C: Space Marine and the lack of a ‘Push’ Unit

[GreyCrow]

LEAVE ASSAULT MARINES ALONE!!!

 

They are awesome okay ! They don't kill much, but they are still awesome !

 

(Okay, they are best used as skirmishers and a distraction unit, but that has value !)

[SydonianDragoon404]

Don't leave assault marines alone, buff them! They suck ass right now! Filling fast attack slots for a Brigade is the only reason I would take them, and that's only because I don't have any biker models. 

[GreyCrow]

Really, no need to buff them!

 

They are really workable right now if used to their strengths. Changing them is just satisfying a desire of them to be what they are not, and that's not really nice !

'I don't like you for what you are, so you have to change! But I still want to hang out with you! So change!'

 

There are 2 other jump pack units with more killing power :

- Vanguard Vets for chopping

- Inceptors for shooting

 

Assault Marines are just infantry with better movement and deployment options! They have a use.

Is it what you are looking for ? Nope. Does not mean they are bad!

[Kallas]

Really, no need to buff them!

 

They are really workable right now if used to their strengths. Changing them is just satisfying a desire of them to be what they are not, and that's not really nice !

'I don't like you for what you are, so you have to change! But I still want to hang out with you! So change!'

 

There are 2 other jump pack units with more killing power :

- Vanguard Vets for chopping

- Inceptors for shooting

 

Assault Marines are just infantry with better movement and deployment options! They have a use.

Is it what you are looking for ? Nope. Does not mean they are bad!

Thing is, you can take a Vanguard Veteran for 2pts more. Base, it does exactly the same thing as an Assault Marine but better.

 

Seriously, there is no point to ever using an Assault Marine unit other than to fill a Brigade - and even then you're better off using a Biker Squad, Scout Bikers, or Tarantulas.

 

Not wanting them buffed/brought down in cost/something to make them useful is incredibly dumb.

[GreyCrow]

Hey, just because you can't see the use or that you don't find that their use fit your army doesn't mean that they are not useful ! ;)

 

Let's be absolutely clear about one thing : I'm not trying to convince you that they are good. I'm not trying to force you to try them. You have your opinion on them, it's absolutely fine. :) I have no opinion on your opinion !

 

But, repeating over and over that they suck is a total disservice to other forum members that actually, like me, could come to enjoy their play style and find a spot for Assault Marines in more competitive play style.

 

Yes, you are absolutely right. Vanguards are more points efficient at killing stuff. Undoubtedly.

 

For the rest of the uses, Assault Marines outclass the Vanguards in cost effectiveness.

Here are an example of their uses :

- Free stealth drop, you can deploy a unit without deploying a unit, so you gain information

- Fast moving infantry that does not require a transport

- Deep Strike infantry that you can delay deployment

- Mobile Roadblock

- Mobile Janitor to deal with the enemy mooks to allow you to shoot at other stuff with more quality firepower

- A couple of plasma pistols in melee

- A throwaway distraction unit

- A unit able to take advantage of tall LOS buildings

- A cheap objective grabber with deployment options

- A backfield nuisance

 

Yes, all of these are situational. And yes they are more cost effective than the Vanguards in all of these aspects. You can not value these uses, but it's just plain wrong to say they have none.

 

Everything is situational. W40k is not about having a solution for each scenario, and optimizing the solution. W40k is about having capabilities in your army that work well together. But thy should not be dépendant on a pre ordained system unless you want to broadcast this to your opponent.

[Frater Cornelius]

Ever since DOW2, when I found out that jumping Thaddeus into the enemies on Primarch difficulty is essentially suicide and that they require a plenty of micro in DOW1 and DOW2, I have grown to dislike the unit, regardless of merrit :D

[Kallas]

But, repeating over and over that they suck is a total disservice to other forum members that actually, like me, could come to enjoy their play style and find a spot for Assault Marines in more competitive play style.

The thing is, with all of the things that you mention Assault Marines are not good at doing these things. There is nothing they actually do well because they are simply a weak unit.

 

 

Hey, just because you can't see the use or that you don't find that their use fit your army doesn't mean that they are not useful ! ;)[...]

 

Yes, you are absolutely right. Vanguards are more points efficient at killing stuff. Undoubtedly.

 

For the rest of the uses, Assault Marines outclass the Vanguards in cost effectiveness.

Here are an example of their uses :

- Free stealth drop, you can deploy a unit without deploying a unit, so you gain information

- Fast moving infantry that does not require a transport

- Deep Strike infantry that you can delay deployment

- Mobile Roadblock

- Mobile Janitor to deal with the enemy mooks to allow you to shoot at other stuff with more quality firepower

- A couple of plasma pistols in melee

- A throwaway distraction unit

- A unit able to take advantage of tall LOS buildings

- A cheap objective grabber with deployment options

- A backfield nuisance

Let me offer some rebuttals, and I'll clarify something immediately by assuming a minimum unit of 5 Assault vs 5 Vanguard with no upgrades (until they're brought up):

 

Stealth Drop:

No advantage to using AM over VV, other than 10pts, which is a minimal investment to make the unit far more actually capable when it comes time to actually do something.

 

Deep Strike Delay:

See above. VV are just better for a minimal cost increase.

 

Mobile Roadblock:

Same as above.

 

Mobile Janitor:

Same as above. Again, AM don't actually do anything well, so spending 75pts (VV) vs 65pts (AM) is a good investment, because those VV will do the job better (ie, jumping on enemy drop troops/aggressive units) for a small cost increase. VV, in the base loadout are approximately 25% more effective for a 15% cost increase. That's a no brainer.

 

Plasma Pistols:

AM are better if you want to spend as little as possible on 3 Plasma Pistols. VV are better if you want a unit that is just as good at using those Pistols but also better at the whole melee thing.

 

Throwaway Distraction:

Being a distraction necessitates being threatening. 10 Termagants running around a flank are not a distraction, because they won't actually worry an opponent, same thing with AM - because they aren't threatening. AM are simply pathetic in their output; and while yes they have mobility, so do VV, for a tiny cost increase! A 75pt distraction unit, that can actually kill things, vs a 65pt unit that can't. And to head off an obvious counterpoint: if you are bringing units that aren't threatening enough to be shot at to jump on an objective, just bring a unit of CC Scouts!

 

Tall LOS Blockers:

Again, VV. The use of LOS Blockers is to get a (melee or short ranged) unit upfield to get to grips with the enemy. AM don't actually kill well; so, again, just go for VV.

 

Cheap Objective Grabber:

Actually not a terrible use, but Scouts do it better for the most part (though they are vulnerable from turn one). VV are still very, because they can actually repulse enemy objective grabs. If you're bringing a big unit to weather fire, then Inceptors are better because they can fire back very effectively.

 

Backfield Nuisance:

Again, VV do it better. Minimal cost increase, better ability to actually do stuff in the backfield.

 

 

Yes, all of these are situational. And yes they are more cost effective than the Vanguards in all of these aspects. You can not value these uses, but it's just plain wrong to say they have none.

 

They're not more cost effective unless the only goal is to be cheap, at which point they're worse than things like Scouts.

 

While I can agree that some things are hard/impossible to explicitly value, yet there is an inherent value (or rather, lack of value) in a unit that can't actually get work done when it comes down to it - and that's Assault Marines, they just don't do work. Additionally, it's not really reasonable to say "you can't value these uses" and also say "they are more cost effective" - that's counteracting yourself, because they can't be more cost effective when that metric can't be employed!

 

Also bear in mind, Scouts perform a lot of the roles you mentioned above, cheaper, just as effectively and due to Concealed Positions can do it quickly too.

 

Everything is situational. W40k is not about having a solution for each scenario, and optimizing the solution. W40k is about having capabilities in your army that work well together. But thy should not be dépendant on a pre ordained system unless you want to broadcast this to your opponent.

Oh, I agree. That doesn't, however, make Assault Marines useful. If they had ObSec then maybe, but they're simply not as useful as an equivalently equipped Vanguard Veteran unit.

 

Assault Marines have three (and only three) advantages over Vanguard Veterans:

- a minimal, negligible cost saving

- the ability to equip two Melta/Plasma Guns (Edit: if they're Blood Angels)

- they're not competing for Elite slots

 

I don't want Assault Marines to be bad. But that doesn't change the fact that they are. Even a small cost reduction would help, but your points are not exclusive to Assault Marines, and they do not have roles other than those I mentioned and those are pathetic roles.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Kallas

[Blindhamster]

Assault marines are better if you have a lot of other options competing for elites slots. For example, in a blood angels army.

 

yes, you COULD take a separate detachment to get more elites slots, but then the units come with a tax that often isn't worth it (another HQ).

 

Again, for BA, the fact they assault marines have access to melta guns and plasma guns is another thing that stands in their favour.

 

 

edit...

 

and somehow i missed that you say almost exactly that at the end, my apologies!

Edited December 12, 2017 by Blindhamster

[GreyCrow]

Haha Kallas you want to be so right it's fun ! :D

 

Im talking cost effectiveness, not killing output. In all examples I've costed above, cost per body is the most important KPI.

 

Scouts cannot Deep Strike, so that leaves Scouts out of the equation for deployment shenanigans later in the game.

 

Why would you pay a premium of 13% more per head for this is none of my concern and probably have reasons, but it is inefficient for all of these specific purposes.

 

If you decide to discount cost effectiveness as an advantage because you personally don't think it is one, then no point in continuing this discussion :D

[Mileposter]

Haha Kallas you want to be so right it's fun !

 

Im talking cost effectiveness, not killing output. In all examples I've costed above, cost per body is the most important KPI.

 

Scouts cannot Deep Strike, so that leaves Scouts out of the equation for deployment shenanigans later in the game.

 

Why would you pay a premium of 13% more per head for this is none of my concern and probably have reasons, but it is inefficient for all of these specific purposes.

 

If you decide to discount cost effectiveness as an advantage because you personally don't think it is one, then no point in continuing this discussion

... It's not a desire to be right, it's a measurable metric. Assault Marines are NOT cost effective is the point he's making - it's not being discounted, it's being disproven. If you're saying they're cheaper in those roles than other options - certainly. Can't argue that. But they are the least cost effective units for those roles. In almost every case, there's someone that does it better, faster, or more effectively.

 

Here's hoping that gets improved once GW gets the feedback from Blood Angels!

[Kallas]

 

Haha Kallas you want to be so right it's fun !

 

Im talking cost effectiveness, not killing output. In all examples I've costed above, cost per body is the most important KPI.

 

Scouts cannot Deep Strike, so that leaves Scouts out of the equation for deployment shenanigans later in the game.

 

Why would you pay a premium of 13% more per head for this is none of my concern and probably have reasons, but it is inefficient for all of these specific purposes.

 

If you decide to discount cost effectiveness as an advantage because you personally don't think it is one, then no point in continuing this discussion

... It's not a desire to be right, it's a measurable metric. Assault Marines are NOT cost effective is the point he's making - it's not being discounted, it's being disproven. If you're saying they're cheaper in those roles than other options - certainly. Can't argue that. But they are the least cost effective units for those roles. In almost every case, there's someone that does it better, faster, or more effectively.

 

Here's hoping that gets improved once GW gets the feedback from Blood Angels!

 

 

Thank you, that is exactly what I'm saying.

 

At the end of my last post I listed the three things that they do better than anything else:

 - They're the cheapest Jump Pack unit

 - They are Fast Attack, not Elites, so take up less valuable Force Organisation slots

 - (If Blood Angels) They can equip Meltaguns/Plasma Guns which makes them decently cheap, mobile firepower units.

 

Thing is, if they're there just for being a cheap unit to jump on an objective, you'd be better served with a unit of Scouts with Bolters. Sure, they don't get to Deep Strike later in the game, but that is a negligible benefit. If you want a unit to: harass the backfield, presumably by getting into melee; utilise LOS blocking terrain, get up close and then engage the enemy; be a defensive sweeper/roadblock, to counter attack enemies coming for your firebase - in all of these cases Vanguard Veterans provide a superior unit for a minimal cost increase. 18pts vs 16pts (10pts for a 5-man unit) is a negligible cost increase for 5 extra melee attacks; if you are upgrading the unit in any capacity that is not Special ranged weapons (though including Plasma Pistols) then the Vanguard Veterans are absolutely superior.

 

Are you taking three Plasma Pistols? Then take them on Vanguard Veterans, and you can actually pile on a few more to increase your output (presumably you're bringing them to drop in an drop a few MEQs?) without sacrificing anti-chaff melee power, because they have the same base attacks as Chainsword AMs have. They become more expensive if you do that, but their efficacy becomes far greater. Take this example; a unit of AMs with Plasma Pistols, there to drop in, kill a few dudes with their guns and then harass:

5 AMs, 3 Plasma Pistols is 101pts and gives you 3 Plasma/2 BP shots, and 11 attacks.

5 VV, 3 Plasma Pistols is 111pts and gives you 3 Plasma/2 BP shots, and 16 attacks.

That's a 12% cost increase, gives you the same firepower and a 45% increase in melee power. So 112% cost, for equal ranged and 145% melee potential. (Edit: Derped on the math, fixed.)

 

Basically, being cheap is not a redeeming feature, because while they are the cheapest Jump Pack option, they are not a useful unit. At the end of the day, your units are going to need to get something done. If they're dropping on an objective, it's likely they'll need to repel an enemy unit coming to claim it (particularly if you're able to use LOS blocking terrain to stop them getting shot off of it) and an Assault Marine unit is woefully bad at doing so.

 

Again I'll repeat: I don't like that Assault Marines are a lame duck, but denying that they are is just lying to yourself. If you have gotten good work out of them, great! But would you have gotten more work out of them if you'd upgraded them to Vanguard Veterans for a minimal 10pts? Were those Fast Attack slots the only ones you could fill?

Edited December 12, 2017 by Kallas

[SydonianDragoon404]

Yeah I'm going to go ahead and raise my hand up here in support of Kallas. Assault Marines just don't feel good when using them, they haven't since the days of 7th edition Skyhammer. GreyCrow, if this was that stupid TV show I can't remember the name of, I'd be trying to vote you off the island. You just aren't making any sense man, and everyone is pretty much in agreement of that. 

[9x19 Parabellum]

In my opinion, the problem is that Tactical Marines are 1 pt too expensive (should be 12; we lost ranged killing power (bolter lost AP), melee killing power (no bonus attack on charge), we lost durability (changes to the way cover saves and AP work) and we lost morale (7th edition ATSKNF is better than 8th edition).  The sum of all this in my opinion merits a 2 pt reduction, not a 1 pt). Comparatively, Assault Marines should have been +2 pts more with jump packs, putting them at 14 points, possibly 15 pts if they kept it at +3 pts for jump pack and I think 14-15 pts would have been the sweet spot for them.

[Blindhamster]

We actually get saves against a lot of things we didn't before.

 

Everything lost close combat potential.

 

Morale was broken before

 

The reduction in power of the bolt gun is a fair point.

[The Unseen]

We actually get saves against a lot of things we didn't before.

 

Everything lost close combat potential.

 

Morale was broken before

 

The reduction in power of the bolt gun is a fair point.

 

Armor saves are an objective improvement mathematically, but improved far less than cheaper, already more efficient units like infantry squads. Small arms no longer ignore weaker armor saves, making the 3+ worse by comparison. And Ap4 became AP-1, which went from being ignored by power armor to dropping it to a 4+, and there are a lot of ap-1 weapons these days. The fact that we know get a 6+ armor save versus plasma, which is by far the go to weapon in this edition, is very small consolation.

 

Yes, everything lost some close combat potential, but marines are paying premium points for being "generalists" that at this point aren't even "jack of all trades" because the basic marine at this point can't punch his way out of paper lunch sack, and actually loses fist-fights versus an equivalent point in cheaper infantry.

 

Morale was absolutely broken before, but a re-roll in the new system is pretty crap. It's actually worse than a flat +1 to leadership is in all circumstances.

 

And finally, bolters are terrible when your paying 13 pts for their chassis, because now they don't ignore any armor whatsoever, which ties back in point 1, and don't have the rate of fire to make them a quantity weapon like lasguns. Whats hilarious is that the Primaris marines have the same problem with significantly improved weapons, but thanks to their significantly higher priced chassis, end up about the same. A tactical marine with a boltgun loses on all metrics except morale compared to 3 guardsmen, and the guardsmen leave you with a point to spare.

 

This all ties together to make Assault marines pretty much garbage, since now they can't even clear chaff infantry well. They aren't tough enough or have obsec to take objectives, their mobility is easily replicated by similar units such as scouts or vanguard veterans, and they punch like a wet noodle.

[Marshal Arthur]

Just jumping in to let out my own complaint about marines. Why do we have to pay more for plasma guns and other heavy weapons than guardsmen? I realize we have a better BS but I thought we were already paying for our stats with the cost of the marine? Why do we also have to pay a tax on our weapons?

 

I like the new AP system but it does seem to hurt us a bit overall. Some sort of AP resistance or armor save rerolls for power armored units would be great. That said I’m worried rerolls might break other units (imagine plague marines in cover). Others have suggested raising all power armored units save by 1 which might work. As for the push unit just give us more attacks. I don’t get why a superhuman soldier in advanced body armor has the same number of attacks as an ordinary human.

Edited December 12, 2017 by templar36

[Karack Blackstone]

Just jumping in to let out own complaint about marines. Why do we have to pay more for plasma guns and other heavy weapons than guardsmen? I realize we have a better BS but I thought we were already paying for our stats with the cost of the marine? Why do we also have to pay a tax on our weapons?

 

It appears to me that GW considers the bearer's appropriate skill, either melee or ranged, to be a necessary tax due to the skill level of said bearer.

 

I totally agree; PA armies of all sorts appear to be paying premium points to be able to make effective units, currently. There may be a long term change in this regard, however, if GW is not aware, maybe all PA armies need to ask for a revisit to the points costs and any taxes that said PA units must currently pay to gain said weapon.

 

It's pretty clear that stats are not exactly one to one on points cost for each single digit improvement. That said, however, there's no reason this too cannot change in the long term.

 

Personally, it's not just Assault Marines, and their variants. I think the argument can be made that the points costs and calculations of where GW ends up at the final cost of all PA armies and models, or better, such as TDA wearing units and leaders, needs a solid revisit, as stated. The problem is, asking for this nicely, and being willing to hear an answer we do not as hobbyists like.

 

This goes back to the problem of Movie Marines versus current, 1 wound SM's in general: how many points would it cost to give all PA SM's 2 wounds, and TDA models at least 3, if not 4, due to the nature of weapons in 8th Ed. dealing such heavy hits, a vast amount of the time these days.

 

I'm not intending to derail the thread; just food for thought, hopefully. I genuinely hope this helps; points balance for GW is literally a real-time effort right now, and only with constructive and cogent feedback will GW be inclined to listen. So, here's to that sort of feedback, long term; it may be a bit, however, we may get there if we all conduct ourselves well, in order to gain the changes we want, so long as they are fair, and not overpowered, not that anyone would ever ask for that.

 

Just jumping in to let out my own complaint about marines. Why do we have to pay more for plasma guns and other heavy weapons than guardsmen? I realize we have a better BS but I thought we were already paying for our stats with the cost of the marine? Why do we also have to pay a tax on our weapons?

 

I like the new AP system but it does seem to hurt us a bit overall. Some sort of AP resistance or armor save rerolls for power armored units would be great. That said I’m worried rerolls might break other units (imagine plague marines in cover). Others have suggested raising all power armored units save by 1 which might work. As for the push unit just give us more attacks. I don’t get why a superhuman soldier in advanced body armor has the same number of attacks as an ordinary human.

 

Edit in response to your edit.

 

I'm pretty sure GW would attempt to fairly cost out the stat improvements that would require, the problem is working with the points balancing teams to figure out a truly fair for the game cost. I totally get where you are coming from; if Astartes were to have 2 Attacks, and Primaris are base 3, considering the effects of the new edition on attacks, this has far less of an effect on the way the game plays out right now.

 

Chainswords are in 8th a real contender for a weapon on Sergeants and those that can take them. Attacks used to get pretty large with any stat improvement in older editions; in 8th there's a very different effect, and as I typed in my post above before this edit, I personally think changing Astartes of all sorts to Primaris stats and then add 1 to Primaris Wounds and Attacks might be a balanced effect. TDA having 4 Wounds, maybe 3, or, +2 or +1 Wounds instead for Characters, could prove a great aid.

 

Again, the core issue is to figure out what is truly fair for the game, even for our opponents. These sorts of changes cannot occur in a vacuum, and I don't claim that anyone said they should. The serious issue here is that either all SM unit entries should have a reduced cost, at least +1 A and +1 Wound, and TDA should provide at least a further +1 Wound, or +2 Wounds if it makes sense. Balance, for all, is the most important part, and that takes work.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Karack Blackstone

[Schlitzaf]

1 > 0.66 > 0.44 > 0.29

3 > 1.5 > 0.5 > 0.18

 

3 turns later gaurd is dead

3 turns Marine still alive

 

2 > 1 > 0.33 > 0.11

 

3 turns later second Gaurd is dead

 

1 > 0.5 > .16 > 0.05

 

In theory they should kill each other in 10 turns. However if the Marine kills a gaurd earlier he has a massive boost in his change for victory. Sense we are comparing melee, lets look at a more reasonable scenerio. 10 Man Tactical Squad worth 180 Points vs 4 Gaurd Squads with Mortar.

 

Just by statistics if 36 > 18 > 6 > 2 + 14 > 7 > 3.5 > 1.22 or 3 Marines. Let’s us take the Tactical. 7 > 5 > 3 > 2. 3 > 2 > 1.67. Or 4 men. Not it’s only 1 man more. But let us think about Deployment? Gaurd only have 24” range. If a presume you are in top left center. (24” Down and 12” in).

 

Unit has to be in the center position to shoot and requires LoS. So the closet unit that could should you has to be in the exact center or has to be clumped together. Now let us look at the math.

 

27 > 13.5 > 4.5 > 1.5. 7 > 3.5 > 1.75 > 60. Or 2.10

 

Tacticals > 14 > 9 > 6 > 4. 4 > 2.66 + 1 > 0.55 > 2.7. While Tacticals lose more in the exchange, they also nearly wiped Squad. And the squad is likely gonna lose rest of itself during the Moral.

 

Now Assault Marines? Take that same scenario. You hit two Squads of Gaurd. 22 > 11 > 3.3 > 1.1. 22 > 14 > 9 > 6. (And one squad dies to morale). Of course we have to compare armies. And you are assuming 10 Man impact. But the reverse you are assuming the enemy can bring 30 Gaurdsman to bear on one piece of the battlefield.

 

Let’s be fair and have the Marines be 7 Men. > 16 > 10.33 > 6.88 > 4.58. Vs 1. While you won’t break them one of those squads are severely weakened. Next turn 11 > 5.5 > 1.88 > 0.66. 6 Marines > 14 > 9 > 6 > 4. That second squad is dead. 6 > 4 > 2.66 > 0.90

14 > 8 > 5.32 > 2.88 + 0.9 > 3.76. 7 > 3.5 > 1.2 > 0.4.

 

6 Marines > 14 > 9. > 6 > 3. Then your turn you finish the job. With 5 ASM left. Are those equal points? No. But is every conflict gonna be equal point units duking? Equal point armies yes. Not equal point Squads. If you insist on taking 5 Man MSU. You will die. 5 Man MSU have neither staying power nor durability. They are good campers. They are not a good assault force. Your army should include 2 Durable Center Units. And then 2-3 Units in Support. 4 10 Man Tacticals are expensive. But they give the staying power. Unless your Razorspam then 5 Man MSU all you want.

[Captain Idaho]

I don't like points comparisons between armies but rather overall balance.

 

Regardless, this ain't the topic at hand...

 

...coming back to "push units":

 

We have shooting units like that. Centurions are amazing. We do actually have powerful close combat units. Terminators, particularly Cataphractii with assorted weapons, are amazing.

 

The problem with both of them lies with other forces beyond their control. Centurions are expensive so they get singled out fat easier with anti tank weapons thanks to points not going on saturation.

 

Cataphractii and indeed other Terminator units are moderately fairly priced for the most part yet need better delivery systems that costs more points to be a consistent power unit.

 

As an example, 8 Assault/Cataphractii Terminators jumping out of a Crusader is fairly terminal for the receiving units, but then you've got all your eggs in 1 basket.

 

Small fixes on this would be a Centurions points drop and Terminators that can launch a teleport thanks to a 1CP Stratagem, allowing for attacking play after the 1st drop.

 

But hey, Chapter Approved concentrated on Primaris for us unfortunately. They needed a fix as were overcosted but the rest of the Codex is lagging.

[GreyCrow]

Idaho, your comment about the Centurion is very enlightening and makes me think about maybe a unusual way to look at things.

 

Perhaps we are confusing purpose and use when we talk about push.

 

Centurions are a prime example ! Yes they are beefy and pack a punch, but like you said there are many situations where they will be singled out and won't be able to push.

 

A units' designed purpose should be identified by what it can do, regardless of any condition.

The act is pushing is very dependent on battlefield conditions, and in that sense, we can say quite reasonably that, yes, we lack a unit which purpose is push, as we have no unit that can't be hard countered.

 

So, typically a push unit would be something like a battering ram, T8, 12" move, 20 wounds, a 2+/3++. Even without guns, this would work well as a push unit.

 

I guess the closest push unit would be an Imperial Knight or a Titan.

[Captain Idaho]

Land Raiders are fairly beefy. ;)

 

I don't know if there really is such a thing as a Push Unit in 40K. Nothing is really unkillable. Even Primarchs.

[Schlitzaf]

Push units need not be unkillable (certainly helpful through). A push unit is a unit that can as I said earlier dislodge enemy from entrenched positions. Centurions are perhaps one of the better examples posted because they move and lay down dakka.

 

I just didn’t think of them for a variety of reasons. The Assault Terminators is another classic push unit in C:SM. However one of the issues with Hammerators as push, is they don’t present enough in the way of raw attack to dislodge non-elites. TwinClaws (+ Couple Hammers) I think is one of the better Marine push units.

 

It’s core issue their I think is the “sitting duck” syndrome. The best insertion method is deep strike. But a 9” Charge is such a low success, it doesn’t really force the enemy to respect it. (Well it does but in a different way).

 

Several traditional push units, Hammerators, Nob Bikers, and more. Just lack the firepower or durability to effective dislodge enemy positions while not sacrificing the other elements of an army to do so.

[SydonianDragoon404]

Push units need not be unkillable (certainly helpful through). A push unit is a unit that can as I said earlier dislodge enemy from entrenched positions. Centurions are perhaps one of the better examples posted because they move and lay down dakka.

 

I just didn’t think of them for a variety of reasons. The Assault Terminators is another classic push unit in C:SM. However one of the issues with Hammerators as push, is they don’t present enough in the way of raw attack to dislodge non-elites. TwinClaws (+ Couple Hammers) I think is one of the better Marine push units.

 

It’s core issue their I think is the “sitting duck” syndrome. The best insertion method is deep strike. But a 9” Charge is such a low success, it doesn’t really force the enemy to respect it. (Well it does but in a different way).

 

Several traditional push units, Hammerators, Nob Bikers, and more. Just lack the firepower or durability to effective dislodge enemy positions while not sacrificing the other elements of an army to do so.

 

Especially when mortal wound spam (smite spam) is so prevalent right now, and Imperial Guard can pack 4 plasma guns into a 70 point unit. 

[Lemondish]

Assault marines are better if you have a lot of other options competing for elites slots. For example, in a blood angels army.

 

yes, you COULD take a separate detachment to get more elites slots, but then the units come with a tax that often isn't worth it (another HQ).

 

Again, for BA, the fact they assault marines have access to melta guns and plasma guns is another thing that stands in their favour.

 

 

edit...

 

and somehow i missed that you say almost exactly that at the end, my apologies!

 

I disagree with the concept that maximizing CP is the only way to build lists. A vanguard detachment, for example, can support up to 6 elites, so 4 with an HQ isn't out of the question. There are a multitude of reasons why one might consider going that way, particularly if they feel the HQ (and two other elite options) tax is worth giving up a single command point. Ultimately, that would come down to the value of the unit and how it fits into your army, but I disagree with the idea that there is some kind of competition for force org spots in 8th edition. There isn't. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Lemondish

[Blindhamster]

Didn't mention maximising CP anywhere!

 

I just genuinely think it's usually not the best plan to have three HQ as they're rather points intensive in marine armies.

 

Regardless, an advantage of assault marines is that they're "only" fast attack. Which makes them a unit that can help contribute towards a brigade and a unit that doesn't need to compete with the genuinely elite units of the army.

 

On the topic of CP though, it absolutely depends on army. A lot of the good strategems for blood angels for example are not cheap, so if you use a couple you'll be out before the games past 1st turn quite likely. Raven guard are going to want a decent amount for their infiltrate stratagem too.