad spot they are now.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Hordes are badly costed. Revamp all the costs of horde units and TAC won’t be in the bad spot they are now.

This is very true, there is an over abundance of cheap bodies appearing in all armies that can take them. The inexpensive cost added to the new Str/T chart and the new AP system have made them super good in a game where board control is paramount.
Add in the fact that many of the larger horde units have the ability to mitigate moral which was designed to keep them in check results in them being very undercosted.

I suspect GW realise this but it could be by design to get people to buy more models, that would certainly seem to be the case with the general lowiering of points across the board.

If GW do decide they want to do something about it then in chapter approved next year a simple 1-2 pt increase in the cost of most cheap infantry would solve the issue.

Infantry squad +2pts
veteran +2pts
Conscript +1pt

Kabalits/Wracks/Wyches +1 pts

Guardians/Defenders +1pts

Firewarriors/Breachers +1pts

Cultists +1pts
All lesser Daemons +1pts

Vanguard/Rangers +1pts

Gretchin +1pts
Boys +1pts

Broodbrothers/Neophyte +2pts
Acolyte +1 pts

Tzangors +1pts

Obviously some of these might need to be +/- a point or so but I think this would have a far greater effect on the meta than reducing marine pts by 1.

 WisdomLS wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Hordes are badly costed. Revamp all the costs of horde units and TAC won’t be in the bad spot they are now.

This is very true, there is an over abundance of cheap bodies appearing in all armies that can take them. The inexpensive cost added to the new Str/T chart and the new AP system have made them super good in a game where board control is paramount.
Add in the fact that many of the larger horde units have the ability to mitigate moral which was designed to keep them in check results in them being very undercosted.

I suspect GW realise this but it could be by design to get people to buy more models, that would certainly seem to be the case with the general lowiering of points across the board.

If GW do decide they want to do something about it then in chapter approved next year a simple 1-2 pt increase in the cost of most cheap infantry would solve the issue.

Infantry squad +2pts
veteran +2pts
Conscript +1pt

Kabalits/Wracks/Wyches +1 pts

Guardians/Defenders +1pts

Firewarriors/Breachers +1pts

Cultists +1pts
All lesser Daemons +1pts

Vanguard/Rangers +1pts

Gretchin +1pts
Boys +1pts

Broodbrothers/Neophyte +2pts
Acolyte +1 pts

Tzangors +1pts

Obviously some of these might need to be +/- a point or so but I think this would have a far greater effect on the meta than reducing marine pts by 1.

Really cultists 6 points? Conscripts are already ok at 4 points, guard should be 5 points and have their move move move removed or nerfed.
I only agree with skitarii becoming more expensive again if Gw decides to give them their good shid back again like the Fnp and LD which hurts them a lot and is why nobody takes special weapons with them except for snipers. No competetiv admech list has more then 2 units of them anyway.

New 8th edition changes also means that Cover a lot of the time means nothing for horde as it will be mitigated by ap anyway and is really good for marines doubling their survivability against ap0 weapons.

 WisdomLS wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Hordes are badly costed. Revamp all the costs of horde units and TAC won’t be in the bad spot they are now.

This is very true, there is an over abundance of cheap bodies appearing in all armies that can take them. The inexpensive cost added to the new Str/T chart and the new AP system have made them super good in a game where board control is paramount.
Add in the fact that many of the larger horde units have the ability to mitigate moral which was designed to keep them in check results in them being very undercosted.

I suspect GW realise this but it could be by design to get people to buy more models, that would certainly seem to be the case with the general lowiering of points across the board.

If GW do decide they want to do something about it then in chapter approved next year a simple 1-2 pt increase in the cost of most cheap infantry would solve the issue.

Infantry squad +2pts
veteran +2pts
Conscript +1pt

Kabalits/Wracks/Wyches +1 pts

Guardians/Defenders +1pts

Firewarriors/Breachers +1pts

Cultists +1pts
All lesser Daemons +1pts

Vanguard/Rangers +1pts

Gretchin +1pts
Boys +1pts

Broodbrothers/Neophyte +2pts
Acolyte +1 pts

Tzangors +1pts

Obviously some of these might need to be +/- a point or so but I think this would have a far greater effect on the meta than reducing marine pts by 1.

Cultists at 6? even tough they aren't taken anymore at 5?
Scuse me but that is ridicoulous.

 0XFallen wrote:
I like how everyone always compares infantry to guardsmen, guardsmen are just flat out the best infantry right now, not only for ds denial, output and CP, but because they get VPs with their Move move move order, which shouldnt really exist.

To add:
Skitarii vanguards went from AP5 to AP0 and nerfed special rule
Skitarii rangers went from AP4 to AP0, lost their special rule and now have -1ap on a 6 to wound, both losing their fnp and going from LD 10 to LD 6/7

My point is: Marines are fine, especially now with the bolter rule. IMO they should do less damage gunning in comparison to others, but be good at holding objectives.
The problems are CP generation, soup, and guardsmen orders.

The underlying problem is that IG and knights are used as the baselines for "balance". Things that can shoot well and endure shots well defines what is "good" in 8th edition. Melee is dead, the tertiary element that balanced the binary system of [shooting] and [getting shot at].


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoiler:

 WisdomLS wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Hordes are badly costed. Revamp all the costs of horde units and TAC won’t be in the bad spot they are now.

This is very true, there is an over abundance of cheap bodies appearing in all armies that can take them. The inexpensive cost added to the new Str/T chart and the new AP system have made them super good in a game where board control is paramount.
Add in the fact that many of the larger horde units have the ability to mitigate moral which was designed to keep them in check results in them being very undercosted.

I suspect GW realise this but it could be by design to get people to buy more models, that would certainly seem to be the case with the general lowiering of points across the board.

If GW do decide they want to do something about it then in chapter approved next year a simple 1-2 pt increase in the cost of most cheap infantry would solve the issue.

Infantry squad +2pts
veteran +2pts
Conscript +1pt

Kabalits/Wracks/Wyches +1 pts

Guardians/Defenders +1pts

Firewarriors/Breachers +1pts

Cultists +1pts
All lesser Daemons +1pts

Vanguard/Rangers +1pts

Gretchin +1pts
Boys +1pts

Broodbrothers/Neophyte +2pts
Acolyte +1 pts

Tzangors +1pts

Obviously some of these might need to be +/- a point or so but I think this would have a far greater effect on the meta than reducing marine pts by 1.

Cultists at 6? even tough they aren't taken anymore at 5?
Scuse me but that is ridicoulous.

Troops should never be taken for the virtue of being "cheap". This too, is the fundamental flaw in 8th edition.

1. Drop pods: You can deepstrike on turn 1 & disembark after deepstrike, but can either charge or shoot, not both. Also units inside Drop Pods are not counted towards reserves limit.

2. Bolter should be AP-1 weapon

3. Rhinos should be dirt cheap, I would even suggest that dedicated transport battlefield role units should be unable to hold objectives to compensate for ridiculously low point cost.

4. Rules similiar to "All is Dust" or Rusted Claw chapter of Genecult, so your marines effectively ignore AP-1 and are buffed against AP 0 weapons.

5. They shall know no fear should be changed, that in addition to the re-roll only 1 model flees in case of failure.

Another approach is to increase the wound count.
2W for tactical, 3W for primaris, even more for centurion.
But if this happens Custodes must be buffed as well.
This will give only marginal suvivability increase against d3 or d6 damage weapons, but significantly increase survivability against the buckets of dice.

The bane of marines since third edition is that single failed save roll against any attack means dead tactical marine.

I have never played space marines myself: started as a necrons player, then moved to Chaos and for the last year I've been playing orks.

But I see how severely SM count dropped on tournaments and in my community. Two of my close friends have left the hobby (one completely and another stopped playing), because they had excessive SM collections lasting from 4th edition, which suddenly became irrelevant.

There are competitive SM lists around there, but they don't feel like SM army and it hurts to see 90% of your collection just gathering dust.

Maybe instead of Drop Pods getting to hit on turn 1, they get to land no closer than 6" to enemy units or something.

What if...All the space marine auras were no long auras and just affected the whole army automatically. Since you are paying a cost like they are buffed like the aura anyways. It would for sure make the army more competitive. You know...being able to move tactically and stuff instead of a dead/death ball....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:
Maybe instead of Drop Pods getting to hit on turn 1, they get to land no closer than 6" to enemy units or something.

Wouldnt really help marines specifically- it would be great for lots of armies but vanila marines dont want to get that close mostly. Flamers aren't even worth it even when they are in range. 70 more points of firepower is better. It would be amazing and busted for Blood angels though.

 Xenomancers wrote:
What if...All the space marine auras were no long auras and just affected the whole army automatically. Since you are paying a cost like they are buffed like the aura anyways. It would for sure make the army more competitive. You know...being able to move tactically and stuff instead of a dead/death ball....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:
Maybe instead of Drop Pods getting to hit on turn 1, they get to land no closer than 6" to enemy units or something.

Wouldnt really help marines specifically- it would be great for lots of armies but vanila marines dont want to get that close mostly. Flamers aren't even worth it even when they are in range. 70 more points of firepower is better. It would be amazing and busted for Blood angels though.

For the first part - drop pod is ok to drop further than 9", but disembarking within 3" but farther than 6" from enemy would help. Now dropping in pod gives no additional benefit to regular deepstrike.
I feel that pod should be non-scoring dirt cheap unit or cost the same but allow turn 1 deepstrike shinanigans.

For the second part - I find auras appaling to start with, but what you propose is close to OP.
Command squads with vox marine, along with vox upgrades on squads, should give aura increase, but plain buff seems unnecessary.