Mr.Omega wrote:

I'm not disputing that Intercessors are more efficient.

Efficiency is the name of the game here, for the thread.

The difference is when you apply constraints within a practical context, its easier to gun down a decent number of Intercessors with Guardsmen than it is to put a dent in the advance of some Custodes.

Well, I am not sure this matters terribly. In tournament play, guard win rates against custodes (38.46%) are much better than against iron hands (24.29%) or raven guard (17.39%).

https://www.40kstats.com/faction-vs-faction

I would argue that intercessors being so point efficient play a significant role in those victories.

That's the name of the game, point efficiency. If you can outtrade your opponent even with your generalists against their specialists (as has been shown here with intercessors) while keeping equal or better point efficiency with specialists, you win.

Grey40k wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:


You don't. You take a sustainable number of casualties each turn to long range bolt rifle fire and then watch as Intercessor squads suffer critical existence failure one after another as your heavy support destroys them from a distance. If the enemy list is alpha-striking, then you get good mileage out of close range FRFSRF as an added bonus.

The thing about Custodes is that you have to kill them fast with units that have to multi-task against killing other immediate threats like grav tanks and jetbike captains since your infantry are useless.

I think that is moving away a bit from the point of the thread, which is that intercessors are too point efficient in many roles.

I compared them against guards because those are the generalist troops of another faction. Others have compared them even against specialist units which should beat them at their role and don't; specially not from a point efficient perspective.

You said you cannot beat custodes with a guard infantry list but that intercessors didn't scare you as much. My point was to show you that even in the most favorable trade (rapid fire range and a unit with orders) your point efficiency is worse than that of an intercessor; and that's even without accounting for rerolls, weird raven cover mechanics, invulnerable saves, you failing morale saves after guards start falling, and so on.

For clarity: when your point efficiency is worse, you can always expect to lose.

Intercessors probably are a little too points efficient at 17 ppm, but they're not that strategically impactful to me.

You're right, points efficiency is king. It's efficient when a similarly costed Executioner Leman Russ TC wipes out almost an entire squad of 10 Intercessors in a single salvo with the only risk being opportunity cost.

Its just that before overly elite armies, you could make an efficient enough infantry contingent. No, you can't meet Intercessors head on and kill them with Guardsmen, granted, but at least anything that makes Guardsmen more effective actually has some return when used against Primaris Marines rather than being a waste of points straight up.

Mathhammer is great, but context can also be important. Mathhammer says that my list with 5 Leman Russ Conquerors and 2 Leman Russ Executioners that I ran a short while back should destroy my opponent's army in a single turn. Context says, this is a reasonable LOS blocking board, good luck killing anything that's too big to hide on the first turn. #

Grey40k wrote:
It just doesn't work, IMHO.

At this point, you would need to bring literal buckets of guardsmen to beat effictively intercessors in a gun fight (and forget about close combat unless you are catachan and even then). Once you factor in real world costs, and timed matches, it is a losing option.

Realistically though, that's the point - you shouldn't be using those Guardsmen to kill the Intercessors alone. That's why you bring specialised units to do it properly - and that's what I think Intercessors (and all Space Marines) realistically should be like, pretty good all round, but if something specialised to kill them crops up, they'll be hurt badly.

Of course, the real world costs and how big the armies would be are the real issue here. It goes either of two ways: the games get bigger on the enemy side (so a 2k army of guardsmen being double the size it is now, compared to a currently sized Marine one), or the Marine army gets smaller and more points heavy (ie, a 2k Marines army looking more like a 1k one).
Obviously, GW wouldn't do the latter, got to have people buying Space Marines, and the former would kill the idea of playing any kind of infantry heavy non-Marine army out of sheer model cost.

But, the question is "how elite are Marines suppose to feel" - if Marines were as elite as I'd describe them properly, the game wouldn't look anything like it is now. So, that's impractical. In terms of current Marine killiness, I don't mind it, but they definitely do need a price increase, IMO. I think we're all on board with Marines being less points efficient than they currently are, the real question is "should they get nerfed", or "should their points increase". I favour the latter.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

Intercessors probably are a little too points efficiently at 17 ppm, but they're not that strategically impactful to me.

You're right, points efficiency is king. It's efficient when a similarly costed Executioner Leman Russ TC wipes out almost an entire squad of 10 Intercessors in a single salvo with the only risk being opportunity cost.

Its just that before overly elite armies, you could make an efficient enough infantry contingent. No, you can't meet Intercessors head on and kill them with Guardsmen, granted, but at least anything that makes Guardsmen more effective actually has some return when used against Primaris Marines rather than being a waste of points straight up.

I think that when the troops of one faction start being overly point efficient, things become a lot harder to balance.

Pitching guards against intercessors might be better than guards against custodes, but it is still a losing scenario (and if we compute it fully, by quit a bit).

This means that you need to start devoting specialist resources to deal with the troops of the other faction in a cost efficient manner. At that point, how do you intent to deal with the specialists of the other faction? Because IG troops surely are not point efficient in that role either.

The reason why I insisted a bit more on your custodes vs intercessor example is because while custodes are more point efficient troop wise than guard, average point efficiency is not that ahead wrt to the general IG faction. This is proven by the victory rates in the encounter.

However, overall point efficiency is really bad for IG vs top marine factions. I would argue that it begins with SM basic troops (intercessors) being too point efficient. A point efficiency that is by no means corrected in the other troop categories.

If anything, my understanding of it is that SMs tended to suffer from troop point efficiency, which would then tax them and force them to seek better point efficiency in other categories. Intercessors completely removed that weakness.

Grey40k wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:

Intercessors probably are a little too points efficiently at 17 ppm, but they're not that strategically impactful to me.

You're right, points efficiency is king. It's efficient when a similarly costed Executioner Leman Russ TC wipes out almost an entire squad of 10 Intercessors in a single salvo with the only risk being opportunity cost.

Its just that before overly elite armies, you could make an efficient enough infantry contingent. No, you can't meet Intercessors head on and kill them with Guardsmen, granted, but at least anything that makes Guardsmen more effective actually has some return when used against Primaris Marines rather than being a waste of points straight up.

I think that when the troops of one faction start being overly point efficient, things become a lot harder to balance.

Pitching guards against intercessors might be better than guards against custodes, but it is still a losing scenario (and if we compute it fully, by quit a bit).

This means that you need to start devoting specialist resources to deal with the troops of the other faction in a cost efficient manner. At that point, how do you intent to deal with the specialists of the other faction? Because IG troops surely are not point efficient in that role either.

The reason why I insisted a bit more on your custodes vs intercessor example is because while custodes are more point efficient troop wise than guard, average point efficiency is not that ahead wrt to the general IG faction. This is proven by the victory rates in the encounter.

However, overall point efficiency is really bad for IG vs top marine factions. I would argue that it begins with SM basic troops (intercessors) being too point efficient. A point efficiency that is by no means corrected in the other troop categories.

If anything, my understanding of it is that SMs tended to suffer from troop point efficiency, which would then tax them and force them to seek better point efficiency in other categories. Intercessors completely removed that weakness.

I don't disagree ; Troops choices for SM have traditionally been units that you take for tactical utility and objective taking rather than being efficient blunt instruments, and that's how it should be. I would far rather see a rework of Marine troops rather than a simple points change or flat nerf so that they have ways and means of getting onto objectives and staying there rather than their effectiveness coming from conveniently being a decent source of raw firepower when they're taken in a minimal setup as a tax.

The stuff I'm looking at for taking with my Guard with the newest Greater Good book would seem to give them a pretty good helping hand at dealing with those specialists with the new strategems and tank ace rules more efficiently. I won't comment more than that though just yet because I'll have to wait until the weekend to try out the new rules.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Realistically though, that's the point - you shouldn't be using those Guardsmen to kill the Intercessors alone. That's why you bring specialised units to do it properly - and that's what I think Intercessors (and all Space Marines) realistically should be like, pretty good all round, but if something specialised to kill them crops up, they'll be hurt badly.

Of course, the real world costs and how big the armies would be are the real issue here. It goes either of two ways: the games get bigger on the enemy side (so a 2k army of guardsmen being double the size it is now, compared to a currently sized Marine one), or the Marine army gets smaller and more points heavy (ie, a 2k Marines army looking more like a 1k one).
Obviously, GW wouldn't do the latter, got to have people buying Space Marines, and the former would kill the idea of playing any kind of infantry heavy non-Marine army out of sheer model cost.

But, the question is "how elite are Marines suppose to feel" - if Marines were as elite as I'd describe them properly, the game wouldn't look anything like it is now. So, that's impractical. In terms of current Marine killiness, I don't mind it, but they definitely do need a price increase, IMO. I think we're all on board with Marines being less points efficient than they currently are, the real question is "should they get nerfed", or "should their points increase". I favour the latter.

Wel, that's the thing being discussed here. The fact that marine troops are right now too point efficient for generalist troops.

Usually, generalist troops are supposed to be less point efficient than specialists at specific roles; that's the whole point of having specialists to begin with.

When generalist troops are too point efficient at specialist roles (and intercessors are), then it creates problems of balance.

The fluff idea that a marine is 10 normal troops 100 (or whatever this has been inflated to throughout the years) is completely impractical in the tabletop. Why? Because to achieve this and not obliterate the possibility of the other armies being played (no, hundreds of guardsmen are not feasible), then what ends up happening is that the marine needs to be more point efficient. Once that happens, balance disappears.

So for the sake of the game, marines need to be less good than what the imperial propaganda says. Once you make them "worse", relative point efficiency will improve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr.Omega wrote:

I don't disagree ; Troops choices for SM have traditionally been units that you take for tactical utility and objective taking rather than being efficient blunt instruments, and that's how it should be. I would far rather see a rework of Marine troops rather than a simple points change or flat nerf so that they have ways and means of getting onto objectives and staying there rather than their effectiveness coming from conveniently being a decent source of raw firepower when they're taken in a minimal setup as a tax.

The stuff I'm looking at for taking with my Guard with the newest Greater Good book would seem to give them a pretty good helping hand at dealing with those specialists with the new strategems and tank ace rules more efficiently. I won't comment more than that though just yet because I'll have to wait until the weekend to try out the new rules.

I am incredibly rusty, so I try to be cautious with my opinions. I appreciate the points you were making about custodes, though, and generally the viability of guard infantry lists. I am here to learn!

That said, have fun this weekend. I am a bit more pessimistic than you regarding PA guard rules, since it doesn't seem to change much the outcome of games (at least at a competitive tournament level). But maybe time proves me and the other naysayers wrong!

"Efficienty" isn't an existing meter, so i don't think that you can use it as an argument.

"Efficient at x" is a meter. Intercessors have things where they are really efficient, and other things where they are the least efficient of all troops.

If you pit guardsmen against intercessors, they are going to lose 100% of the times. But that is true even with CA17 costs and before marine supplements and codex 2.0.

Intercessors have ALWAYS mulched down on other troops, but it never was a problem, since they suffer a lot from dedicated fire. Actually they were always considered to be quite underpowered.

They have become better now (doctrines, new chapter tactics and some point less), but the basics don't change. They still mulch other light infantry and get deleted much faster than other troops (point wise) when met with the proper equipment.

Ahhh, bad mathhammer comparisons, my white whale!

Point 1: you are muddying the waters by adding commanders and support elements into the mix, for starters lets just look at raw durability.

36 BS4 lasgun shots to down a 17-point intercessor. 2.11 shots per point.

108 BS4 lasgun shots to down a 49-point custode. 2.20 shots per point.

So, as you pointed out, custodes are more mathematically inefficient when shooting at them with guardsmen versus shooting at them with intercessors. The reason that most people are going to view intercessors as more threatening comes more on the offense side of things.

Let's round down: 8 intercessors vs 3 custodes. We're giving the custodes 11 points for free. What do these guys do vs guardsmen?

Well, the intercessor squad can remove 6 GEQ per turn, anywhere 30" away, which is very nearly a squad per turn. Rounding down to an average of 8 casualties per turn, they return 23.5% just from shooting.

The custode squad can take out 9 guardsmen, if and only if they get within 12", rapid fire their guns, and successfully charge into melee. It's worth noting that if you put the intercessors in a similar situation, they'd pretty handily wipe 2 squads out. A custode squad whacking an infantry squad in an ideal turn is a 27% return.


At 12" range with no charge, the custodes kill 2.8 guardsmen. At 24" range, 1.4.

With both units, once they're optimally engaging with you, you're mathmatically on the losing end of the exchange. Guardsmen pumping shots into custodes at 12" range is a 22% return, and into Intercessors is 23.6%.

But Intercessors can start doing that from 30" range, and custodes have to move across the whole battlefield with their 6" moves to get in range.

Spoletta wrote:
"Efficienty" isn't an existing meter, so i don't think that you can use it as an argument.

"Efficient at x" is a meter. Intercessors have things where they are really efficient, and other things where they are the least efficient of all troops.

If you pit guardsmen against intercessors, they are going to lose 100% of the times. But that is true even with CA17 costs and before marine supplements and codex 2.0.

Intercessors have ALWAYS mulched down on other troops, but it never was a problem, since they suffer a lot from dedicated fire. Actually they were always considered to be quite underpowered.

They have become better now (doctrines, new chapter tactics and some point less), but the basics don't change. They still mulch other light infantry and get deleted much faster than other troops (point wise) when met with the proper equipment.

I would love some examples. In which encounters are they significantly less point efficient than other generalist troops?

Easy.

They are far less durable (per point) against many kind of threats.

For example. I want to screen against Scion plasma drops.

I can use intercessors for this task or i can use Storm Guardians. Which one is more efficient?

Fot this task you aim for 2 objectives:

1) Maximum area covered per point
2) Minimum points lost when they absorb the threat.

I can go into mathammer, but i don't think that we really need it. It is obvious that Storm Guardians are much better at that task.

Another example. Do you want to absorb the impact of khorne zerkers? They suck compared to many other options. Same for a repentia bomb, or even a bloodletter bomb.

You need a screen against the new GK smite spam? They are really really bad (8,5 points per wound).

Guess who's better at holding a point against Bursttide fire? Intercessors or boyz?


Intercessors are the best troop in the game to counter light infantry, but a blanket statement saying that "They are the most efficient!" is obviously wrong.

Grey40k wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
"Efficienty" isn't an existing meter, so i don't think that you can use it as an argument.

"Efficient at x" is a meter. Intercessors have things where they are really efficient, and other things where they are the least efficient of all troops.

If you pit guardsmen against intercessors, they are going to lose 100% of the times. But that is true even with CA17 costs and before marine supplements and codex 2.0.

Intercessors have ALWAYS mulched down on other troops, but it never was a problem, since they suffer a lot from dedicated fire. Actually they were always considered to be quite underpowered.

They have become better now (doctrines, new chapter tactics and some point less), but the basics don't change. They still mulch other light infantry and get deleted much faster than other troops (point wise) when met with the proper equipment.

I would love some examples. In which encounters are they significantly less point efficient than other generalist troops?

There are few generalist troops is the issue, but areas where they can lose out to other troops: tarpitting, board coverage, sheer volume of models (relevant for contesting objectives), as much as they can and do threaten vehicles etc via volume of fire, they lack the ability to take specalist weapons to handle scenarios outside of the norm.

Intercessors are not perfect, they're jsut less imperfect than the other troops if that makes sense. A tacical squad with a combi melta, metla gun and multi melta might kill a vehicle faster than intercessors. Chaos marines are 6 poitns cheaper and can come in 20 man units to swarm stuff etc.

the_scotsman wrote:
Ahhh, bad mathhammer comparisons, my white whale!

Point 1: you are muddying the waters by adding commanders and support elements into the mix, for starters lets just look at raw durability.

36 BS4 lasgun shots to down a 17-point intercessor. 2.11 shots per point.

108 BS4 lasgun shots to down a 49-point custode. 2.20 shots per point.

So, as you pointed out, custodes are more mathematically inefficient when shooting at them with guardsmen versus shooting at them with intercessors. The reason that most people are going to view intercessors as more threatening comes more on the offense side of things.

Let's round down: 8 intercessors vs 3 custodes. We're giving the custodes 11 points for free. What do these guys do vs guardsmen?

Well, the intercessor squad can remove 6 GEQ per turn, anywhere 30" away, which is very nearly a squad per turn. Rounding down to an average of 8 casualties per turn, they return 23.5% just from shooting.

The custode squad can take out 9 guardsmen, if and only if they get within 12", rapid fire their guns, and successfully charge into melee. It's worth noting that if you put the intercessors in a similar situation, they'd pretty handily wipe 2 squads out. A custode squad whacking an infantry squad in an ideal turn is a 27% return.


At 12" range with no charge, the custodes kill 2.8 guardsmen. At 24" range, 1.4.

With both units, once they're optimally engaging with you, you're mathmatically on the losing end of the exchange. Guardsmen pumping shots into custodes at 12" range is a 22% return, and into Intercessors is 23.6%.

But Intercessors can start doing that from 30" range, and custodes have to move across the whole battlefield with their 6" moves to get in range.

I'm not doing anything to muddy the waters by including IG support units. When you're taking multiple squads, they're a mandatory extra limb that you will have around unless you're a muppet or they get sniped. And even then, I was making the exact point that the Guard vs Custodes projection was based on ideal circumstances. If anything, the fact that the support characters could get sniped out by a Vindicare supports my argument on the futility of using Guardsmen as anything other than a blocker against Custodes.

As I said on the last page, Intercessors are not a great threat to a Guard army. If they're 30'' away and killing a few handfuls of 4 pt guardsmen a turn I couldn't care less. That's tuesday for the Guard. Any game where I don't lose handfuls of Guardsmen on T1 and T2 is a weird one. I'm going to be switching soon to trying out minimal mechanized Guardsmen soon as they work better at this point in time in the meta than footsloggers from what I've heard.

You talk about bad Mathhammer and then go on about Intercessors killing Guardsmen at long range. It doesn't matter how many "points-per-shot" Intercessors get if they're a smoking pile of ash from getting obliterated by tanks at the end of turn 2, having only killed half my Guardsmen.

If I only went by points per shot, I wouldn't bother with artillery as a Guard player and would only use Leman Russes since they get more hits out of the gate. But what would you know, when I did take 8 Leman Russes to one tournament I had my worst tournament performance in 8th on that day because every board involved a significant amount of LOS blocking terrain. A Leman Russ that you can't shoot with is little more than an expensive brick, and half of them couldn't shoot in 2/3 games. That's why now I'm mixing up artillery with Russes because Mathhammer so often ceases to be important when context comes into play.

Equally, it doesn't matter if Intercessors have an impressive points-per-shot if they're walking target practice in the grand scheme of things. They're not what I'm afraid of, that would be the Repulsors and Aggressors.

Also again with the bad Mathhammer and you come out by comparing Custodes footslogging from across the board at shooting from outside of melee range. I mean, what? A Custodes player is going to be using the deepstrike strategem. If they're on top of you in turn 2 with 2 units of Custodes, that's when they're an immediate threat that I have to deal with, when Intercessors can have their potshots all they like before I begin to care on turn 3. Again, you've completely forgotten that context is a thing.

Grey40k wrote:Wel, that's the thing being discussed here. The fact that marine troops are right now too point efficient for generalist troops.

The question then becomes which way does one go about doing that - making them more expensive in points, or weaker in power?

The fluff idea that a marine is 10 normal troops 100 (or whatever this has been inflated to throughout the years) is completely impractical in the tabletop. Why? Because to achieve this and not obliterate the possibility of the other armies being played (no, hundreds of guardsmen are not feasible), then what ends up happening is that the marine needs to be more point efficient. Once that happens, balance disappears.

Well, not unless every other army's elite forces are made equally as efficient.

Marines being point efficient is fine. Everyone else being point inefficient isn't.

Basically, I propose making specialist units more powerful, or making Marines more expensive, instead of making Marines weaker or everyone else cheaper.

I'd rather see Marines stay as an elite army than see Tacticals and Intercessors treated like a horde.

"I'd rather see Marines stay as an elite army than see Tacticals and Intercessors treated like a horde."

Ship sailed on that when they brought back AP.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Ahhh, bad mathhammer comparisons, my white whale!

Point 1: you are muddying the waters by adding commanders and support elements into the mix, for starters lets just look at raw durability.

36 BS4 lasgun shots to down a 17-point intercessor. 2.11 shots per point.

108 BS4 lasgun shots to down a 49-point custode. 2.20 shots per point.

So, as you pointed out, custodes are more mathematically inefficient when shooting at them with guardsmen versus shooting at them with intercessors. The reason that most people are going to view intercessors as more threatening comes more on the offense side of things.

Let's round down: 8 intercessors vs 3 custodes. We're giving the custodes 11 points for free. What do these guys do vs guardsmen?

Well, the intercessor squad can remove 6 GEQ per turn, anywhere 30" away, which is very nearly a squad per turn. Rounding down to an average of 8 casualties per turn, they return 23.5% just from shooting.

The custode squad can take out 9 guardsmen, if and only if they get within 12", rapid fire their guns, and successfully charge into melee. It's worth noting that if you put the intercessors in a similar situation, they'd pretty handily wipe 2 squads out. A custode squad whacking an infantry squad in an ideal turn is a 27% return.


At 12" range with no charge, the custodes kill 2.8 guardsmen. At 24" range, 1.4.

With both units, once they're optimally engaging with you, you're mathmatically on the losing end of the exchange. Guardsmen pumping shots into custodes at 12" range is a 22% return, and into Intercessors is 23.6%.

But Intercessors can start doing that from 30" range, and custodes have to move across the whole battlefield with their 6" moves to get in range.

I'm not doing anything to muddy the waters by including IG support units. When you're taking multiple squads, they're a mandatory extra limb that you will have around unless you're a muppet or they get sniped. And even then, I was making the exact point that the Guard vs Custodes projection was based on ideal circumstances. If anything, the fact that the support characters could get sniped out by a Vindicare supports my argument on the futility of using Guardsmen as anything other than a blocker against Custodes.

As I said on the last page, Intercessors are not a great threat to a Guard army. If they're 30'' away and killing a few handfuls of 4 pt guardsmen a turn I couldn't care less. That's tuesday for the Guard. Any game where I don't lose handfuls of Guardsmen on T1 and T2 is a weird one. I'm going to be switching soon to trying out minimal mechanized Guardsmen soon as they work better at this point in time in the meta than footsloggers from what I've heard.

You talk about bad Mathhammer and then go on about Intercessors killing Guardsmen at long range. It doesn't matter how many "points-per-shot" Intercessors get if they're a smoking pile of ash from getting obliterated by tanks at the end of turn 2, having only killed half my Guardsmen.

If I only went by points per shot, I wouldn't bother with artillery as a Guard player and would only use Leman Russes since they get more hits out of the gate. But what would you know, when I did take 8 Leman Russes to one tournament I had my worst tournament performance in 8th on that day because every board involved a significant amount of LOS blocking terrain. A Leman Russ that you can't shoot with is little more than an expensive brick, and half of them couldn't shoot in 2/3 games. That's why now I'm mixing up artillery with Russes because Mathhammer so often ceases to be important when context comes into play.

Equally, it doesn't matter if Intercessors have an impressive points-per-shot if they're walking target practice in the grand scheme of things. They're not what I'm afraid of, that would be the Repulsors and Aggressors.

Also again with the bad Mathhammer and you come out by comparing Custodes footslogging from across the board at shooting from outside of melee range. I mean, what? A Custodes player is going to be using the deepstrike strategem. If they're on top of you in turn 2 with 2 units of Custodes, that's when they're an immediate threat that I have to deal with, when Intercessors can have their potshots all they like before I begin to care on turn 3. Again, you've completely forgotten that context is a thing.

I haven't. I also haven't forgotten that for 1CP, you can turn your Manticore into a Heavy 2D6 S10 AP-2 D3 weapon - and you're saying Intercessors are going to be a pile of ash? Ig have access to multiple ideal weapon profiles for fighting custode targets - high strength, AP-2, damage within the 3-D3 range.

My point overall is that even IF the custodes show up immediately 9" away and even IF they manage to get into combat (not guaranteed) the gap in efficiency between your guardsmen even before orders and his custode squads is incredibly slim in terms of points return percentages. The only reason you felt like it was more is A) you got the points for intercessors wrong and B) you added morale support to your calculations for the custodes and not the intercessors, as if you're fighting 1 custode and 1 intercessor at a time, instead of running the exact same TAC guard list against both. Whatever % of your budget you put towards useless commissars (and they really are just so useless in every situation...) you're putting the same % fighting custodes or fighting intercessors.

Guardsmen are mostly blockers vs custodes. Guardsmen are mostly blockers vs most units - it's definitely their best quality, they're 4ppm models with a 5+ save and decent morale compared to other troops in that point zone. Just compare them to gretchin pound for pound.

The other point of context your missing is buffs. Guardsmen can be multiplied in effectiveness by 1.5 using orders in shooting, and given rerolls and + to hit and + to wound through several other sources. Custodes can reroll 1s to hit, by much, MUCH more expensive HQs. They don't get any benefit for cover vs Ap- weaponry. Even though the efficiency of custodes killing guard vs guard killing custodes is a slight disadvantage in a vacuum - 27% vs 21% - you can easily tilt that in your favor if you want to run an infantry based army into custodes, and they have very few ways to actually make themselves more efficient at killing GEQ, particularly if youre smart about feeding him one squad at a time.

Guard wrecked custodes even during metas where custodes were extremely strong. Remove marines from the equation, they'd do exactly the same thing now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Grey40k wrote:Wel, that's the thing being discussed here. The fact that marine troops are right now too point efficient for generalist troops.

The question then becomes which way does one go about doing that - making them more expensive in points, or weaker in power?

The fluff idea that a marine is 10 normal troops 100 (or whatever this has been inflated to throughout the years) is completely impractical in the tabletop. Why? Because to achieve this and not obliterate the possibility of the other armies being played (no, hundreds of guardsmen are not feasible), then what ends up happening is that the marine needs to be more point efficient. Once that happens, balance disappears.

Well, not unless every other army's elite forces are made equally as efficient.

Marines being point efficient is fine. Everyone else being point inefficient isn't.

Basically, I propose making specialist units more powerful, or making Marines more expensive, instead of making Marines weaker or everyone else cheaper.

I'd rather see Marines stay as an elite army than see Tacticals and Intercessors treated like a horde.

If you gave me complete executive power, I'd probably ditch bolter discipline and limit doctrines (probably to Turn 1, Turn 2, Turn 3 you must switch then they go away after that) and replace them with "Marine infantry ignore AP-1, Marine Vehicles move and fire heavy weapons")

The biggest issue I have with the buffs are that they MASSIVELY spiked marine killiness while rewarding uninteractive play (Squatting in devastator doctrine and not moving your infantry to get Bolter Drill) and did nothing to address the most legitimate complaint of marine players, their fragility.

A marine should be a defensively skewed model. Their most defining characteristic is their power armor, and they've always been billed as a "lightning strike force". A huge blob of dudes standing still and shooting 30" across the table is hardly most players idea of the "Space marine gameplay fantasy".

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Ahhh, bad mathhammer comparisons, my white whale!

Point 1: you are muddying the waters by adding commanders and support elements into the mix, for starters lets just look at raw durability.

36 BS4 lasgun shots to down a 17-point intercessor. 2.11 shots per point.

108 BS4 lasgun shots to down a 49-point custode. 2.20 shots per point.

So, as you pointed out, custodes are more mathematically inefficient when shooting at them with guardsmen versus shooting at them with intercessors. The reason that most people are going to view intercessors as more threatening comes more on the offense side of things.

Let's round down: 8 intercessors vs 3 custodes. We're giving the custodes 11 points for free. What do these guys do vs guardsmen?

Well, the intercessor squad can remove 6 GEQ per turn, anywhere 30" away, which is very nearly a squad per turn. Rounding down to an average of 8 casualties per turn, they return 23.5% just from shooting.

The custode squad can take out 9 guardsmen, if and only if they get within 12", rapid fire their guns, and successfully charge into melee. It's worth noting that if you put the intercessors in a similar situation, they'd pretty handily wipe 2 squads out. A custode squad whacking an infantry squad in an ideal turn is a 27% return.


At 12" range with no charge, the custodes kill 2.8 guardsmen. At 24" range, 1.4.

With both units, once they're optimally engaging with you, you're mathmatically on the losing end of the exchange. Guardsmen pumping shots into custodes at 12" range is a 22% return, and into Intercessors is 23.6%.

But Intercessors can start doing that from 30" range, and custodes have to move across the whole battlefield with their 6" moves to get in range.

I'm not doing anything to muddy the waters by including IG support units. When you're taking multiple squads, they're a mandatory extra limb that you will have around unless you're a muppet or they get sniped. And even then, I was making the exact point that the Guard vs Custodes projection was based on ideal circumstances. If anything, the fact that the support characters could get sniped out by a Vindicare supports my argument on the futility of using Guardsmen as anything other than a blocker against Custodes.

As I said on the last page, Intercessors are not a great threat to a Guard army. If they're 30'' away and killing a few handfuls of 4 pt guardsmen a turn I couldn't care less. That's tuesday for the Guard. Any game where I don't lose handfuls of Guardsmen on T1 and T2 is a weird one. I'm going to be switching soon to trying out minimal mechanized Guardsmen soon as they work better at this point in time in the meta than footsloggers from what I've heard.

You talk about bad Mathhammer and then go on about Intercessors killing Guardsmen at long range. It doesn't matter how many "points-per-shot" Intercessors get if they're a smoking pile of ash from getting obliterated by tanks at the end of turn 2, having only killed half my Guardsmen.

If I only went by points per shot, I wouldn't bother with artillery as a Guard player and would only use Leman Russes since they get more hits out of the gate. But what would you know, when I did take 8 Leman Russes to one tournament I had my worst tournament performance in 8th on that day because every board involved a significant amount of LOS blocking terrain. A Leman Russ that you can't shoot with is little more than an expensive brick, and half of them couldn't shoot in 2/3 games. That's why now I'm mixing up artillery with Russes because Mathhammer so often ceases to be important when context comes into play.

Equally, it doesn't matter if Intercessors have an impressive points-per-shot if they're walking target practice in the grand scheme of things. They're not what I'm afraid of, that would be the Repulsors and Aggressors.

Also again with the bad Mathhammer and you come out by comparing Custodes footslogging from across the board at shooting from outside of melee range. I mean, what? A Custodes player is going to be using the deepstrike strategem. If they're on top of you in turn 2 with 2 units of Custodes, that's when they're an immediate threat that I have to deal with, when Intercessors can have their potshots all they like before I begin to care on turn 3. Again, you've completely forgotten that context is a thing.

I haven't. I also haven't forgotten that for 1CP, you can turn your Manticore into a Heavy 2D6 S10 AP-2 D3 weapon - and you're saying Intercessors are going to be a pile of ash? Ig have access to multiple ideal weapon profiles for fighting custode targets - high strength, AP-2, damage within the 3-D3 range.

My point overall is that even IF the custodes show up immediately 9" away and even IF they manage to get into combat (not guaranteed) the gap in efficiency between your guardsmen even before orders and his custode squads is incredibly slim in terms of points return percentages. The only reason you felt like it was more is A) you got the points for intercessors wrong and B) you added morale support to your calculations for the custodes and not the intercessors, as if you're fighting 1 custode and 1 intercessor at a time, instead of running the exact same TAC guard list against both. Whatever % of your budget you put towards useless commissars (and they really are just so useless in every situation...) you're putting the same % fighting custodes or fighting intercessors.

Guardsmen are mostly blockers vs custodes. Guardsmen are mostly blockers vs most units - it's definitely their best quality, they're 4ppm models with a 5+ save and decent morale compared to other troops in that point zone. Just compare them to gretchin pound for pound.

The other point of context your missing is buffs. Guardsmen can be multiplied in effectiveness by 1.5 using orders in shooting, and given rerolls and + to hit and + to wound through several other sources. Custodes can reroll 1s to hit, by much, MUCH more expensive HQs. They don't get any benefit for cover vs Ap- weaponry. Even though the efficiency of custodes killing guard vs guard killing custodes is a slight disadvantage in a vacuum - 27% vs 21% - you can easily tilt that in your favor if you want to run an infantry based army into custodes, and they have very few ways to actually make themselves more efficient at killing GEQ, particularly if youre smart about feeding him one squad at a time.

Guard wrecked custodes even during metas where custodes were extremely strong. Remove marines from the equation, they'd do exactly the same thing now.

The Manticore gimmick is brand new and I haven't even tried it yet. But again, still reinforces my point - you're winning because heavy support spam is the way to do it. Which is how it is anyway.

The Intercessor points drop doesn't make a significant strategic difference. It doesn't stop Guardsmen from being able to contribute meaningfully at their price point. All of the same arguments still apply, it just means that my opponent has 45-60 more points to play with. I did add morale support into my calculations, though I probably shouldn't have since I just copied the argument further up the page, but I added a meagre 16 pts on to demonstrate what a minimum sized IG infantry battlegroup would look like. If you're taking multiple squads of infantry with damage dealing in mind, you're taking morale support. And you're right, the LD8 Commissar is pretty bad, but I didn't want to strain my argument by lobbing on the ideal and far more expensive morale support alternatives that you would realistically take just to inflate the numbers. I don't need to.

How efficient Custodes are isn't relevant when the only thing that matters when Custodes drop in next to a gunline is whether they break through the Guardsmen or not and tie up multiple vehicles. At that point the game is over. Checkmate, end of story, period. Intercessors can't checkmate your gunline outside of niche Deathwatch builds to my knowledge and that's why they can be ignored where Custodes can't. All they can do is take potshots and chip away at models you took knowing were going to get removed anyway. It doesn't make any difference whether Custodes efficiently killed their points in or absorbed their shot-per-point worth from Guardsmen if the Custodes player wins because the Guard player has a breached defensive line. Again, context. In that moment the Guard player wins or loses purely based on whether they can eliminate the Grav Tanks, Jetbike Captain and deepstrikers in a timely enough order without one of them getting an oppurtunity to cripple you.

I made the efficiency comparison to demonstrate that on a strategic level when writing a list and before playing the game, it makes no sense to have a build where every infantry buff or support element is worthless if you end up playing Custodes and you lose just because you couldn't kill one of the big threats fast enough. So writing a Guard list is about how much you can spam high strength high damage guns and get cheap blockers and little else. That's fun.

Yes, Guard probably do wreck Custodes when the top meta lists are compared. But by not by using builds that put emphasis on infantry. And I'm not always talking about top ITC tournaments, I'm talking about a ladder rung down with far more common and typical local competitive tournaments and environments.

the_scotsman wrote:
If you gave me complete executive power, I'd probably ditch bolter discipline and limit doctrines (probably to Turn 1, Turn 2, Turn 3 you must switch then they go away after that) and replace them with "Marine infantry ignore AP-1, Marine Vehicles move and fire heavy weapons")

The biggest issue I have with the buffs are that they MASSIVELY spiked marine killiness while rewarding uninteractive play (Squatting in devastator doctrine and not moving your infantry to get Bolter Drill) and did nothing to address the most legitimate complaint of marine players, their fragility.

I don't think Marine fragility is a legitimate complaint, at least not when stated so broadly.

A single S4, AP0 hit takes out an average of 1.78 points of Guardsmen.
Or 2.22 points of Termagants.
Or 2.92 points of Boyz.
Or 2.33 points of Fire Warriors.
Or 2.0 points of Tacticals.
But it only eliminates 1.41 points of Intercessors.

Intercessors are point-for-point some of the most durable basic infantry in the game against the fire of other infantry, but have an Achilles' heel to high-AP, Dam2 weapons. Marine players don't complain about Primaris fragility because they're getting hosed down by regular bolters or massed lasguns, it's the plasma guns that splatter them- but nobody has those as their basic weapon; and a big part of the reason players spam those high-AP, Dam2 weapons is specifically because they're the only effective way to kill Primaris.

A Primaris army is, mechanically, not too dissimilar from a vehicle-heavy skew list. You're less vulnerable to lasguns and bolters, more vulnerable to plasma guns and lascannons. The issue is that if the game's meta were 50+% vehicle-heavy lists, then the meta would also be to build lists around anti-tank, and suddenly those tanks wouldn't feel so durable anymore. So now all those tank players feel like their vehicles are too easily to kill, plus throw in the random horde list that exploits this meta, and things start to become rather un-fun for everyone.

Giving Marines the ability to ignore AP-1 just means light weapons become increasingly useless, Autocannons become mildly less painful, and plasma/Disintegrator/Exocrine/etc spam will continue to be the only viable counter.

I hate to say it, but if you really need to give Marines a modest buff against high-power weaponry, something like a 5++ is the way to go. But given how, as you've pointed out, Marines on the table feel nothing like Marines in the fluff, I'd rather see rules play to their in-lore strengths. They shouldn't be tanking lascannon fire, they should be sufficiently coordinated and mobile to avoid getting shot with lascannons in the first place. Optimally I think the game would really benefit from a C&C mechanic, but failing that, better ability to move and fire in lieu of 30" Bolter Discipline castling might make them play a bit more fluffy.

the_scotsman wrote:
If you gave me complete executive power, I'd probably ditch bolter discipline and limit doctrines (probably to Turn 1, Turn 2, Turn 3 you must switch then they go away after that) and replace them with "Marine infantry ignore AP-1, Marine Vehicles move and fire heavy weapons")

I'd definitely remove doctrines. Bolter discipline I'm indifferent on, I really like their extra attack on the first round of combat though - that feels suitable.

Ignoring AP-1 I think would go some way on making Marines feel that more durable, but it's really weight of fire AP0 stuff that I find most jarring.

A marine should be a defensively skewed model. Their most defining characteristic is their power armor, and they've always been billed as a "lightning strike force". A huge blob of dudes standing still and shooting 30" across the table is hardly most players idea of the "Space marine gameplay fantasy".

Yeah, castling isn't what I'd call Space Marine-esque.

To me, they're mobile, flexible, and unrelenting, fast and tough as nails. Their weakness is how few of them there are, which is why they need good target priority. Instead, it almost feels that they're too fragile.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Ahhh, bad mathhammer comparisons, my white whale!

Point 1: you are muddying the waters by adding commanders and support elements into the mix, for starters lets just look at raw durability.

36 BS4 lasgun shots to down a 17-point intercessor. 2.11 shots per point.

108 BS4 lasgun shots to down a 49-point custode. 2.20 shots per point.

So, as you pointed out, custodes are more mathematically inefficient when shooting at them with guardsmen versus shooting at them with intercessors. The reason that most people are going to view intercessors as more threatening comes more on the offense side of things.

Let's round down: 8 intercessors vs 3 custodes. We're giving the custodes 11 points for free. What do these guys do vs guardsmen?

Well, the intercessor squad can remove 6 GEQ per turn, anywhere 30" away, which is very nearly a squad per turn. Rounding down to an average of 8 casualties per turn, they return 23.5% just from shooting.

The custode squad can take out 9 guardsmen, if and only if they get within 12", rapid fire their guns, and successfully charge into melee. It's worth noting that if you put the intercessors in a similar situation, they'd pretty handily wipe 2 squads out. A custode squad whacking an infantry squad in an ideal turn is a 27% return.


At 12" range with no charge, the custodes kill 2.8 guardsmen. At 24" range, 1.4.

With both units, once they're optimally engaging with you, you're mathmatically on the losing end of the exchange. Guardsmen pumping shots into custodes at 12" range is a 22% return, and into Intercessors is 23.6%.

But Intercessors can start doing that from 30" range, and custodes have to move across the whole battlefield with their 6" moves to get in range.

I'm not doing anything to muddy the waters by including IG support units. When you're taking multiple squads, they're a mandatory extra limb that you will have around unless you're a muppet or they get sniped. And even then, I was making the exact point that the Guard vs Custodes projection was based on ideal circumstances. If anything, the fact that the support characters could get sniped out by a Vindicare supports my argument on the futility of using Guardsmen as anything other than a blocker against Custodes.

As I said on the last page, Intercessors are not a great threat to a Guard army. If they're 30'' away and killing a few handfuls of 4 pt guardsmen a turn I couldn't care less. That's tuesday for the Guard. Any game where I don't lose handfuls of Guardsmen on T1 and T2 is a weird one. I'm going to be switching soon to trying out minimal mechanized Guardsmen soon as they work better at this point in time in the meta than footsloggers from what I've heard.

You talk about bad Mathhammer and then go on about Intercessors killing Guardsmen at long range. It doesn't matter how many "points-per-shot" Intercessors get if they're a smoking pile of ash from getting obliterated by tanks at the end of turn 2, having only killed half my Guardsmen.

If I only went by points per shot, I wouldn't bother with artillery as a Guard player and would only use Leman Russes since they get more hits out of the gate. But what would you know, when I did take 8 Leman Russes to one tournament I had my worst tournament performance in 8th on that day because every board involved a significant amount of LOS blocking terrain. A Leman Russ that you can't shoot with is little more than an expensive brick, and half of them couldn't shoot in 2/3 games. That's why now I'm mixing up artillery with Russes because Mathhammer so often ceases to be important when context comes into play.

Equally, it doesn't matter if Intercessors have an impressive points-per-shot if they're walking target practice in the grand scheme of things. They're not what I'm afraid of, that would be the Repulsors and Aggressors.

Also again with the bad Mathhammer and you come out by comparing Custodes footslogging from across the board at shooting from outside of melee range. I mean, what? A Custodes player is going to be using the deepstrike strategem. If they're on top of you in turn 2 with 2 units of Custodes, that's when they're an immediate threat that I have to deal with, when Intercessors can have their potshots all they like before I begin to care on turn 3. Again, you've completely forgotten that context is a thing.

I haven't. I also haven't forgotten that for 1CP, you can turn your Manticore into a Heavy 2D6 S10 AP-2 D3 weapon - and you're saying Intercessors are going to be a pile of ash? Ig have access to multiple ideal weapon profiles for fighting custode targets - high strength, AP-2, damage within the 3-D3 range.

My point overall is that even IF the custodes show up immediately 9" away and even IF they manage to get into combat (not guaranteed) the gap in efficiency between your guardsmen even before orders and his custode squads is incredibly slim in terms of points return percentages. The only reason you felt like it was more is A) you got the points for intercessors wrong and B) you added morale support to your calculations for the custodes and not the intercessors, as if you're fighting 1 custode and 1 intercessor at a time, instead of running the exact same TAC guard list against both. Whatever % of your budget you put towards useless commissars (and they really are just so useless in every situation...) you're putting the same % fighting custodes or fighting intercessors.

Guardsmen are mostly blockers vs custodes. Guardsmen are mostly blockers vs most units - it's definitely their best quality, they're 4ppm models with a 5+ save and decent morale compared to other troops in that point zone. Just compare them to gretchin pound for pound.

The other point of context your missing is buffs. Guardsmen can be multiplied in effectiveness by 1.5 using orders in shooting, and given rerolls and + to hit and + to wound through several other sources. Custodes can reroll 1s to hit, by much, MUCH more expensive HQs. They don't get any benefit for cover vs Ap- weaponry. Even though the efficiency of custodes killing guard vs guard killing custodes is a slight disadvantage in a vacuum - 27% vs 21% - you can easily tilt that in your favor if you want to run an infantry based army into custodes, and they have very few ways to actually make themselves more efficient at killing GEQ, particularly if youre smart about feeding him one squad at a time.

Guard wrecked custodes even during metas where custodes were extremely strong. Remove marines from the equation, they'd do exactly the same thing now.

The Manticore gimmick is brand new and I haven't even tried it yet. But again, still reinforces my point - you're winning because heavy support spam is the way to do it. Which is how it is anyway.

The Intercessor points drop doesn't make a significant strategic difference. It doesn't stop Guardsmen from being able to contribute meaningfully at their price point. All of the same arguments still apply, it just means that my opponent has 45-60 more points to play with. I didn't add morale support into my calculations, I probably shouldn't have since I just copied the argument further up the page, but I added a meagre 16 pts on to demonstrate what a minimum sized IG infantry battlegroup would look like. If you're taking multiple squads of infantry with damage dealing in mind, you're taking morale support. And you're right, the LD8 Commissar is pretty bad, but I didn't want to strain my argument by lobbing on the ideal and far more expensive morale support alternatives that you would realistically take just to inflate the numbers. I don't need to.

How efficient Custodes are isn't relevant when the only thing that matters when Custodes drop in next to a gunline is whether they break through the Guardsmen or not and tie up multiple vehicles. At that point the game is over. Checkmate, end of story, period. Intercessors can't checkmate your gunline outside of niche Deathwatch builds to my knowledge and that's why they can be ignored where Custodes can't. All they can do is take potshots and chip away at models you took knowing were going to get removed anyway. It doesn't make any difference whether Custodes efficiently killed their points in or absorbed their shot-per-point worth from Guardsmen if the Custodes player wins because the Guard player has a breached defensive line. Again, context. In that moment the Guard player wins or loses purely based on whether they can eliminate the Grav Tanks, Jetbike Captain and deepstrikers in a timely enough order without one of them getting an oppurtunity to cripple you.

I made the efficiency comparison to demonstrate that on a strategic level when writing a list and before playing the game, it makes no sense to have a build where every infantry buff or support element is worthless if you end up playing Custodes and you lose just because you couldn't kill one of the big threats fast enough. So writing a Guard list is about how much you can spam high strength high damage guns and get cheap blockers and little else. That's fun.

Yes, Guard probably do wreck Custodes when the top meta lists are compared. But by not by using builds that put emphasis on infantry. And I'm not always talking about top ITC tournaments, I'm talking about a ladder rung down with far more common and typical local competitive tournaments and environments.

I am extremely confused as to how you believe custodes deep striking in 9" away from your guard screen creates any kind of "Checkmate."

Like, fundamentally. Custodes are a hair better at returning their points by carving through guardsmen than guardsmen are at carving through custodes. So....check..mate?

In my eyes, the only way this could be a checkmate situation is if you DO spam HS rather than having a large number of GEQ screening your tanks. if you have, say, a brigade's worth of GEQ, you'd lose an absolutely minimal number of guardsmen, just fall back, shoot them with your fall back and shoot order, and shoot them with your artillery.

What can the custode player teleport in, 2 squads of 5? So that's 490 points that teleports in turn 2, kills all of 9 guardsmen with their shooting. Statistically 1 of those 2 squads makes the charge roll, and depending on your spacing kills either 1 more squad or 1.5 more squads.

Sure, you're in trouble at that point if you brought 30 guardsmen to screen with and that's it, but you're talking about an infantry focused list here. That's a drop in the damn bucket. My friend's infantry focused list has like 250 models, we're talking about losing 30 guys tops.

I understand competitive lists don't mean much, but I'm honestly just kind of baffled how in a casual setting you are actually having more trouble with custodes as guard than marines. Are you just taking tons of tanks, minimal screens, and getting tied up by deep strikers/bikes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
If you gave me complete executive power, I'd probably ditch bolter discipline and limit doctrines (probably to Turn 1, Turn 2, Turn 3 you must switch then they go away after that) and replace them with "Marine infantry ignore AP-1, Marine Vehicles move and fire heavy weapons")

I'd definitely remove doctrines. Bolter discipline I'm indifferent on, I really like their extra attack on the first round of combat though - that feels suitable.

Ignoring AP-1 I think would go some way on making Marines feel that more durable, but it's really weight of fire AP0 stuff that I find most jarring.

A marine should be a defensively skewed model. Their most defining characteristic is their power armor, and they've always been billed as a "lightning strike force". A huge blob of dudes standing still and shooting 30" across the table is hardly most players idea of the "Space marine gameplay fantasy".

Yeah, castling isn't what I'd call Space Marine-esque.

To me, they're mobile, flexible, and unrelenting, fast and tough as nails. Their weakness is how few of them there are, which is why they need good target priority. Instead, it almost feels that they're too fragile.

having now played against Grey Knights perma-cover and as Thousand Sons, I think marines having a 2+ armor base makes them a tad bit less interesting. You basically go from being the army that benefits the most from smart use of cover to an army where cover may as well not be on the board.

Getting into smack down drag out gunfights with expendable guard and ork squads isn't really meant to be a marine's MO - those are the kinds of targets they either gun down at range or drop in and alpha strike before they hit back. I'm personally OK with marines being on the losing end of straight up gunfights with the more expendable factions.

They are too fragile. They are still glass cannons because of costing and AP. GW's "fixes" are just obnoxious.

the_scotsman wrote:


I am extremely confused as to how you believe custodes deep striking in 9" away from your guard screen creates any kind of "Checkmate."

Like, fundamentally. Custodes are a hair better at returning their points by carving through guardsmen than guardsmen are at carving through custodes. So....check..mate?

In my eyes, the only way this could be a checkmate situation is if you DO spam HS rather than having a large number of GEQ screening your tanks. if you have, say, a brigade's worth of GEQ, you'd lose an absolutely minimal number of guardsmen, just fall back, shoot them with your fall back and shoot order, and shoot them with your artillery.

And here you are, making the assumption that the Custodes player hasn't accounted for killing lots of Guardsmen in reasonable time and that my Guardsmen will just be fresh and perfectly positioned to have something resembling firepower, which they won't.

The act of deepstriking isn't a checkmate, breaking through and tying up all your vehicles is the checkmate situation. It doesn't matter how many points Custodes return by killing Guardsmen. You can't just think about it in terms of math. Custodes straight up win if they make the breakthrough taking into account every other tool, strategem and unit the Custodes player has it has disposal, between a second deepstriking unit, attacking twice a turn in the assault phase and using Grav Tank secondary weapons to thin out Guardsmen in that first turn.

And no I don't think it makes Custodes overpowered, I think it puts me in a situation where my list building is one-dimensional. In much the same way that the introduction of Riptides made me have to reconsider every single list I wrote in 6th and 7th edition after they appeared because of their unique durability profile with multiple 2+ save wounds at toughness 6, being basically invulnerable to a lot of common fire support units, basic Russes and Basilisks included. And no, Riptides also didn't end up as permanent top tier ITC stompers in every year of 6th and 7th, but it didn't mean that they didn't have a significant influence on limiting what you could work with.

When I'm thinking about playing against Marines in 8th, I'm thinking about working around Aggressors, Leviathans and Repulsors, not Intercessors.

I don't quite understand how foot slogging low model count armies can do anything vs IG. They'll never get through the sea of bodies. I can't get through them with jump troops most of the time. They are too deep. The big guns behind the wall of infantry doing the real damage is how IG works. Although some squads with some special weapons aren't crazy.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't quite understand how foot slogging low model count armies can do anything vs IG. They'll never get through the sea of bodies. I can't get through them with jump troops most of the time. They are too deep. The big guns behind the wall of infantry doing the real damage is how IG works. Although some squads with some special weapons aren't crazy.

Take Auto Bolt Rifles or Aggressors. In Tactical doctrine, a trio of Aggressors double-firing, with re-rolling 1s to hit and to wound, comfortably wipe three full squads. Two such squads make for a solid hole-clearing firebase for just 11% of your army's points total.

As I recall, you've stated in other threads that you play melee-heavy Marines. So, you're playing a melee army with a low model count against probably the best army at meatshield defense-in-depth- you need a real investment in anti-chaff or of course you're going to struggle.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


I am extremely confused as to how you believe custodes deep striking in 9" away from your guard screen creates any kind of "Checkmate."

Like, fundamentally. Custodes are a hair better at returning their points by carving through guardsmen than guardsmen are at carving through custodes. So....check..mate?

In my eyes, the only way this could be a checkmate situation is if you DO spam HS rather than having a large number of GEQ screening your tanks. if you have, say, a brigade's worth of GEQ, you'd lose an absolutely minimal number of guardsmen, just fall back, shoot them with your fall back and shoot order, and shoot them with your artillery.

And here you are, making the assumption that the Custodes player hasn't accounted for killing lots of Guardsmen in reasonable time and that my Guardsmen will just be fresh and perfectly positioned to have something resembling firepower, which they won't.

The act of deepstriking isn't a checkmate, breaking through and tying up all your vehicles is the checkmate situation. It doesn't matter how many points Custodes return by killing Guardsmen. You can't just think about it in terms of math. Custodes straight up win if they make the breakthrough taking into account every other tool, strategem and unit the Custodes player has it has disposal, between a second deepstriking unit, attacking twice a turn in the assault phase and using Grav Tank secondary weapons to thin out Guardsmen in that first turn.

And no I don't think it makes Custodes overpowered, I think it puts me in a situation where my list building is one-dimensional. In much the same way that the introduction of Riptides made me have to reconsider every single list I wrote in 6th and 7th edition after they appeared because of their unique durability profile with multiple 2+ save wounds at toughness 6, being basically invulnerable to a lot of common fire support units, basic Russes and Basilisks included. And no, Riptides also didn't end up as permanent top tier ITC stompers in every year of 6th and 7th, but it didn't mean that they didn't have a significant influence on limiting what you could work with.

When I'm thinking about playing against Marines in 8th, I'm thinking about working around Aggressors, Leviathans and Repulsors, not Intercessors.

But how is that fundamentally different from any assault oriented army doing the exact same thing, but much, much better?

As Orks, for example, I can teleport 30 ork boyz at you turn 1, which are MUCH more efficient at getting thru guardsmen, can fight twice, and are much better at getting in from the deep strike with Ere We Go and Evil Sunz.

Anything breaking through your lines and getting into b2b with all your tanks is effectively gg - outside of a few vehicles like hellhounds and baneblades and whatnot.

At first I thought we were talking about custodes making your anti-infantry firepower inefficient because they're all T5 2+ W3, but custodes are only the tiniest hair less efficient to shoot with guardsmen than marines, as I showed. and they come with the drawback of being incredibly inefficient killing your stuff. Actually, all custode weapons are super inefficient at killing GEQ, even hurricane bikes. "Bold of you to assume I have any guardsmen LEFT by turn 2" is equally bizarre to me. what are they screen clearing with? Those 90pt bikes with one hurricane bolter on them? the ones that kill 4 guardsmen in a turn?

Also, how do they fight twice? I'm not seeing that anywhere as a stratagem. There are plenty of armies that CAN fight twice at you, and that's a problem for screening your tanks...but custodes don't seem to be one of them.

Certain weapons in the guard arsenal aren't particularly effective against custodes, that's for sure. I don't see how they warp your listbuilding choices any more than, say, knights do, or the potential that you could bring a basilisk or two and face an ork horde.

Is mathematically impossible as a Custodes player to eliminate a heavy infantry army of IG in less than two turns. A IG player can have 200 boots on the ground and have many, many points to spare for heavy artillery and other components.

A Custodes List literally doesn't has enough shoots to clear that, even spamming bikes and biker captains. A squad of 3 custodian guards with misericordia will kill at MAXIMUM 18 guardsmen. 6 for shooting and 12 for meele. Thats 150 aprox points killing 72 points assuming shooting from rapidfire range, meele, and literally failing 0 attacks.
And Custodian Guards are troops without deepstrike or transport (A land raider lol) that walk 6" a turn.

I'm sorry but as a Custodes Player to see a Imperial Guard player complaining about fething custodian guards?

 Galas wrote:
Is mathematically impossible as a Custodes player to eliminate a heavy infantry army of IG in less than two turns. A IG player can have 200 boots on the ground and have many, many points to spare for heavy artillery and other components.

A Custodes List literally doesn't has enough shoots to clear that, even spamming bikes and biker captains. A squad of 3 custodian guards with misericordia will kill at MAXIMUM 18 guardsmen. 6 for shooting and 12 for meele. Thats 150 aprox points killing 72 points assuming shooting from rapidfire range, meele, and literally failing 0 attacks.
And Custodian Guards are troops without deepstrike or transport (A land raider lol) that walk 6" a turn.

I don't think anyone disputes that Custodes take FW units to function as an army.

 Mr.Omega wrote:


When I'm thinking about playing against Marines in 8th, I'm thinking about working around Aggressors, Leviathans and Repulsors, not Intercessors.

I am aware at this point we are theory crafting, but I just wanted to point something out.

If the enemy troops are more point efficient than yours, this means that they already won one battle.
If all the unit types in one army are more point efficient overall than yours, it means you lose the war.

Primaris marine troops are possibly the most point efficient troops across armies at many of the relevant roles (perhaps not at carpeting the board). In particular, they trade very well both with the vast majority of enemy troops, and even with some specialists from other factions (many examples of melee given earlier in the thread).

More point efficient troops means that they can deploy a lesser investment and out trade enemy troops (and sometimes even specialists).

Telling us that heavy detachments kill primaris intercessors is meaningless. Marines also have answers against heavy detachments, and for sure you won't kill those marine heavies with lasgun guards. This effectively means that your non troop types are on double duty, i.e. killing enemy troops and killing enemy specialists. This means that specialist guard (and other armies) troops have to be more point efficient than marine specialists in order to recuperate the advantage lost by the less point efficient troops.

Currently, marine Iron Hands firepower through heavy support is more point efficient than guard heavy support (the whole levies with bubbles and so on), and sure as heck marine troops are more point efficient than IG troops. This means that IH outtrade IG in all departments and that is why they have a freaking 75% win rate against astra militarum.

This is my old returning take on the current meta anyway.

 Galas wrote:
Is mathematically impossible as a Custodes player to eliminate a heavy infantry army of IG in less than two turns. A IG player can have 200 boots on the ground and have many, many points to spare for heavy artillery and other components.

A Custodes List literally doesn't has enough shoots to clear that, even spamming bikes and biker captains. A squad of 3 custodian guards with misericordia will kill at MAXIMUM 18 guardsmen. 6 for shooting and 12 for meele. Thats 150 aprox points killing 72 points assuming shooting from rapidfire range, meele, and literally failing 0 attacks.
And Custodian Guards are troops without deepstrike or transport (A land raider lol) that walk 6" a turn.

I'm sorry but as a Custodes Player to see a Imperial Guard player complaining about fething custodian guards?

Custodes aren't a very good army as a whole, but they are really irritating with their 2+ saves, 2+ rerolls to hit, counter-intercepting shield captains, etc. As Tyranids it's irritating that I can shoot 90 devourer shots and only remove 1 infantry model.

The IH things is debateably an ITC thing not just rules thing. Also the key thing that bugs me about this whole arguement is you can;t compare Intercessors to guard line. They aren't the same troops. Intercessors are not the base marine troops. They are primaris marine troops. Bigger better stronger than normal marines.

If you want to compare base line marine troops to base line guard troops. Compare scouts.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:


If you want to compare base line marine troops to base line guard troops. Compare scouts.

Why? If intercessors are more point efficient, I will take them. They are troops all the same, the fluff stating they are war gods means little once they put their foot on the table.

Grey40k wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:


If you want to compare base line marine troops to base line guard troops. Compare scouts.

Why? If intercessors are more point efficient, I will take them. They are troops all the same, the fluff stating they are war gods means little once they put their foot on the table.

Why what? Apologies I thought the debate here was comparing base line troops to base line troops? not what you would take?

Or is this whole thread a complete waste of everyone's time?

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Spoiler:

Grey40k wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:


When I'm thinking about playing against Marines in 8th, I'm thinking about working around Aggressors, Leviathans and Repulsors, not Intercessors.

I am aware at this point we are theory crafting, but I just wanted to point something out.

If the enemy troops are more point efficient than yours, this means that they already won one battle.
If all the unit types in one army are more point efficient overall than yours, it means you lose the war.

Primaris marine troops are possibly the most point efficient troops across armies at many of the relevant roles (perhaps not at carpeting the board). In particular, they trade very well both with the vast majority of enemy troops, and even with some specialists from other factions (many examples of melee given earlier in the thread).

More point efficient troops means that they can deploy a lesser investment and out trade enemy troops (and sometimes even specialists).

Telling us that heavy detachments kill primaris intercessors is meaningless. Marines also have answers against heavy detachments, and for sure you won't kill those marine heavies with lasgun guards. This effectively means that your non troop types are on double duty, i.e. killing enemy troops and killing enemy specialists. This means that specialist guard (and other armies) troops have to be more point efficient than marine specialists in order to recuperate the advantage lost by the less point efficient troops.

Currently, marine Iron Hands firepower through heavy support is more point efficient than guard heavy support (the whole levies with bubbles and so on), and sure as heck marine troops are more point efficient than IG troops. This means that IH outtrade IG in all departments and that is why they have a freaking 75% win rate against astra militarum.

This is my old returning take on the current meta anyway.

The IH things is debateably an ITC thing not just rules thing. Also the key thing that bugs me about this whole arguement is you can;t compare Intercessors to guard line. They aren't the same troops. Intercessors are not the base marine troops. They are primaris marine troops. Bigger better stronger than normal marines.

If you want to compare base line marine troops to base line guard troops. Compare scouts.

That's a weird statement. Intercessors are definitely more of a baseline troop than a Scout. Tacticals and Intercessors are (now) what Marine organization is built around.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Is mathematically impossible as a Custodes player to eliminate a heavy infantry army of IG in less than two turns. A IG player can have 200 boots on the ground and have many, many points to spare for heavy artillery and other components.

A Custodes List literally doesn't has enough shoots to clear that, even spamming bikes and biker captains. A squad of 3 custodian guards with misericordia will kill at MAXIMUM 18 guardsmen. 6 for shooting and 12 for meele. Thats 150 aprox points killing 72 points assuming shooting from rapidfire range, meele, and literally failing 0 attacks.
And Custodian Guards are troops without deepstrike or transport (A land raider lol) that walk 6" a turn.

I'm sorry but as a Custodes Player to see a Imperial Guard player complaining about fething custodian guards?

Custodes aren't a very good army as a whole, but they are really irritating with their 2+ saves, 2+ rerolls to hit, counter-intercepting shield captains, etc. As Tyranids it's irritating that I can shoot 90 devourer shots and only remove 1 infantry model.

Thats because those models cost as much as 5-10 models of nearly any other troop of the game. Maybe stop shooting weak anti infantry shooting vs elite troops and expect to do anything? Tyranids and their Mortal Wound spam have 0 problems dealing with Custodes.

And even with FW, most of FW custodes units add anti tank to the army, not anti infantry. As I said, is nearly mathematically impossible for a Adeptus Custodes force, even using the full range of FW competitive options, to remove 200 models in less than 3 turns.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Spoiler:

Grey40k wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:


When I'm thinking about playing against Marines in 8th, I'm thinking about working around Aggressors, Leviathans and Repulsors, not Intercessors.

I am aware at this point we are theory crafting, but I just wanted to point something out.

If the enemy troops are more point efficient than yours, this means that they already won one battle.
If all the unit types in one army are more point efficient overall than yours, it means you lose the war.

Primaris marine troops are possibly the most point efficient troops across armies at many of the relevant roles (perhaps not at carpeting the board). In particular, they trade very well both with the vast majority of enemy troops, and even with some specialists from other factions (many examples of melee given earlier in the thread).

More point efficient troops means that they can deploy a lesser investment and out trade enemy troops (and sometimes even specialists).

Telling us that heavy detachments kill primaris intercessors is meaningless. Marines also have answers against heavy detachments, and for sure you won't kill those marine heavies with lasgun guards. This effectively means that your non troop types are on double duty, i.e. killing enemy troops and killing enemy specialists. This means that specialist guard (and other armies) troops have to be more point efficient than marine specialists in order to recuperate the advantage lost by the less point efficient troops.

Currently, marine Iron Hands firepower through heavy support is more point efficient than guard heavy support (the whole levies with bubbles and so on), and sure as heck marine troops are more point efficient than IG troops. This means that IH outtrade IG in all departments and that is why they have a freaking 75% win rate against astra militarum.

This is my old returning take on the current meta anyway.

The IH things is debateably an ITC thing not just rules thing. Also the key thing that bugs me about this whole arguement is you can;t compare Intercessors to guard line. They aren't the same troops. Intercessors are not the base marine troops. They are primaris marine troops. Bigger better stronger than normal marines.

If you want to compare base line marine troops to base line guard troops. Compare scouts.

That's a weird statement. Intercessors are definitely more of a baseline troop than a Scout. Tacticals and Intercessors are (now) what Marine organization is built around.

Yeah but you wanna compare the basic to the basic yes? intercessors are not the basic, not yet.

You still have mini marines and scouts.

Gotta compare equivalents, not the values that skew results.

To be clear I have no issues with the comments made about intercessors and how maybe they're a bit too efficient. But to compare them to guard troops just because they're both troops isn't a real comparison.

That's like comparing a black knight ravenwing to a genestealer cult normal biker because they're both fast attack.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Spoiler:

Grey40k wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:


When I'm thinking about playing against Marines in 8th, I'm thinking about working around Aggressors, Leviathans and Repulsors, not Intercessors.

I am aware at this point we are theory crafting, but I just wanted to point something out.

If the enemy troops are more point efficient than yours, this means that they already won one battle.
If all the unit types in one army are more point efficient overall than yours, it means you lose the war.

Primaris marine troops are possibly the most point efficient troops across armies at many of the relevant roles (perhaps not at carpeting the board). In particular, they trade very well both with the vast majority of enemy troops, and even with some specialists from other factions (many examples of melee given earlier in the thread).

More point efficient troops means that they can deploy a lesser investment and out trade enemy troops (and sometimes even specialists).

Telling us that heavy detachments kill primaris intercessors is meaningless. Marines also have answers against heavy detachments, and for sure you won't kill those marine heavies with lasgun guards. This effectively means that your non troop types are on double duty, i.e. killing enemy troops and killing enemy specialists. This means that specialist guard (and other armies) troops have to be more point efficient than marine specialists in order to recuperate the advantage lost by the less point efficient troops.

Currently, marine Iron Hands firepower through heavy support is more point efficient than guard heavy support (the whole levies with bubbles and so on), and sure as heck marine troops are more point efficient than IG troops. This means that IH outtrade IG in all departments and that is why they have a freaking 75% win rate against astra militarum.

This is my old returning take on the current meta anyway.

The IH things is debateably an ITC thing not just rules thing. Also the key thing that bugs me about this whole arguement is you can;t compare Intercessors to guard line. They aren't the same troops. Intercessors are not the base marine troops. They are primaris marine troops. Bigger better stronger than normal marines.

If you want to compare base line marine troops to base line guard troops. Compare scouts.

That's a weird statement. Intercessors are definitely more of a baseline troop than a Scout. Tacticals and Intercessors are (now) what Marine organization is built around.

Yeah but you wanna compare the basic to the basic yes? intercessors are not the basic, not yet.

You still have mini marines and scouts.

Gotta compare equivalents, not the values that skew results.

To be clear I have no issues with the comments made about intercessors and how maybe they're a bit too efficient. But to compare them to guard troops just because they're both troops isn't a real comparison.

That's like comparing a black knight ravenwing to a genestealer cult normal biker because they're both fast attack.

They're both core battle-line troops. Scouts are not.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:



Yeah but you wanna compare the basic to the basic yes? intercessors are not the basic, not yet.

You still have mini marines and scouts.

Gotta compare equivalents, not the values that skew results.

To be clear I have no issues with the comments made about intercessors and how maybe they're a bit too efficient. But to compare them to guard troops just because they're both troops isn't a real comparison.

That's like comparing a black knight ravenwing to a genestealer cult normal biker because they're both fast attack.

I do not understand what you are saying.

Intercessors are in the troop category and they, in most scenarios, more point efficient than scouts or tacs. Of course people take intercessors then, hence they are the comparison group for other troops.

Or should I take point inefficient options for the sake of what, wasting our time?

Then lets finish with the focus on guardsmen and go over to one of the various other examples of the first post. Like genestealers reaching melee and still loosing etc.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Spoiler:

Grey40k wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:


When I'm thinking about playing against Marines in 8th, I'm thinking about working around Aggressors, Leviathans and Repulsors, not Intercessors.

I am aware at this point we are theory crafting, but I just wanted to point something out.

If the enemy troops are more point efficient than yours, this means that they already won one battle.
If all the unit types in one army are more point efficient overall than yours, it means you lose the war.

Primaris marine troops are possibly the most point efficient troops across armies at many of the relevant roles (perhaps not at carpeting the board). In particular, they trade very well both with the vast majority of enemy troops, and even with some specialists from other factions (many examples of melee given earlier in the thread).

More point efficient troops means that they can deploy a lesser investment and out trade enemy troops (and sometimes even specialists).

Telling us that heavy detachments kill primaris intercessors is meaningless. Marines also have answers against heavy detachments, and for sure you won't kill those marine heavies with lasgun guards. This effectively means that your non troop types are on double duty, i.e. killing enemy troops and killing enemy specialists. This means that specialist guard (and other armies) troops have to be more point efficient than marine specialists in order to recuperate the advantage lost by the less point efficient troops.

Currently, marine Iron Hands firepower through heavy support is more point efficient than guard heavy support (the whole levies with bubbles and so on), and sure as heck marine troops are more point efficient than IG troops. This means that IH outtrade IG in all departments and that is why they have a freaking 75% win rate against astra militarum.

This is my old returning take on the current meta anyway.

The IH things is debateably an ITC thing not just rules thing. Also the key thing that bugs me about this whole arguement is you can;t compare Intercessors to guard line. They aren't the same troops. Intercessors are not the base marine troops. They are primaris marine troops. Bigger better stronger than normal marines.

If you want to compare base line marine troops to base line guard troops. Compare scouts.

That's a weird statement. Intercessors are definitely more of a baseline troop than a Scout. Tacticals and Intercessors are (now) what Marine organization is built around.

Yeah but you wanna compare the basic to the basic yes? intercessors are not the basic, not yet.

You still have mini marines and scouts.

Gotta compare equivalents, not the values that skew results.

To be clear I have no issues with the comments made about intercessors and how maybe they're a bit too efficient. But to compare them to guard troops just because they're both troops isn't a real comparison.

That's like comparing a black knight ravenwing to a genestealer cult normal biker because they're both fast attack.

They're both core battle-line troops. Scouts are not.

maybe in fluff.

But the game isn't fluff. The game is points and mechanics. there is literally nothing stopping me having only scouts as my troops inn game etc etc.

Ergo from a mechanics POV you have to compare the basic. Not the fluff.

But if you see scouts as marine basic shouldn't they then be compared to IG conscripts instead of infantry squads? Both are the "troops in training "

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Spoiler:

Grey40k wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:


When I'm thinking about playing against Marines in 8th, I'm thinking about working around Aggressors, Leviathans and Repulsors, not Intercessors.

I am aware at this point we are theory crafting, but I just wanted to point something out.

If the enemy troops are more point efficient than yours, this means that they already won one battle.
If all the unit types in one army are more point efficient overall than yours, it means you lose the war.

Primaris marine troops are possibly the most point efficient troops across armies at many of the relevant roles (perhaps not at carpeting the board). In particular, they trade very well both with the vast majority of enemy troops, and even with some specialists from other factions (many examples of melee given earlier in the thread).

More point efficient troops means that they can deploy a lesser investment and out trade enemy troops (and sometimes even specialists).

Telling us that heavy detachments kill primaris intercessors is meaningless. Marines also have answers against heavy detachments, and for sure you won't kill those marine heavies with lasgun guards. This effectively means that your non troop types are on double duty, i.e. killing enemy troops and killing enemy specialists. This means that specialist guard (and other armies) troops have to be more point efficient than marine specialists in order to recuperate the advantage lost by the less point efficient troops.

Currently, marine Iron Hands firepower through heavy support is more point efficient than guard heavy support (the whole levies with bubbles and so on), and sure as heck marine troops are more point efficient than IG troops. This means that IH outtrade IG in all departments and that is why they have a freaking 75% win rate against astra militarum.

This is my old returning take on the current meta anyway.

The IH things is debateably an ITC thing not just rules thing. Also the key thing that bugs me about this whole arguement is you can;t compare Intercessors to guard line. They aren't the same troops. Intercessors are not the base marine troops. They are primaris marine troops. Bigger better stronger than normal marines.

If you want to compare base line marine troops to base line guard troops. Compare scouts.

That's a weird statement. Intercessors are definitely more of a baseline troop than a Scout. Tacticals and Intercessors are (now) what Marine organization is built around.

Yeah but you wanna compare the basic to the basic yes? intercessors are not the basic, not yet.

You still have mini marines and scouts.

Gotta compare equivalents, not the values that skew results.

To be clear I have no issues with the comments made about intercessors and how maybe they're a bit too efficient. But to compare them to guard troops just because they're both troops isn't a real comparison.

That's like comparing a black knight ravenwing to a genestealer cult normal biker because they're both fast attack.

That's why none of my comparisons on page 1 are "1 to 1" - they're comparing equivalent points. pound for pound. I took a bunch of specialist anti-elite melee units and ran them against equal points of intercessors in melee, and a bunch of shooting-only units and ran them against equal points of intercessors in shooting, including stuff like Dark Reapers, which get absolutely shellacked despite all the claims of "but muh D2 weapons." I haven' t run the numbers but I am 1000% certain you'd get the same results or less running autocannon HWTs vs intercessors as well.

Grey40k wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:



Yeah but you wanna compare the basic to the basic yes? intercessors are not the basic, not yet.

You still have mini marines and scouts.

Gotta compare equivalents, not the values that skew results.

To be clear I have no issues with the comments made about intercessors and how maybe they're a bit too efficient. But to compare them to guard troops just because they're both troops isn't a real comparison.

That's like comparing a black knight ravenwing to a genestealer cult normal biker because they're both fast attack.

I do not understand what you are saying.

Intercessors are in the troop category and they, in most scenarios, more point efficient than scouts or tacs. Of course people take intercessors then, hence they are the comparison group for other troops.

Or should I take point inefficient options for the sake of what, wasting our time?

The whole point of this thread yes is asking how marines feel. Not intercessors, marines.

I agree that intercessors are efficient, no debates there so wasted argument on me.

my point is to get a fair comparison on like tor like equivelent. If you are comparing basic troops like guard. You gotta compare basic troops like scouts too.

Intercessors are primaris marine, troops but better. So to fairly compare them, compare them to another troops that is 1-2 levels better than the basic codex troops.

 Galas wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Is mathematically impossible as a Custodes player to eliminate a heavy infantry army of IG in less than two turns. A IG player can have 200 boots on the ground and have many, many points to spare for heavy artillery and other components.

A Custodes List literally doesn't has enough shoots to clear that, even spamming bikes and biker captains. A squad of 3 custodian guards with misericordia will kill at MAXIMUM 18 guardsmen. 6 for shooting and 12 for meele. Thats 150 aprox points killing 72 points assuming shooting from rapidfire range, meele, and literally failing 0 attacks.
And Custodian Guards are troops without deepstrike or transport (A land raider lol) that walk 6" a turn.

I'm sorry but as a Custodes Player to see a Imperial Guard player complaining about fething custodian guards?

Custodes aren't a very good army as a whole, but they are really irritating with their 2+ saves, 2+ rerolls to hit, counter-intercepting shield captains, etc. As Tyranids it's irritating that I can shoot 90 devourer shots and only remove 1 infantry model.

Thats because those models cost as much as 5-10 models of nearly any other troop of the game. Maybe stop shooting weak anti infantry shooting vs elite troops and expect to do anything? Tyranids and their Mortal Wound spam have 0 problems dealing with Custodes.

And even with FW, most of FW custodes units add anti tank to the army, not anti infantry. As I said, is nearly mathematically impossible for a Adeptus Custodes force, even using the full range of FW competitive options, to remove 200 models in less than 3 turns.

I don't, I shoot their floaty tanks because devourers wound them just the same, but they fail saves twice as often. It's apparently better to shoot "weak anti-infantry shooting" against tanks.

I understand Tyranids don't have a problem with Custodes, because I've played against Custodes with my Tyranids plenty of time. That doesn't make them not irritating.

I'm not sure why there's an issue about removing 200 models of GEQ in three turns. Why would that even be necessary?

Pyroalchi wrote:
Then lets finish with the focus on guardsmen and go over to one of the various other examples of the first post. Like genestealers reaching melee and still loosing etc.

not just "reaching melee". I did this example on a previous page: if you took 2,000 points of intercessors and 2,000 points of harlequins loaded with their best anti-marine melee weapons, deployed them 2" away from the space marines and let them charge, the harlequins would actually lose the ensuing fight.

In an actual game situation, you actually have to close the gap on the unit with the 30" range shooting weapons.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Grey40k wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:



Yeah but you wanna compare the basic to the basic yes? intercessors are not the basic, not yet.

You still have mini marines and scouts.

Gotta compare equivalents, not the values that skew results.

To be clear I have no issues with the comments made about intercessors and how maybe they're a bit too efficient. But to compare them to guard troops just because they're both troops isn't a real comparison.

That's like comparing a black knight ravenwing to a genestealer cult normal biker because they're both fast attack.

I do not understand what you are saying.

Intercessors are in the troop category and they, in most scenarios, more point efficient than scouts or tacs. Of course people take intercessors then, hence they are the comparison group for other troops.

Or should I take point inefficient options for the sake of what, wasting our time?

The whole point of this thread yes is asking how marines feel. Not intercessors, marines.

I agree that intercessors are efficient, no debates there so wasted argument on me.

my point is to get a fair comparison on like tor like equivelent. If you are comparing basic troops like guard. You gotta compare basic troops like scouts too.

Intercessors are primaris marine, troops but better. So to fairly compare them, compare them to another troops that is 1-2 levels better than the basic codex troops.

I wasn't, actually. I threw guardsmen in there mostly because they were a bugbear unit earlier in the edition. I was trying to compare Intercessors in melee vs units that only do melee, and intercessors shooting vs units that only do shooting.

Not basic troops vs basic troops. Basic troops vs supposed "Specialist elites" from other factions.

[/spoiler]

I get that but what i'm saying is the methodology is flawed. If you truely want to compare intercessors you have to find a unit that is supposed to be the same in another codex. 1-2 levels above the basic troops but still troops. Rubric marine for instance.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


They're both core battle-line troops. Scouts are not.

maybe in fluff.

But the game isn't fluff. The game is points and mechanics. there is literally nothing stopping me having only scouts as my troops inn game etc etc.

Ergo from a mechanics POV you have to compare the basic. Not the fluff.

There's literally nothing stopping you from having only Intercessors as troops, too?

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
[spoiler]

Grey40k wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:


When I'm thinking about playing against Marines in 8th, I'm thinking about working around Aggressors, Leviathans and Repulsors, not Intercessors.

I am aware at this point we are theory crafting, but I just wanted to point something out.

If the enemy troops are more point efficient than yours, this means that they already won one battle.
If all the unit types in one army are more point efficient overall than yours, it means you lose the war.

Primaris marine troops are possibly the most point efficient troops across armies at many of the relevant roles (perhaps not at carpeting the board). In particular, they trade very well both with the vast majority of enemy troops, and even with some specialists from other factions (many examples of melee given earlier in the thread).

More point efficient troops means that they can deploy a lesser investment and out trade enemy troops (and sometimes even specialists).

Telling us that heavy detachments kill primaris intercessors is meaningless. Marines also have answers against heavy detachments, and for sure you won't kill those marine heavies with lasgun guards. This effectively means that your non troop types are on double duty, i.e. killing enemy troops and killing enemy specialists. This means that specialist guard (and other armies) troops have to be more point efficient than marine specialists in order to recuperate the advantage lost by the less point efficient troops.

Currently, marine Iron Hands firepower through heavy support is more point efficient than guard heavy support (the whole levies with bubbles and so on), and sure as heck marine troops are more point efficient than IG troops. This means that IH outtrade IG in all departments and that is why they have a freaking 75% win rate against astra militarum.

This is my old returning take on the current meta anyway.

The IH things is debateably an ITC thing not just rules thing. Also the key thing that bugs me about this whole arguement is you can;t compare Intercessors to guard line. They aren't the same troops. Intercessors are not the base marine troops. They are primaris marine troops. Bigger better stronger than normal marines.

If you want to compare base line marine troops to base line guard troops. Compare scouts.

That's a weird statement. Intercessors are definitely more of a baseline troop than a Scout. Tacticals and Intercessors are (now) what Marine organization is built around.

Yeah but you wanna compare the basic to the basic yes? intercessors are not the basic, not yet.

You still have mini marines and scouts.

Gotta compare equivalents, not the values that skew results.

To be clear I have no issues with the comments made about intercessors and how maybe they're a bit too efficient. But to compare them to guard troops just because they're both troops isn't a real comparison.

That's like comparing a black knight ravenwing to a genestealer cult normal biker because they're both fast attack.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

I agree that intercessors are efficient, no debates there so wasted argument on me.

my point is to get a fair comparison on like tor like equivelent. If you are comparing basic troops like guard. You gotta compare basic troops like scouts too.

Intercessors are primaris marine, troops but better. So to fairly compare them, compare them to another troops that is 1-2 levels better than the basic codex troops.

Sorry, I don't understand you at all. Am I forced to take scouts or tacticals? A troop is a troop, regardless of what the fluff says.

If they wanted primaris to be elite, they could have put them in the elite category.

As for moving on to other troops, I am happy to do that. I do feel that OP already gave a lot of examples highlighting the point efficiency of intercessors when pitched against many melee specialists from other factions.

Aside from giving a long list of the point efficiency of different marine troops against other units, what else is there to say?

Is there anyone who does not think that intercessors are too point efficient? Is there anyone left who things that IH dakka isn't too point efficient?

PS - All comparisons were done in terms of point efficiency, obviously not simply miniature to miniature.

the_scotsman wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
[spoiler]

Grey40k wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:


When I'm thinking about playing against Marines in 8th, I'm thinking about working around Aggressors, Leviathans and Repulsors, not Intercessors.

I am aware at this point we are theory crafting, but I just wanted to point something out.

If the enemy troops are more point efficient than yours, this means that they already won one battle.
If all the unit types in one army are more point efficient overall than yours, it means you lose the war.

Primaris marine troops are possibly the most point efficient troops across armies at many of the relevant roles (perhaps not at carpeting the board). In particular, they trade very well both with the vast majority of enemy troops, and even with some specialists from other factions (many examples of melee given earlier in the thread).

More point efficient troops means that they can deploy a lesser investment and out trade enemy troops (and sometimes even specialists).

Telling us that heavy detachments kill primaris intercessors is meaningless. Marines also have answers against heavy detachments, and for sure you won't kill those marine heavies with lasgun guards. This effectively means that your non troop types are on double duty, i.e. killing enemy troops and killing enemy specialists. This means that specialist guard (and other armies) troops have to be more point efficient than marine specialists in order to recuperate the advantage lost by the less point efficient troops.

Currently, marine Iron Hands firepower through heavy support is more point efficient than guard heavy support (the whole levies with bubbles and so on), and sure as heck marine troops are more point efficient than IG troops. This means that IH outtrade IG in all departments and that is why they have a freaking 75% win rate against astra militarum.

This is my old returning take on the current meta anyway.

The IH things is debateably an ITC thing not just rules thing. Also the key thing that bugs me about this whole arguement is you can;t compare Intercessors to guard line. They aren't the same troops. Intercessors are not the base marine troops. They are primaris marine troops. Bigger better stronger than normal marines.

If you want to compare base line marine troops to base line guard troops. Compare scouts.

That's a weird statement. Intercessors are definitely more of a baseline troop than a Scout. Tacticals and Intercessors are (now) what Marine organization is built around.

Yeah but you wanna compare the basic to the basic yes? intercessors are not the basic, not yet.

You still have mini marines and scouts.

Gotta compare equivalents, not the values that skew results.

To be clear I have no issues with the comments made about intercessors and how maybe they're a bit too efficient. But to compare them to guard troops just because they're both troops isn't a real comparison.

That's like comparing a black knight ravenwing to a genestealer cult normal biker because they're both fast attack.

That's why none of my comparisons on page 1 are "1 to 1" - they're comparing equivalent points. pound for pound. I took a bunch of specialist anti-elite melee units and ran them against equal points of intercessors in melee, and a bunch of shooting-only units and ran them against equal points of intercessors in shooting, including stuff like Dark Reapers, which get absolutely shellacked despite all the claims of "but muh D2 weapons." I haven' t run the numbers but I am 1000% certain you'd get the same results or less running autocannon HWTs vs intercessors as well.

You asked for something that I already delivered for several different factions. Which of these units would you figure would be a fair "Elevated troop vs elevated troop" comparison?

-Tempestus Scions
-Dire Avengers
-Necron Immortals
-Ork Nobz
-Tyranid Genestealers
-GSC Acolytes

Because I can tell you, Tyranid Genestealers are a hair more efficient in melee, Scions a hair more efficient in shooting, but almost everything else the marines beat in their general "chosen mode of fighting" point for point.

the_scotsman wrote:
You asked for something that I already delivered for several different factions. Which of these units would you figure would be a fair "Elevated troop vs elevated troop" comparison?

-Tempestus Scions
-Dire Avengers
-Necron Immortals
-Ork Nobz
-Tyranid Genestealers
-GSC Acolytes

Because I can tell you, Tyranid Genestealers are a hair more efficient in melee, Scions a hair more efficient in shooting, but almost everything else the marines beat in their general "chosen mode of fighting" point for point.

Personally, I would love to see a full comparison between intercessors and scions fighting a bunch of different things.

For example, fighting Genestealers, fighting MEQ, fighting GEQ, fighting light vehicles, heavy vehicles.

Then tanking damage from different weapon types.

All that in point per format.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Okay it's clear you don't want feedback to help improve your theory and gather more accurate data (which I agree with btw just helping you compile the most accurate data you cna). Instead you wanna just whine about marines and intercessors. I get it now.

If it means that much to you, why don't you do it yourself and post it?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Grey40k wrote:Wel, that's the thing being discussed here. The fact that marine troops are right now too point efficient for generalist troops.

The question then becomes which way does one go about doing that - making them more expensive in points, or weaker in power?

The fluff idea that a marine is 10 normal troops 100 (or whatever this has been inflated to throughout the years) is completely impractical in the tabletop. Why? Because to achieve this and not obliterate the possibility of the other armies being played (no, hundreds of guardsmen are not feasible), then what ends up happening is that the marine needs to be more point efficient. Once that happens, balance disappears.

Well, not unless every other army's elite forces are made equally as efficient.

Marines being point efficient is fine. Everyone else being point inefficient isn't.

Basically, I propose making specialist units more powerful, or making Marines more expensive, instead of making Marines weaker or everyone else cheaper.

I'd rather see Marines stay as an elite army than see Tacticals and Intercessors treated like a horde.

Easy, weaker in power. The solution: no Super Doctrines is a start.

Is "basic troop" code for "compare the worst choice we got to the best choice yall got. See? Not so bad, huh?"

Bottom line: marines feel too elite on their turn and not elite enough on the opponent's turn. That's my take on it overall without getting into too many weeds.

Martel732 wrote:
Bottom line: marines feel too elite on their turn and not elite enough on the opponent's turn. That's my take on it overall without getting into too many weeds.

GW: Good point, good point. Oh, I know, we'll just not let the opponent have a turn, that'll sort out the Marines feeling elite enough. We'll make sure to nerf them though so they don't feel too elite... hmm... I think we'll take away ATSKNF, then give them +2 LD instead. That's a nerf right?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Bottom line: marines feel too elite on their turn and not elite enough on the opponent's turn. That's my take on it overall without getting into too many weeds.

GW: Good point, good point. Oh, I know, we'll just not let the opponent have a turn, that'll sort out the Marines feeling elite enough. We'll make sure to nerf them though so they don't feel too elite... hmm... I think we'll take away ATSKNF, then give them +2 LD instead. That's a nerf right?

GW turned this up to 11 and broke off the knob for the GK.

Martel732 wrote:
Bottom line: marines feel too elite on their turn and not elite enough on the opponent's turn. That's my take on it overall without getting into too many weeds.

100% agreed. I'd like to see marines have a defence against AP-1. I played the new sisters using that as their chapter tactic and it made a huge difference, actually.

As far as I can see from the example in the first post, three of the melee units kicked the Intercessors to bits (Daemonettes, Boyz, and Bloodletters) and three got kicked to bits (Howling Banshees, Harlequins, and Striking Scorpions). Of the latter three, Striking Scorpions and Howling Banshees have been synonymous with "pathetic melee units" for the last four editions. What is this supposed to prove, exactly?


5 Warp Talons vs. 5 Intercessors (95 points vs. 85 points, so Intercessors are a little cheaper):



3 Shining Spears (90 points) vs. 6 Intercessors (85 points, so very slight edge to Intercessors)


5 Khorne Berzekers with Icon and Chainaxe/Chainsword vs. 5 Intercessors (90 points vs. 85 points, so slight edge to Intercessors).


7 actual, non-.poop Genestealers vs. 5 Intercessors (84 points vs. 85 points, most miniscule advantage possible for Genestealers)



I could keep going with a bunch of other melee units that aren't awful, but the conclusion is that in general dedicated melee units that aren't awful against everything kill Intercessors on the charge, but die if the Intercessors get to shoot and charge them first. Intercessors have no bonus to movement or charges though.

What's the point of this particular thought exercise again? Proving that Howling Banshees and Striking Scorpions are poop? Didn't everyone already know that?

It ain't just Marines that feel weak on your opponent's turn. This whole game is geared towards being the "killiest". Everyone is scooping models off the table by the bucket.

Slayer-Fan123 785780 10726750 wrote:
Easy, weaker in power. The solution: no Super Doctrines is a start.

So armies that have doctrins as their fix to a bad codex, revert to being bad again? no thank you.

the_scotsman wrote:
You charge them with 10 wyches with a net just to try and keep them occupied and don't even manage to kill one dude, then they attack back and 6 of your dedicated melee-only troops are fething gone before they even get to their turn when they get to either fall back or shoot you in the face with pistols, if you have anything left after the morale check.

This seems unlikely to me when Wyches have a 4++/6+++ in melee. In fact it seems like a simple 10 strong Wych unit could kill 5 Primaris with bodies left to spare.

This is using +1S drugs. I don't know which would be best.

Round 1
3 * .666 * .5 * .5 * 2 = 1
28 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 3.1
2 Primaris die

10 * .666 * .666 * .5 * .833 = 1.8
2 Wyches die

Round 2
*Primaris no longer have a bonus and likely can't flee
** If this is round 3 then the Wyches hit on 2s, but I did 3s

1 Wych dies
1 Primaris dies and 1 spare wound

Round 3

2 Primaris die
Wyches have 7 models left.


Obviously if you shoot the choppy the you get to worry less, but Primaris are by no means guaranteed to win.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Grey40k wrote:Wel, that's the thing being discussed here. The fact that marine troops are right now too point efficient for generalist troops.

The question then becomes which way does one go about doing that - making them more expensive in points, or weaker in power?

Easy, weaker in power. The solution: no Super Doctrines is a start.

Why weaker? Why not more expensive?

Well, maybe that one of the single best gunline troops choice units in the game should not be able to win on the charge against dedicated melee units? That it would be pretty stupid and frustrating if tau fire warriors were some 30% more effective in shooting and could also beat khorne bezerkers in melee combat on the charge?

I don't think it's controversial to claim that MOST of the power budget in a unit like khorne bezerkers seems to be in their assault stats. You don't think it's a bit bizarre for a gunline unit with full effectiveness out to 30" range beats them if they get the charge?

The thing you're leaving out in all your examples as well is that the marines continue to be alive in the second round, where they get to fire their pistols and attack back again, this time before the chargers.

Also...are you forgetting Shock Assault here? In your Genestealer Example you say 3 intercessors attack back with 7 attacks. Wouldn't it be 11, with the chainsword sergeant and shock assault?

I get 3 dead genestealers round 1 between overwatch and attacks back, then another 2.5 in the following round between pistols and melee attacks.

The only way 12ppm genestealers beat intercessors with the charge is when they survive overwatch over 10 models.

The whole purpose of the thread was to show that, while there are units out there that are dedicated melee-only specialists that do beat intercessors, there are a bizarre number that lose or fight to a draw against a unit that's so crazy powerful at range.

That pretty much tracks with what my experience fighting the new marines has been like: I charge into a wall of firepower with units that I MUST remove from the table or they will literally table me before turn 3, I manage to take out maybe one key target, but then my opponent uses an interrupt or a similar stratagem and some unit of intercessors or hellblasters just clocks a dedicated assault unit off the table with their A3 and A5 sergeant, and bottom of 2/top of 3 is just the marines mopping up whatever dregs are left. When I win, I win because I have some unit that's so absurdly huge and powerful it can cripple the whole front line, or I have one of the rare units like Thousand Sons able to hold their own in gunfights in abundance.

I did mess up the Shock Assault, yes.

Still, other than the Genestealers and Harlequins, what are these melee units that fail to beat Intercessors that aren't also awful against pretty much everything else?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I did mess up the Shock Assault, yes.

Still, other than the Genestealers and Harlequins, what are these melee units that fail to beat Intercessors that aren't also awful against pretty much everything else?

"ok, sure, maybe they do return nearly triple their points in a firefight with a dedicated anti-marine unit that was in the meta for ages, and maybe they do beat a melee unit that's been common in competitive tyranid lists, and maybe they can out-shoot the most complained about unbeatable meta troop unit in the game, but you ADMIT that there DOES exist units that DO beat them!

AHA!

Marines balanced and fine CONFIRMED!"

Look, it's pretty dang clear that marines are in an imbalanced state right now in general. The purpose of the post was to highlight a secondary problem: That their current ruleset makes the units whose entire job is "Good at this one thing" seem like crap. They shoot better than fire warriors. They fight better than harlequins and genestealers. They're tougher than necrons. There's a real reason for the whole "NPC Factions" meme floating around.

Eventually, the kid who just keeps screaming "I have all the thuper powerth!" is going to stop getting invited to play-pretend.

There is no point to this if you're going to put words in my mouth. I never said Marines were fine. I said the particular complaint in the OP doesn't make sense. You're adding in a conclusion that I didn't argue for once in my post.

Martel732 wrote:
Bottom line: marines feel too elite on their turn and not elite enough on the opponent's turn. That's my take on it overall without getting into too many weeds.

Something something IGOUGO exacerbates these problems you people complain about something something

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There is no point to this if you're going to put words in my mouth. I never said Marines were fine. I said the particular complaint in the OP doesn't make sense. You're adding in a conclusion that I didn't argue for once in my post.

The complaint in the OP is that marines being cranked up to 11 with primaris makes everyone else's elites play like absolute chumps in comparison.

Grotesques are another funny example: 3 of them manage to kill a grand total of 2 intercessors the turn they charge in, and the remaining 6 intercessors cause 3 wounds and finish off the first grotesque with the pistols the following turn.

Or necron lychguard. The big melee badasses charge into equal points of primaris, kill two...and lose 2. LOL. or Tyranid warriors - 4 of them kill one guy, MAYBE, on the charge, and then lose one guy in return. whomp whomp.

I don't think you're looking at it through the right lens. If Berzerkers get charged then you're "doing it wrong".

Primaris
Single Tap : 0.8
Double Tap : 1.7
Round 1 Melee : 1.8
Round 2 Melee : 1.2

Berzerkers
Pistols : 0.6
Round 1 Melee : 7.0
Round 2 Melee : 4.8

So, yes they die if they get charged, but they do 400% more in melee otherwise.

the_scotsman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There is no point to this if you're going to put words in my mouth. I never said Marines were fine. I said the particular complaint in the OP doesn't make sense. You're adding in a conclusion that I didn't argue for once in my post.

The complaint in the OP is that marines being cranked up to 11 with primaris makes everyone else's elites play like absolute chumps in comparison.

Grotesques are another funny example: 3 of them manage to kill a grand total of 2 intercessors the turn they charge in, and the remaining 6 intercessors cause 3 wounds and finish off the first grotesque with the pistols the following turn.

Or necron lychguard. The big melee badasses charge into equal points of primaris, kill two...and lose 2. LOL. or Tyranid warriors - 4 of them kill one guy, MAYBE, on the charge, and then lose one guy in return. whomp whomp.

Say we remove Intercessors from the game as a thought experiment.

Does this solve the problem of those units? Possibly in the case of Genestealers and Harlequins. Lolno in the case of Lychguard, Howling Banshees, Striking Scorpions or Tyranid Warriors.

Most melee units have been dumpster tier for the entire edition. I'd love to change that somehow, but Intercessors is just one blip in a long line of problems plaguing melee in 40k.

The point the_scotsman is making is that Intercessors have amazing shooting potential. They shouldn't then be able to smash you in the face as well.

Saying "well if my Khorne Berzerkers teleport into charge range and successfully make a charge they clean house" is a bit meaningless. Sure, it happens - but it doesn't happen very often in game, because getting Khorne Berzerkers across the table is difficult, and even with rerolls they have a very good chance to fail a vaguely long-distance charge. Then they got and potentially counter-charged if they want to just clear off a couple of survivors. Which means you lose horribly, its not even close.

The comparison isn't with Khorne Berzerkers or Genestealers - its something like Fire Warriors. Or Kabalites. Or Guardians or some other troop choice. Most of which if clearly dedicated to shooting, pose essentially no combat threat at all.

And frankly the Intercessors are playing with a hand behind their back, because they will have a bucket load of buffs which are typically better than what other factions get.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Grey40k wrote:Wel, that's the thing being discussed here. The fact that marine troops are right now too point efficient for generalist troops.

The question then becomes which way does one go about doing that - making them more expensive in points, or weaker in power?

Easy, weaker in power. The solution: no Super Doctrines is a start.

Why weaker? Why not more expensive?

Because Super Doctrines aren't a thing that should exist to begin with.

Tyel wrote:
The point the_scotsman is making is that Intercessors have amazing shooting potential. They shouldn't then be able to smash you in the face as well.

Saying "well if my Khorne Berzerkers teleport into charge range and successfully make a charge they clean house" is a bit meaningless. Sure, it happens - but it doesn't happen very often in game, because getting Khorne Berzerkers across the table is difficult, and even with rerolls they have a very good chance to fail a vaguely long-distance charge. Then they got and potentially counter-charged if they want to just clear off a couple of survivors. Which means you lose horribly, its not even close.

The comparison isn't with Khorne Berzerkers or Genestealers - its something like Fire Warriors. Or Kabalites. Or Guardians or some other troop choice. Most of which if clearly dedicated to shooting, pose essentially no combat threat at all.

And frankly the Intercessors are playing with a hand behind their back, because they will have a bucket load of buffs which are typically better than what other factions get.

^I somewhat disagree, I think running the numbers again against just plain Tacticals would be interesting, and serve as an additional baseline.

Not that I disagree with the basic premise of the thread, but another set of numbers could show the extent of divergence Intercessors provide, one way or another. I would offer but I'm really busy today.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Grey40k wrote:Wel, that's the thing being discussed here. The fact that marine troops are right now too point efficient for generalist troops.

The question then becomes which way does one go about doing that - making them more expensive in points, or weaker in power?

Easy, weaker in power. The solution: no Super Doctrines is a start.

Why weaker? Why not more expensive?

Because Super Doctrines aren't a thing that should exist to begin with.

Yeah, agreed on super doctrines, but I'd rather have Marines being more expensive and stronger, instead of cheaper and weaker. Obviously, it can be done without stacking rules, and adding to the bloat.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Grey40k wrote:Wel, that's the thing being discussed here. The fact that marine troops are right now too point efficient for generalist troops.

The question then becomes which way does one go about doing that - making them more expensive in points, or weaker in power?

Easy, weaker in power. The solution: no Super Doctrines is a start.

Why weaker? Why not more expensive?

Because Super Doctrines aren't a thing that should exist to begin with.

Yeah, agreed on super doctrines, but I'd rather have Marines being more expensive and stronger, instead of cheaper and weaker. Obviously, it can be done without stacking rules, and adding to the bloat.

I'm not calling for stuff to be actively weaker. However we can probably agree that Super Doctrines should not have even been an idea to begin with. Getting rid of them solves SEVERAL issues with benefits on top of benefits. Intercessors are already strong with the stuff they have without that additional benefit.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you're looking at it through the right lens. If Berzerkers get charged then you're "doing it wrong".

Primaris
Single Tap : 0.8
Double Tap : 1.7
Round 1 Melee : 1.8
Round 2 Melee : 1.2

Berzerkers
Pistols : 0.6
Round 1 Melee : 7.0
Round 2 Melee : 4.8

So, yes they die if they get charged, but they do 400% more in melee otherwise.

I think saying that "you're doing it wrong" for failing a charge is rather unfair, when the ability to succeed or fail a charge is entirely dependant on a 2d6 roll. Sure, you can use points, CP, or faction traits to improve your odds, but that only makes the intercessor look better. We've been assuming the pure melee units automatic make their charge, everyone gets into melee range, and avoided overwatch, which is not realistic at all.

It really comes back to the other point scotsman was making: Space Marines feel Elite now because they make other armies elite units feel like chumps. You can hand wave it away as poor balance, but that doesn't really change the fact that no one that doesn't play marines wants to play a game where they have to outnumber the enemy ten to one to have a chance, let alone the impracticality of it. ONe could even turn this around by say that Marine were always Elite, but people didn't feel that way because of poor balance, not because they weren't already better than most options when used in the right context.

I mean, we've been talking about damage, but what about utility? Intercessors have objective secured, where as the units that *can* beat them handedly aren't. If the intercessors are sitting on an objective, it doesn't really matter if you can beat them in two combat rounds if the objective will get taken in the next turn.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you're looking at it through the right lens. If Berzerkers get charged then you're "doing it wrong".

Primaris
Single Tap : 0.8
Double Tap : 1.7
Round 1 Melee : 1.8
Round 2 Melee : 1.2

Berzerkers
Pistols : 0.6
Round 1 Melee : 7.0
Round 2 Melee : 4.8

So, yes they die if they get charged, but they do 400% more in melee otherwise.

I think saying that "you're doing it wrong" for failing a charge is rather unfair, when the ability to succeed or fail a charge is entirely dependant on a 2d6 roll. Sure, you can use points, CP, or faction traits to improve your odds, but that only makes the intercessor look better. We've been assuming the pure melee units automatic make their charge, everyone gets into melee range, and avoided overwatch, which is not realistic at all.

It really comes back to the other point scotsman was making: Space Marines feel Elite now because they make other armies elite units feel like chumps. You can hand wave it away as poor balance, but that doesn't really change the fact that no one that doesn't play marines wants to play a game where they have to outnumber the enemy ten to one to have a chance, let alone the impracticality of it. ONe could even turn this around by say that Marine were always Elite, but people didn't feel that way because of poor balance, not because they weren't already better than most options when used in the right context.

I mean, we've been talking about damage, but what about utility? Intercessors have objective secured, where as the units that *can* beat them handedly aren't. If the intercessors are sitting on an objective, it doesn't really matter if you can beat them in two combat rounds if the objective will get taken in the next turn.

Let me be clear that "doing it wrong" isn't a dig at anyone. It's just the melee specialists are hard to get to where they need to be. Getting them charged is just bad news all around (unless it is Centurions).

But that is the trade off to get a unit like what Berzerkers do or what Boyz can do and so on.

Intercessors can kill 5 guardsmen (8 or 9 if they get to double tap before charging). Berzerkers can kill 15 (and charge two units to do so). But we're not talking about that, because it isn't as sexy as "Intercessors own the world" - and in part rightfully so, because Intercessors are easier to use.

Is this equivalent points of Berserkers or equivalent models?

This thread has talked me into dusting off my Death Guard. In the OP shooting scenario, I've got Plague Marines at a slight disadvantage to the Intercessors, regardless of bolt rifle type. They would win enough that the outcome would be far from certain. Add Blight Launchers and now they kill more points than they lose.

Now I'm not a tournament player, and agree with Scotsman's points. I just thought it was interesting. DG are due for a better chapter tactic, if they got something as good as what the Scions got, then maybe there will be something there.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
It really comes back to the other point scotsman was making: Space Marines feel Elite now because they make other armies elite units feel like chumps. You can hand wave it away as poor balance, but that doesn't really change the fact that no one that doesn't play marines wants to play a game where they have to outnumber the enemy ten to one to have a chance, let alone the impracticality of it. ONe could even turn this around by say that Marine were always Elite, but people didn't feel that way because of poor balance, not because they weren't already better than most options when used in the right context.

I think that in a game where Marines are

1. the most popular faction, and therefore the baseline against which everything else is judged,

and

2. the most popular faction, and therefore the omnipresent threat that everyone builds armies to counter,

Marines will never feel elite and will always feel vulnerable, unless they're made brokenly overpowered. 30K is the extreme example, where Marines are everywhere, and everyone who isn't Marines is cramming as much AP3 weaponry as possible to counter them, further diminishing their 'elite' status. A Marine in 30K doesn't feel like an elite special forces soldier, he feels like a random mook, while Imperial Militia feel like waves of cheap trash.

You could make each Intercessor equivalent to ten Guardsmen, but when Intercessors fight other Marines more often than they fight anyone else, that doesn't make Intercessors feel elite- it just makes Guardsmen feel weak.

So I think the idea of making Marines feel 'elite' has to go out the window. No matter what you do to them, as long as they're by far the most popular army, they'll just be the baseline. If you want to play an army that feels elite, you buy Custodes.

^@catbarf, nicely put.

Marines should feel "elite" compared to who? Is the relevant question.

 Insectum7 wrote:

And frankly the Intercessors are playing with a hand behind their back, because they will have a bucket load of buffs which are typically better than what other factions get.

^I somewhat disagree, I think running the numbers again against just plain Tacticals would be interesting, and serve as an additional baseline.

Not that I disagree with the basic premise of the thread, but another set of numbers could show the extent of divergence Intercessors provide, one way or another. I would offer but I'm really busy today.

 flandarz wrote:
Is this equivalent points of Berserkers or equivalent models?

Points, but a Chainaxe/Chainsword Berzerker is 16 PPM while an Intercessor is 17 PPM so it's close either way.

This has become one of the most cringe-worthy threads on this forum right now.

It's pretty clear what Scotsman is trying to illustrate with his examples at the start of this thread.

Does anyone actually believe that Marines and in particular Intercessors are balanced right now? If the answer is 'no' then why are people picking bizarre, minor faults with the OP and using extreme, outlier examples to prove it wrong?

I get this is dakka, the place where we argue for the sake of it sometimes, but I'm still amazed at how contentious this thread has become.

Wow.. someone said that storm guardians are better than intercessors because they screen better and cover more ground..

 catbarf wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
It really comes back to the other point scotsman was making: Space Marines feel Elite now because they make other armies elite units feel like chumps. You can hand wave it away as poor balance, but that doesn't really change the fact that no one that doesn't play marines wants to play a game where they have to outnumber the enemy ten to one to have a chance, let alone the impracticality of it. ONe could even turn this around by say that Marine were always Elite, but people didn't feel that way because of poor balance, not because they weren't already better than most options when used in the right context.

I think that in a game where Marines are

1. the most popular faction, and therefore the baseline against which everything else is judged,

and

2. the most popular faction, and therefore the omnipresent threat that everyone builds armies to counter,

Marines will never feel elite and will always feel vulnerable, unless they're made brokenly overpowered. 30K is the extreme example, where Marines are everywhere, and everyone who isn't Marines is cramming as much AP3 weaponry as possible to counter them, further diminishing their 'elite' status. A Marine in 30K doesn't feel like an elite special forces soldier, he feels like a random mook, while Imperial Militia feel like waves of cheap trash.

You could make each Intercessor equivalent to ten Guardsmen, but when Intercessors fight other Marines more often than they fight anyone else, that doesn't make Intercessors feel elite- it just makes Guardsmen feel weak.

So I think the idea of making Marines feel 'elite' has to go out the window. No matter what you do to them, as long as they're by far the most popular army, they'll just be the baseline. If you want to play an army that feels elite, you buy Custodes.

I think it is possible to make Marines feel elite without breaking the game, but also I think a big part of that is people needing curbing their expectations a bit. GW needs to stop selling people on the fantasy of marines as demi-gods as much as they need to reduce the lethality and make tactical choices actually more tactical.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
and make tactical choices actually more tactical.

I'm not sure how they can really do that, without reintroducing the leadership-based mechanics (target priority tests, meaningful morale, etc) that have been systematically stripped out of the game over the years. In a system where everything comes down to mobility, offense, and defense, there's nothing fundamentally different between an Ork Nob and a Space Marine.

If the game had more of a C&C element to it, like unit activation mechanics a la Epic, then that would be the logical thing for Marines to excel at. But not having that dimension to play in puts them in a rough spot.

 catbarf wrote:
I'm not sure how they can really do that, without reintroducing the leadership-based mechanics (target priority tests, meaningful morale, etc) that have been systematically stripped out of the game over the years. In a system where everything comes down to mobility, offense, and defense, there's nothing fundamentally different between an Ork Nob and a Space Marine.

If the game had more of a C&C element to it, like unit activation mechanics a la Epic, then that would be the logical thing for Marines to excel at. But not having that dimension to play in puts them in a rough spot.

You just hit the nail on the head.

GW has responded to complaints about the game being to complex by slowly stripping out rules and the current games is the logical endpoint. People want the game simple, balanced, easy to learn, while still having differentiated units and weapons profiles, and you just can't squeeze all of that into 8th edition.

 catbarf wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
and make tactical choices actually more tactical.

I'm not sure how they can really do that, without reintroducing the leadership-based mechanics (target priority tests, meaningful morale, etc) that have been systematically stripped out of the game over the years. In a system where everything comes down to mobility, offense, and defense, there's nothing fundamentally different between an Ork Nob and a Space Marine.

If the game had more of a C&C element to it, like unit activation mechanics a la Epic, then that would be the logical thing for Marines to excel at. But not having that dimension to play in puts them in a rough spot.

^word!

Those target priority mechanics from 4th were excellent. To specify further, it took a Ld test to not fire at the closest unit (by category, infantry or vehicles/large, generally). Marines had higher base leadership, but by default every Space Marine captain lent their Ld value to every Space Marine unit on the board. Base Tactical 8, Led by Veteran sergeant 9, Captain on table 10. That was a great mechanic to express "elite".

2nd brought it's own "eliteness" terms. Things like Strategy Value, immunity/protection from gasses and blinding effects, and Targeters on heavy weapons when most other infantry didn't have them.

7th Ed. dropped the ability for units with grenades to use them all in CC. Up until 7th iirc, a unit of Marines (who often automatically came with Krak Grenades) would wreck vehicles in CC because every model could plant a Krak Grenade on it in CC. We've lost that too.

In 8th at least UM have Fall-Back-and-shoot which feels like more traditional ATSKNF, but a bunch of other stuff has been lost. Doctrines, Bolter-Disciplie, etc. help, and IMO Classics using the base codex balance out reasonably well. But I do miss some of the more subtle nods to "eliteness". Primaris stats just take a hammer to any attempt at subtlety.

- - - -

Another thing that is a big deal, imo. Up until 8th, Bolters basically ignored GEQ armor. In 2nd, Guard had Flakk armor, which was a 6+ save, 5+ against Blasts. Bolters with their AP-1 would just cut through it. 3rd through 7th had the AP mechanic in which Bolters again cut through GEQ armor. That's why Guardsmen in 8th suddenly getting a 5+ against bolters was a big change. That's not much of an issue anymore with marines shooting twice up to 24" and getting a -1AP in Tactical Doctrine, but 7th to 8th was a hefty shift in bolter shooting output vs. GEQ. And again, the ineffectiveness of blasts/templates in comparison to prior editions skewed things away from traditional results as well.

 Insectum7 wrote:

^word!

Those target priority mechanics from 4th were excellent. To specify further, it took a Ld test to not fire at the closest unit (by category, infantry or vehicles/large, generally). Marines had higher base leadership, but by default every Space Marine captain lent their Ld value to every Space Marine unit on the board. Base Tactical 8, Led by Veteran sergeant 9, Captain on table 10. That was a great mechanic to express "elite".

2nd brought it's own "eliteness" terms. Things like Strategy Value, immunity/protection from gasses and blinding effects, and Targeters on heavy weapons when most other infantry didn't have them.

7th Ed. dropped the ability for units with grenades to use them all in CC. Up until 7th iirc, a unit of Marines (who often automatically came with Krak Grenades) would wreck vehicles in CC because every model could plant a Krak Grenade on it in CC. We've lost that too.

In 8th at least UM have Fall-Back-and-shoot which feels like more traditional ATSKNF, but a bunch of other stuff has been lost. Doctrines, Bolter-Disciplie, etc. help, and IMO Classics using the base codex balance out reasonably well. But I do miss some of the more subtle nods to "eliteness". Primaris stats just take a hammer to any attempt at subtlety.

- - - -

Another thing that is a big deal, imo. Up until 8th, Bolters basically ignored GEQ armor. In 2nd, Guard had Flakk armor, which was a 6+ save, 5+ against Blasts. Bolters with their AP-1 would just cut through it. 3rd through 7th had the AP mechanic in which Bolters again cut through GEQ armor. That's why Guardsmen in 8th suddenly getting a 5+ against bolters was a big change. That's not much of an issue anymore with marines shooting twice up to 24" and getting a -1AP in Tactical Doctrine, but 7th to 8th was a hefty shift in bolter shooting output vs. GEQ. And again, the ineffectiveness of blasts/templates in comparison to prior editions skewed things away from traditional results as well.

Even just bringing back initiative and making Intercessors I3 and Tacticals I4 would make a huge deal of difference. Suddenly Intercessors fight last/simultaneously against almost anything else in the game and that takes a lot of the shine off their assault profile.

EDIT: Though I still don't think Intercessors are the problem they're being made out to be. We should buff other units to make them good, not go all 'Harrison Bergeron' on the issue.

It wasn't just the Bolter not ignoring even the 6+ save. It's also that those units for the most part got cheaper.

GW basically kept the prices of everything the same when completely changing the mechanics and didn't think that out. Same thing with the wounding system.

 catbarf wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
and make tactical choices actually more tactical.

I'm not sure how they can really do that, without reintroducing the leadership-based mechanics (target priority tests, meaningful morale, etc) that have been systematically stripped out of the game over the years. In a system where everything comes down to mobility, offense, and defense, there's nothing fundamentally different between an Ork Nob and a Space Marine.

If the game had more of a C&C element to it, like unit activation mechanics a la Epic, then that would be the logical thing for Marines to excel at. But not having that dimension to play in puts them in a rough spot.

My first idea would actually be reintroducing leadership mechanics. Yes, whether GW will do that is doubtful, but we're just talking theoretical.

If nothing else, closing the melee/range balance gap would help

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This has become one of the most cringe-worthy threads on this forum right now.

It's pretty clear what Scotsman is trying to illustrate with his examples at the start of this thread.

Does anyone actually believe that Marines and in particular Intercessors are balanced right now? If the answer is 'no' then why are people picking bizarre, minor faults with the OP and using extreme, outlier examples to prove it wrong?

I get this is dakka, the place where we argue for the sake of it sometimes, but I'm still amazed at how contentious this thread has become.

That marines are not balanced doesn't mean intercessors are OP. Intercessors were 17 points in CA 2018. Beta Bolters came a month later. Shock Assault was a few weeks before supplements. Is it 5 extra S4 AP0 attacks that really tipped the boat for people?

It is kind of just soap boxing without a real desire to address the root issue.

Yes intercessors are OP as a troops choice now more than ever with traits and doctrines.

Absolutely no chance... There was a reason for this change. Apparently people wanted "more accessible" "simpler" "quicker" etc... and reading rules was apparently beyond the target markets ability (LOL).

I guess it worked for the shareholders as the profits have bene going up and up...So here we are with this husk of a game rerolling buckets of dice...The only real "tactical mechanic" is how many rerolls can you apply to your killiest unit. But I guess its fine as the killiest guys are now movie marines.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This has become one of the most cringe-worthy threads on this forum right now.

It's pretty clear what Scotsman is trying to illustrate with his examples at the start of this thread.

Does anyone actually believe that Marines and in particular Intercessors are balanced right now? If the answer is 'no' then why are people picking bizarre, minor faults with the OP and using extreme, outlier examples to prove it wrong?

I get this is dakka, the place where we argue for the sake of it sometimes, but I'm still amazed at how contentious this thread has become.

That marines are not balanced doesn't mean intercessors are OP. Intercessors were 17 points in CA 2018. Beta Bolters came a month later. Shock Assault was a few weeks before supplements. Is it 5 extra S4 AP0 attacks that really tipped the boat for people?

It is kind of just soap boxing without a real desire to address the root issue.

Seems to me the package deal is the issue. The additional shots, attacks and AP from doctrines pushes Intercessors into an uncomfortable space in relation to numerous other units.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Seems to me the package deal is the issue. The additional shots, attacks and AP from doctrines pushes Intercessors into an uncomfortable space in relation to numerous other units.

Yes, but the Intercessor's we're talking about don't really benefit in that manner.

WS see no benefit until turn 3.
BT see no benefit until turn 3.
RG see no benefit in melee.
UM Intercessors wouldn't be until round 2.
SBRs aren't moving up to melee very often and suffer greatly against hordes.
Salamanders get a reroll and some AP shade.
IF don't care to be in melee and would never want Bolt Rifles.
IH would never want Bolt Rifles.

Popular successors are +3" and MA - both of which give no real gaks about stock Intercessors.

The worst of the worst an an IH SBR. Pit that against a WS ABR and demonstrate that Intercessors as a whole are problematic.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Seems to me the package deal is the issue. The additional shots, attacks and AP from doctrines pushes Intercessors into an uncomfortable space in relation to numerous other units.

Yes, but the Intercessor's we're talking about don't really benefit in that manner.

WS see no benefit until turn 3.
BT see no benefit until turn 3.
RG see no benefit in melee.
UM Intercessors wouldn't be until round 2.
SBRs aren't moving up to melee very often and suffer greatly against hordes.
Salamanders get a reroll and some AP shade.
IF don't care to be in melee and would never want Bolt Rifles.
IH would never want Bolt Rifles.

Popular successors are +3" and MA - both of which give no real gaks about stock Intercessors.

The worst of the worst an an IH SBR. Pit that against a WS ABR and demonstrate that Intercessors as a whole are problematic.

Speaking only for UM, they can get two units into Tactical on turn 1. Without any supplements, Intercessors are going to see turn 2 anyways, in which case that AP-2 can be in full swing at players discression.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Speaking only for UM, they can get two units into Tactical on turn 1. Without any supplements, Intercessors are going to see turn 2 anyways, in which case that AP-2 can be in full swing at players discression.

Sure, but is that trait and CP spend for an extra point of AP and a bit of movement flexibility wrecking games (it also necessitates two full 10 man units)? Is it somehow more powerful that double shoot from CSM?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Speaking only for UM, they can get two units into Tactical on turn 1. Without any supplements, Intercessors are going to see turn 2 anyways, in which case that AP-2 can be in full swing at players discression.

Sure, but is that trait and CP spend for an extra point of AP and a bit of movement flexibility wrecking games (it also necessitates two full 10 man units)? Is it somehow more powerful that double shoot from CSM?

Ignore the UM part. The more relevant part to the discussion is the second bit. Hilighted.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Speaking only for UM, they can get two units into Tactical on turn 1. Without any supplements, Intercessors are going to see turn 2 anyways, in which case that AP-2 can be in full swing at players discression.

Sure, but is that trait and CP spend for an extra point of AP and a bit of movement flexibility wrecking games (it also necessitates two full 10 man units)? Is it somehow more powerful that double shoot from CSM?

Ignore the UM part. The more relevant part to the discussion is the second bit. Hilighted.

Sure, but is the obscenely powerful? It's certainly good and UM are probably the only one who would care to do it, anyway.

Put another way - which would you rather have?

20 S7 AP3 D2 and 40 S4 AP1

or

20 S7 AP2 D2 and 40 S4 AP2

The latter, of course.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Speaking only for UM, they can get two units into Tactical on turn 1. Without any supplements, Intercessors are going to see turn 2 anyways, in which case that AP-2 can be in full swing at players discression.

Sure, but is that trait and CP spend for an extra point of AP and a bit of movement flexibility wrecking games (it also necessitates two full 10 man units)? Is it somehow more powerful that double shoot from CSM?

Ignore the UM part. The more relevant part to the discussion is the second bit. Hilighted.

Sure, but is the obscenely powerful? It's certainly good and UM are probably the only one who would care to do it, anyway.

Put another way - which would you rather have?

20 S7 AP3 D2 and 40 S4 AP1

or

20 S7 AP2 D2 and 40 S4 AP2

weird equivalency, since the entire army takes advantage of the doctrine and it depends on what Im fightung against anyways. Whats the sourse of the 20 S7 shots anyways?

 JNAProductions wrote:
The latter, of course.

The first is more dead Primaris equivalents.

I missed the strength and damage values-thought it was something else.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The latter, of course.

The first is more dead Primaris equivalents.

But basically equal vs. MEQ (CSM/Necron Immortals). I get 10.6 vs 10.3.

Personally I fight enough hard targets with invulns (Leviathans, Custodes, Knights) to make the Heavy Doctrine often pretty useless in comparison to pumping my bajillion bolters by a point of AP.

I still want to know where those 20 S7 D2 shots are coming from, and why that's equivalent to a single Intercessor squad for the purpose of this scenario.

 Insectum7 wrote:
weird equivalency, since the entire army takes advantage of the doctrine and it depends on what Im fightung against anyways. Whats the sourse of the 20 S7 shots anyways?

A Levi who wants to be in Heavy. It is much harder to build an effective army around Rapid Fire over Heavy.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
weird equivalency, since the entire army takes advantage of the doctrine and it depends on what Im fightung against anyways. Whats the sourse of the 20 S7 shots anyways?

A Levi who wants to be in Heavy. It is much harder to build an effective army around Rapid Fire over Heavy.

Ah right, brain fart I thought they were S8. I was thinking about the Scorpius for some reason.

So A: You're comparing a 160 point unit to a (whatever Leviathan costs these days)

And B: Against a Leviathan the extra AP doesn't matter for most heavy weapons.

Bonus: playing UM I just keep the Leviathan in Heavy doctrine.

Bonus bonus: with UM I Oath against it, and use the extra AP on the bolters to pitter patter away at it more effectively.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
weird equivalency, since the entire army takes advantage of the doctrine and it depends on what Im fightung against anyways. Whats the sourse of the 20 S7 shots anyways?

A Levi who wants to be in Heavy. It is much harder to build an effective army around Rapid Fire over Heavy.

I don't think anyone is going to argue that a leviathan isn't a greater threat than four squads of intercessors. But that leviathan is a heavy support choice. Intercessors are troops. They can be used to fill troops slots that provide cp while offering a significant threat in both shooting and melee, while still having objective secured, all while being moderately survivable. And that cp they help provide only makes that leviathan more effective.

Most factions don't have troops capable of that much heavy lifting, and are forced to spend points on those less effective troops to fill slots in order to fill out detachments to acquire cp that could have been spent on superior units instead. The availability of intercessors means sm players points are used more effectively just because of their greater utility.

I don't think this is a problem with intercessors but more a problem caused by the current system of strategems and cp production, combined with the poor troops choices many factions are saddled with. But it's still another factor in space marine's current superiority.

 Insectum7 wrote:


Ah right, brain fart I thought they were S8. I was thinking about the Scorpius for some reason.

So A: You're comparing a 160 point unit to a (whatever Leviathan costs these days)

And B: Against a Leviathan the extra AP doesn't matter for most heavy weapons.

Bonus: playing UM I just keep the Leviathan in Heavy doctrine.

Bonus bonus: with UM I Oath against it, and use the extra AP on the bolters to pitter patter away at it more effectively.

It'd be 340 plus the Warlord, Trait, and CP to do that, which is knight level points while also reducing CP generation to get the best force multiplier.

I mean, intecessors are basically 2W 30" Rubric Marines that are better in close combat. iirc Intercessors are also cheaper than Rubrics and can recieve more buffs than them

I think that kinda highlights how good they are

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Ah right, brain fart I thought they were S8. I was thinking about the Scorpius for some reason.

So A: You're comparing a 160 point unit to a (whatever Leviathan costs these days)

And B: Against a Leviathan the extra AP doesn't matter for most heavy weapons.

Bonus: playing UM I just keep the Leviathan in Heavy doctrine.

Bonus bonus: with UM I Oath against it, and use the extra AP on the bolters to pitter patter away at it more effectively.

It'd be 340 plus the Warlord, Trait, and CP to do that, which is knight level points while also reducing CP generation to get the best force multiplier.

I'm not sure the ultimate point of what you're saying, but a Leviathan is 340 points then? If so your scenario is a 170 point unit against a 340 point unit.

I mean if intercessors aren't all that great Ill happily trade them foe some eldar Guardians yeah ? doctrines rules starts n' all yeah?? I'm sure SM players wont mind seeing as intercessors aren't all that OP or even good apparently.

 Argive wrote:
I mean if intercessors aren't all that great Ill happily trade them foe some eldar Guardians yeah ? doctrines rules starts n' all yeah?? I'm sure SM players wont mind seeing as intercessors aren't all that OP or even good apparently.

I dunno man, those 12" range guns are pretty OP.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

I don't think anyone is going to argue that a leviathan isn't a greater threat than four squads of intercessors. But that leviathan is a heavy support choice. Intercessors are troops. They can be used to fill troops slots that provide cp while offering a significant threat in both shooting and melee, while still having objective secured, all while being moderately survivable. And that cp they help provide only makes that leviathan more effective.

Most factions don't have troops capable of that much heavy lifting, and are forced to spend points on those less effective troops to fill slots in order to fill out detachments to acquire cp that could have been spent on superior units instead. The availability of intercessors means sm players points are used more effectively just because of their greater utility.

I don't think this is a problem with intercessors but more a problem caused by the current system of strategems and cp production, combined with the poor troops choices many factions are saddled with. But it's still another factor in space marine's current superiority.

I mean, I guess? Intercessors have never been a "problem" in my games. My opponent is usually out of CP by turn 2 and it isn't being spent on them.

So you've got durable troops giving CP and kicking off decent chaff clearing. The determination to where other armies can't compete past this line gets muddy real quick.

It was't that long ago that IS were considered by many to be the ultra-mega-best troops in the game. You could probably find a post from me doing math hammer on beta bolter Primaris fighting them and arguing for people to use them more.

I guess my point is - gak's complicated.

I think you're over complicating it. The thread isn't about the win rates of marines overall, it's about how "elite" (nu)marines as combatants feel in comparison to other main-line infantry. This bit about the Leviathan is a sideshow.

I think that rule simplifications have a lot to do with the current imbalances.

It seems that progressively the game has been dumbed down. This comes with someone who jumped from 2n / 3rd to 8th.

For example, initiative and skill comparisons are gone from melee combat. It appears now that “skilled” melee combat has to do with 1) getting the charge, 2) cheesing movement to tag units, sling and so on, which are just pure gamey mechanics.

Same with target choosing and the various leadership checks.

When you take so many strategic elements out and it becomes a game of just “jumping” your opponent, it is hard to differentiate units. Elite, in war, often has to do with better strategic coordination.

Then I hear one tournament player after another using jump pack charge units with thunderfists saying they have a finesse army. I don’t doubt they are smart people, but the tactics seem very elementary to me. I guess hats the game in 8th?

Marines are obviously to good as of now. This will be corrected in the coming years but for now we have to deal with it. Ive been dealing with being marines -1 as a chaos player for years and years.

GW will let the current FOTM ride for a while, because money. But in the end, it will correct and well go back to having Eldar/Tau tournaments.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think you're over complicating it. The thread isn't about the win rates of marines overall, it's about how "elite" (nu)marines as combatants feel in comparison to other main-line infantry. This bit about the Leviathan is a sideshow.

Right. Which is the point I'm trying to make, possibly not clearly enough.

Intercessors should be stronger one on one with most other troops, but not point for point. Troops are supposed to be the backbone of an army. But right now sm have a much stronger backbone than most. Intercessors don't feel like a waste of points like csm, or cultists. Many factions need to throw elite, fast attack, or heavy support options at them to have a good shot at winning a fight. I'm not arguing that intercessors are too good, it's that other factions troops are too bad.

And yeah, gaks complicated.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think you're over complicating it. The thread isn't about the win rates of marines overall, it's about how "elite" (nu)marines as combatants feel in comparison to other main-line infantry. This bit about the Leviathan is a sideshow.

Right. Which is the point I'm trying to make, possibly not clearly enough.

Intercessors should be stronger one on one with most other troops, but not point for point. Troops are supposed to be the backbone of an army. But right now sm have a much stronger backbone than most. Intercessors don't feel like a waste of points like csm, or cultists. Many factions need to throw elite, fast attack, or heavy support options at them to have a good shot at winning a fight. I'm not arguing that intercessors are too good, it's that other factions troops are too bad.

And yeah, gaks complicated.

I agree with the first half, but your conclusion is weird to me. Other troops are too bad is obviously a relative statement. If you make other troops better, marines obviously won’t be as elite.

IMHO the problem is that there are so few variables left in the game that to make them elite they need to award them massive amounts of raw power. They cannot be simply better coordinated, because that means very little in game right now.

Lethality can be too high, specially with those rerolls. I guess you got jumped by a 30-40 attacks with rerolled super hammer time unit (ignores most armor and toughness isn’t a defense), game over avatar of khaine.

Why did banshees and scorpions do better, as I recall, in my editions? Because they got good initiative and were skilled fighters. Now, they just don’t have the raw stats to compete.

Banshees didn't do better. You're looking through rose tinted glasses there. Scorpions had the deployment shenanigans at least, but weren't exactly making any waves.

Grey40k wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think you're over complicating it. The thread isn't about the win rates of marines overall, it's about how "elite" (nu)marines as combatants feel in comparison to other main-line infantry. This bit about the Leviathan is a sideshow.

Right. Which is the point I'm trying to make, possibly not clearly enough.

Intercessors should be stronger one on one with most other troops, but not point for point. Troops are supposed to be the backbone of an army. But right now sm have a much stronger backbone than most. Intercessors don't feel like a waste of points like csm, or cultists. Many factions need to throw elite, fast attack, or heavy support options at them to have a good shot at winning a fight. I'm not arguing that intercessors are too good, it's that other factions troops are too bad.

And yeah, gaks complicated.

I agree with the first half, but your conclusion is weird to me. Other troops are too bad is obviously a relative statement. If you make other troops better, marines obviously won’t be as elite.

IMHO the problem is that there are so few variables left in the game that to make them elite they need to award them massive amounts of raw power. They cannot be simply better coordinated, because that means very little in game right now.

Lethality can be too high, specially with those rerolls. I guess you got jumped by a 30-40 attacks with rerolled super hammer time unit (ignores most armor and toughness isn’t a defense), game over avatar of khaine.

Why did banshees and scorpions do better, as I recall, in my editions? Because they got good initiative and were skilled fighters. Now, they just don’t have the raw stats to compete.

They shouldn't be head and shoulders more "elite" than troops in other elite armies on a points for points basis. Csm get stomped by intercessors. Chosen can hold their own, but their an elite option. It doesn't make sense that an elite army has to use its best infantry to handle another elite armies supposedly basic troops.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Banshees didn't do better. You're looking through rose tinted glasses there. Scorpions had the deployment shenanigans at least, but weren't exactly making any waves.

4+ save, weapons that ignore armor and I6 was definitely better than a save that's reduced to a 5+, AP -3 weapons and a system that allows whoevers turn it is to fight first. Not to mention bonus attacks and extra wounds on the marines they're pitted against.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Banshees didn't do better. You're looking through rose tinted glasses there. Scorpions had the deployment shenanigans at least, but weren't exactly making any waves.

4+ save, weapons that ignore armor and I6 was definitely better than a save that's reduced to a 5+, AP -3 weapons and a system that allows whoevers turn it is to fight first. Not to mention bonus attacks and extra wounds on the marines they're pitted against.

That’s right! Current close combat looks like a game of fishing for that gotcha! moment.

I don’t think some races were ported with care to the new systems.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Banshees didn't do better. You're looking through rose tinted glasses there. Scorpions had the deployment shenanigans at least, but weren't exactly making any waves.

4+ save, weapons that ignore armor and I6 was definitely better than a save that's reduced to a 5+, AP -3 weapons and a system that allows whoevers turn it is to fight first. Not to mention bonus attacks and extra wounds on the marines they're pitted against.

Except the 4+ save is more valuable now, and AP-3 is basically just as effective as it was before. Really the only thing lost was the I6, which is really just attacking first which is what happens when you charge anyway. In reality, they didn't become much different themselves as a unit.

The real issue is how hard it is to get to combat now and the fact anyone and their mother can escape it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This has become one of the most cringe-worthy threads on this forum right now.

It's pretty clear what Scotsman is trying to illustrate with his examples at the start of this thread.

Does anyone actually believe that Marines and in particular Intercessors are balanced right now? If the answer is 'no' then why are people picking bizarre, minor faults with the OP and using extreme, outlier examples to prove it wrong?

I get this is dakka, the place where we argue for the sake of it sometimes, but I'm still amazed at how contentious this thread has become.

That marines are not balanced doesn't mean intercessors are OP. Intercessors were 17 points in CA 2018. Beta Bolters came a month later. Shock Assault was a few weeks before supplements. Is it 5 extra S4 AP0 attacks that really tipped the boat for people?

It is kind of just soap boxing without a real desire to address the root issue.

I think the maths in the OP shows exactly why Intercessors themselves are OP. Perhaps Marines and Intercessors are OP?!

They feature in 99% of Marine lists, is that some weird coincidence? Are they literally just taken to fill troops slots? If so why aren't cheaper scouts and tacticals taken?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Banshees didn't do better. You're looking through rose tinted glasses there. Scorpions had the deployment shenanigans at least, but weren't exactly making any waves.

4+ save, weapons that ignore armor and I6 was definitely better than a save that's reduced to a 5+, AP -3 weapons and a system that allows whoevers turn it is to fight first. Not to mention bonus attacks and extra wounds on the marines they're pitted against.

Except the 4+ save is more valuable now, and AP-3 is basically just as effective as it was before. Really the only thing lost was the I6, which is really just attacking first which is what happens when you charge anyway. In reality, they didn't become much different themselves as a unit.

The real issue is how hard it is to get to combat now and the fact anyone and their mother can escape it.

Wrong for our unit-vs.modeling here on all accounts except fall back, but ok. Which brings up the old fall back rules, and how Banshees would easily catch fleeing units because of their I6. No mention of the 2A, 2W of Intercessors though.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This has become one of the most cringe-worthy threads on this forum right now.

It's pretty clear what Scotsman is trying to illustrate with his examples at the start of this thread.

Does anyone actually believe that Marines and in particular Intercessors are balanced right now? If the answer is 'no' then why are people picking bizarre, minor faults with the OP and using extreme, outlier examples to prove it wrong?

I get this is dakka, the place where we argue for the sake of it sometimes, but I'm still amazed at how contentious this thread has become.

That marines are not balanced doesn't mean intercessors are OP. Intercessors were 17 points in CA 2018. Beta Bolters came a month later. Shock Assault was a few weeks before supplements. Is it 5 extra S4 AP0 attacks that really tipped the boat for people?

It is kind of just soap boxing without a real desire to address the root issue.

I think the maths in the OP shows exactly why Intercessors themselves are OP. Perhaps Marines and Intercessors are OP?!

They feature in 99% of Marine lists, is that some weird coincidence? Are they literally just taken to fill troops slots? If so why aren't cheaper scouts and tacticals taken?

Because they're the strongest option. Intercessors can compete with many elite options from other armies. Taking them is just as good for sm players as elite, fast attack, or heavy support options for other factions. So they fill troops slots while keeping points and other foc slots open, further expanding marine's already huge variety of choices. They're a "tax" unit that isn't really a tax. (Course I'm speaking to the choir here).

I suspect the OP was referring to Primaris as the defining ‘Marines’, rightly or wrongly.

Marines (generally) should feel elite, at least to Imperial players. Xenos players could care less if they were elite or not - they just make it seem as if humanity finally ‘stepped up to the plate’.

People being the beasts they are, there will always be a ‘disconnect’ between the fluff and table top performance. Problems arise when the game fails to balance these two. While it is easy to present a Marine as elite on a model for model basis, games are theoretically balanced by a points system. So the elite status is off set by numbers of enemy, and the Marines don’t feel elite, because they are overwhelmed. The Marine tactics of the surgical strike on an unprepared enemy is not able to be represented on the table top. Cue weeping, wailing etc.

Rather than buff Marines, I would look at using things like deployment options, off board artillery strikes and degrading the opposing command and control as ways of off setting an opponents numerical advantage.

Moriarty wrote:
I suspect the OP was referring to Primaris as the defining ‘Marines’, rightly or wrongly.

Marines (generally) should feel elite, at least to Imperial players. Xenos players could care less if they were elite or not - they just make it seem as if humanity finally ‘stepped up to the plate’.

People being the beasts they are, there will always be a ‘disconnect’ between the fluff and table top performance. Problems arise when the game fails to balance these two. While it is easy to present a Marine as elite on a model for model basis, games are theoretically balanced by a points system. So the elite status is off set by numbers of enemy, and the Marines don’t feel elite, because they are overwhelmed. The Marine tactics of the surgical strike on an unprepared enemy is not able to be represented on the table top. Cue weeping, wailing etc.

Rather than buff Marines, I would look at using things like deployment options, off board artillery strikes and degrading the opposing command and control as ways of off setting an opponents numerical advantage.

^That's why Drop Pod marines are the best marines .

But that Aura bubble stuff suuuux, even if it does make your army look like cover illustrations; a dwindling huddle of marines around a character or two and the occasional banner.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I think the maths in the OP shows exactly why Intercessors themselves are OP. Perhaps Marines and Intercessors are OP?!

They feature in 99% of Marine lists, is that some weird coincidence? Are they literally just taken to fill troops slots? If so why aren't cheaper scouts and tacticals taken?

Intercessors aren't taken in 99% of all SM lists though.



A recent top tier ITC list that uses the humble scout. I could also see Infiltrators being used if deep striking assault units are a meta-problem, though they can also make dropping onto an objective from reserves a nightmare as well.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I think the maths in the OP shows exactly why Intercessors themselves are OP. Perhaps Marines and Intercessors are OP?!

They feature in 99% of Marine lists, is that some weird coincidence? Are they literally just taken to fill troops slots? If so why aren't cheaper scouts and tacticals taken?

Intercessors aren't taken in 99% of all SM lists though.

Spoiler:

++ Battalion Detachment +5CP (Imperium - Dark Angels) [32 PL, 5CP, 553pts] ++

Chapter Selection: Dark Angels

Detachment CP [5CP]

+ HQ [20 PL, 388pts] +

Ravenwing Talonmaster [9 PL, 188pts]
. Land Speeder [61pts]: Twin assault cannon [44pts], Twin heavy bolter [17pts]
. Talonmaster [4pts]: Power sword [4pts]

Sammael in Sableclaw [11 PL, 200pts]

+ Troops [12 PL, 165pts] +

Scout Squad [4 PL, 55pts]
. 4x Scout (Boltgun) [44pts]
. Scout Sergeant [11pts]: Bolt pistol, Boltgun

Scout Squad [4 PL, 55pts]
. 4x Scout (Boltgun) [44pts]
. Scout Sergeant [11pts]: Bolt pistol, Boltgun

Scout Squad [4 PL, 55pts]
. 4x Scout (Boltgun) [44pts]
. Scout Sergeant [11pts]: Bolt pistol, Boltgun

++ Air Wing Detachment +1CP (Imperium - Dark Angels) [25 PL, 4CP, 517pts] ++

+ No Force Org Slot [4CP] +

Battle-forged CP [3CP]

Chapter Selection: Dark Angels

Detachment CP [1CP]

+ Flyer [25 PL, 517pts] +

Nephilim Jetfighter [9 PL, 147pts]: Twin heavy bolter [17pts], Twin lascannon [40pts]

Ravenwing Dark Talon [8 PL, 185pts]: 2x Hurricane bolter [20pts]

Ravenwing Dark Talon [8 PL, 185pts]: 2x Hurricane bolter [20pts]

++ Outrider Detachment +1CP (Imperium - Dark Angels) [67 PL, -1CP, 930pts] ++

+ No Force Org Slot [0
CP] +

Chapter Selection: Dark Angels



Detachment CP [1CP]

Specialist Detachment: Ravenwing Attack Squadron [-1CP]

+ HQ [9 PL, 188pts] +

Ravenwing Talonmaster [9 PL, 188pts]: Warlord
. Land Speeder [61pts]: Twin assault cannon [44pts], Twin heavy bolter [17pts]
. Talonmaster [4pts]: Power sword [4pts]

+ Elites [5 PL, 60pts] +

Ravenwing Apothecary [5 PL, 60pts]
. Black Knight Bike: Ravenwing grenade launcher

+ Fast Attack [53 PL, 682pts] +

Ravenwing Black Knights [23 PL, 272pts]: 7x Ravenwing Black Knight [238pts]
. Ravenwing Huntmaster [34pts]: Corvus Hammer
. . Black Knight Bike: Plasma Talon

Ravenwing Black Knights [23 PL, 272pts]: 7x Ravenwing Black Knight [238pts]
. Ravenwing Huntmaster [34pts]: Corvus Hammer
. . Black Knight Bike: Plasma Talon

Ravenwing Darkshroud [7 PL, 138pts]: Heavy bolter [10pts]

++ Total: [124 PL, 9CP, 2,000pts] ++

A recent top tier ITC list that uses the humble scout. I could also see Infiltrators being used if deep striking assault units are a meta-problem, though they can also make dropping onto an objective from reserves a nightmare as well.

Huh. I thought Intercessors were fairly common in the current meta lists, not representative of a tiny portion of them. Good to learn.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I mean, intecessors are basically 2W 30" Rubric Marines that are better in close combat. iirc Intercessors are also cheaper than Rubrics and can recieve more buffs than them

I think that kinda highlights how good they are

Bad example

Rubrics are cheaper than intercessors.

Also, they have an almost 4++ which is hard to pass these days.

Not to mention that they bring a deny and a power to the table.

(If you don't consider doctrines and count 1MW for the mini smite, rubrics actually outshoot intercessors Without assault doctrine intercessors are also outmeleed by rubrics)

Funnily enough, in the early to mid era of 8th, when marine threads were everywhere i made an observation.

Namely the following. All good troop units at the time, (IS, Kabalites, Firewarriors to an extent, cultists,etc) dropped in price in the transition either from 7th to 8th or from Index to Codex.
On average somewhere in the realm of 15-30%.

I also postulated at the time that troops which remained at their pricepoint like tacs or CSM, etc would be bad, further i estimated that the CSM tac would need to be 10-11 pts to compete with the Cultists.

Which is funnily what happened.
Now to connotate this with another observation, i am one of those mad enough to run a CSM horde. Comparatively to those former good Troop units they perform wonderfully. (not to mention bolter discipline and the melee buff nor Red Corsairs). Not overly oprressive not overly wastefull.

The real issue really starts to appear when we add in traits and supplements. So is a Red corsair list allready head above a normal CSm dex 2.0 ( 1.5 really) in it's use off CSM.
Normally though CSM add ons are regarded to be necessary but also only focus on 1-2 Key units and charachters to work. (Which is funnily enough what leads to the absurd situation of Stacking tactics that can be relatively easily counterplayed in most cases at the cost of regular inefectivness.)
Contrast those specific build buffs with the generalist buffs marines recived and you get a general idea.

The issue was CSM / Tac/ SM Troops in general, underperformed. GW fixed one side, (CSM, somewhat) and broke the other side of the equation completely (thanks supplements.)

Darsath wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I think the maths in the OP shows exactly why Intercessors themselves are OP. Perhaps Marines and Intercessors are OP?!

They feature in 99% of Marine lists, is that some weird coincidence? Are they literally just taken to fill troops slots? If so why aren't cheaper scouts and tacticals taken?

Intercessors aren't taken in 99% of all SM lists though.

Spoiler:

++ Battalion Detachment +5CP (Imperium - Dark Angels) [32 PL, 5CP, 553pts] ++

Chapter Selection: Dark Angels

Detachment CP [5CP]

+ HQ [20 PL, 388pts] +

Ravenwing Talonmaster [9 PL, 188pts]
. Land Speeder [61pts]: Twin assault cannon [44pts], Twin heavy bolter [17pts]
. Talonmaster [4pts]: Power sword [4pts]

Sammael in Sableclaw [11 PL, 200pts]

+ Troops [12 PL, 165pts] +

Scout Squad [4 PL, 55pts]
. 4x Scout (Boltgun) [44pts]
. Scout Sergeant [11pts]: Bolt pistol, Boltgun

Scout Squad [4 PL, 55pts]
. 4x Scout (Boltgun) [44pts]
. Scout Sergeant [11pts]: Bolt pistol, Boltgun

Scout Squad [4 PL, 55pts]
. 4x Scout (Boltgun) [44pts]
. Scout Sergeant [11pts]: Bolt pistol, Boltgun

++ Air Wing Detachment +1CP (Imperium - Dark Angels) [25 PL, 4CP, 517pts] ++

+ No Force Org Slot [4CP] +

Battle-forged CP [3CP]

Chapter Selection: Dark Angels

Detachment CP [1CP]

+ Flyer [25 PL, 517pts] +

Nephilim Jetfighter [9 PL, 147pts]: Twin heavy bolter [17pts], Twin lascannon [40pts]

Ravenwing Dark Talon [8 PL, 185pts]: 2x Hurricane bolter [20pts]

Ravenwing Dark Talon [8 PL, 185pts]: 2x Hurricane bolter [20pts]

++ Outrider Detachment +1CP (Imperium - Dark Angels) [67 PL, -1CP, 930pts] ++

+ No Force Org Slot [0
CP] +

Chapter Selection: Dark Angels



Detachment CP [1CP]

Specialist Detachment: Ravenwing Attack Squadron [-1CP]

+ HQ [9 PL, 188pts] +

Ravenwing Talonmaster [9 PL, 188pts]: Warlord
. Land Speeder [61pts]: Twin assault cannon [44pts], Twin heavy bolter [17pts]
. Talonmaster [4pts]: Power sword [4pts]

+ Elites [5 PL, 60pts] +

Ravenwing Apothecary [5 PL, 60pts]
. Black Knight Bike: Ravenwing grenade launcher

+ Fast Attack [53 PL, 682pts] +

Ravenwing Black Knights [23 PL, 272pts]: 7x Ravenwing Black Knight [238pts]
. Ravenwing Huntmaster [34pts]: Corvus Hammer
. . Black Knight Bike: Plasma Talon

Ravenwing Black Knights [23 PL, 272pts]: 7x Ravenwing Black Knight [238pts]
. Ravenwing Huntmaster [34pts]: Corvus Hammer
. . Black Knight Bike: Plasma Talon

Ravenwing Darkshroud [7 PL, 138pts]: Heavy bolter [10pts]

++ Total: [124 PL, 9CP, 2,000pts] ++

A recent top tier ITC list that uses the humble scout. I could also see Infiltrators being used if deep striking assault units are a meta-problem, though they can also make dropping onto an objective from reserves a nightmare as well.

Huh. I thought Intercessors were fairly common in the current meta lists, not representative of a tiny portion of them. Good to learn.

Don't know we're that data's coming from. But ALL the marine lists that made it to the LVO top 8 had intercessors. The winning list had six squads of them.

Intercessors will always be there.

You need 6 troops. More than one or 2 scouts are literally tax without any functions. Tac marines are bad. Infliltrators can be nice, but still in limited numbers due to the high cost.

No matter what you do, you WILL have intercessors, and that's even before considering that they are actually a really good troop.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Banshees didn't do better. You're looking through rose tinted glasses there. Scorpions had the deployment shenanigans at least, but weren't exactly making any waves.

4+ save, weapons that ignore armor and I6 was definitely better than a save that's reduced to a 5+, AP -3 weapons and a system that allows whoevers turn it is to fight first. Not to mention bonus attacks and extra wounds on the marines they're pitted against.

Except the 4+ save is more valuable now, and AP-3 is basically just as effective as it was before. Really the only thing lost was the I6, which is really just attacking first which is what happens when you charge anyway. In reality, they didn't become much different themselves as a unit.

The real issue is how hard it is to get to combat now and the fact anyone and their mother can escape it.

Wrong for our unit-vs.modeling here on all accounts except fall back, but ok. Which brings up the old fall back rules, and how Banshees would easily catch fleeing units because of their I6. No mention of the 2A, 2W of Intercessors though.

Again, I agree.

Right now the game has lost game mechanics in favor of rerolls and more dice. Initiative and defens made melee combat more nuanced, and allowed for units to differentiate themselves across more dimensions. Right now, some of the old more specialized melees have lost their advantages (initiative, highgly skilled defense) without enough return in special rules and rerolls. This means that they lose to intercessors because intercessors were buffed in raw power. That aside, how freaking absurd it is that melee has become a matter of getting the charge to win. Charges should be a bit of an advantage, but not the end of it all!

The other issue is how shooty some armies are, such as marines (and specially IH, of course). From the bolter rapid fire era to assault 3. Bolter rapid fire favored close quarters fights with a combination of melee and shooting. Assault 3 just favors sitting in the edge of the map and falling back out of melee. It does not reward more nuanced gameplay.

Some armies are stuck in tactics of that era without much support to bring them to current time relevance. For example, guard FRFSRF was good in an era when getting closer maximized shooting output. However, if you face against someone who is happy to shoot you from far away it is wasted potential.

Marines are currently better because their old line is not updated to modern mechanics. Rather, they have new miniatures conceived in this new era (and with modern rules in mind) which make up an increasingly large fraction of the marine range. Since old miniatures (eldar melee, I looked at it and felt so sad) are simply being ported (and not well), they are falling behind in power.

Grey40k wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Banshees didn't do better. You're looking through rose tinted glasses there. Scorpions had the deployment shenanigans at least, but weren't exactly making any waves.

4+ save, weapons that ignore armor and I6 was definitely better than a save that's reduced to a 5+, AP -3 weapons and a system that allows whoevers turn it is to fight first. Not to mention bonus attacks and extra wounds on the marines they're pitted against.

Except the 4+ save is more valuable now, and AP-3 is basically just as effective as it was before. Really the only thing lost was the I6, which is really just attacking first which is what happens when you charge anyway. In reality, they didn't become much different themselves as a unit.

The real issue is how hard it is to get to combat now and the fact anyone and their mother can escape it.

Wrong for our unit-vs.modeling here on all accounts except fall back, but ok. Which brings up the old fall back rules, and how Banshees would easily catch fleeing units because of their I6. No mention of the 2A, 2W of Intercessors though.

Again, I agree.

Right now the game has lost game mechanics in favor of rerolls and more dice. Initiative and defens made melee combat more nuanced, and allowed for units to differentiate themselves across more dimensions. Right now, some of the old more specialized melees have lost their advantages (initiative, highgly skilled defense) without enough return in special rules and rerolls. This means that they lose to intercessors because intercessors were buffed in raw power. That aside, how freaking absurd it is that melee has become a matter of getting the charge to win. Charges should be a bit of an advantage, but not the end of it all!

The other issue is how shooty some armies are, such as marines (and specially IH, of course). From the bolter rapid fire era to assault 3. Bolter rapid fire favored close quarters fights with a combination of melee and shooting. Assault 3 just favors sitting in the edge of the map and falling back out of melee. It does not reward more nuanced gameplay.

Some armies are stuck in tactics of that era without much support to bring them to current time relevance. For example, guard FRFSRF was good in an era when getting closer maximized shooting output. However, if you face against someone who is happy to shoot you from far away it is wasted potential.

Marines are currently better because their old line is not updated to modern mechanics. Rather, they have new miniatures conceived in this new era (and with modern rules in mind) which make up an increasingly large fraction of the marine range. Since old miniatures (eldar melee, I looked at it and felt so sad) are simply being ported (and not well), they are falling behind in power.

I hope im not misunderstanding you but the actual mini has very little impact on power level. Any mini can be given rules to make them competitive. GW does not choose to do this. For whatever reason (insert theory here).

Table wrote:
I hope im not misunderstanding you but the actual mini has very little impact on power level. Any mini can be given rules to make them competitive. GW does not choose to do this. For whatever reason (insert theory here).

Of course, but it is more likely that a new sculpt is given rules in accordance to current power level and design philosophy. Old sculpts already had rules and often they just tweak them a bit between editions.

For example, terminators. Are terminators equivalent in current power to what they were when they were first released? I'd argue that that role is filled by centurions more than by terminators. Terminators didn't get much new stuff, just updates to their gear. Centurions were designed to be tougher for their era, based on what was available in the battlefield.

The result is that, GK paladins aside, I have yet to see a competitive list that fields terminators. But I do see Centurions being used by ome lists (e.g. RG).

 flandarz wrote:
It's certainly better internal balance than any other Codex has.

Necron internal balance is great, the Monolith and Obelisk are really bad and a few units are a little bad, but overall pretty good with few units that are massively better than the alternatives. I don't think a competitive meta will ever not boil down to 1-3 lists or tactics per faction. Starcraft 1 is said to have been amazingly balanced, but did it have a hundred different build-paths? If any Starcraft Veterans are here I'd like to know.

Grey40k wrote:
Why did banshees and scorpions do better, as I recall, in my editions? Because they got good initiative and were skilled fighters. Now, they just don’t have the raw stats to compete.

Banshees are better now than they were previously because the Fight phase has mechanics that makes melee worthwhile. If you're thinking as far back as AP2 power weapons then Banshees might have been an important asset against certain units. If you have enough Movement value to get the charge Initiative is irrelevant, if you're stopping a couple inches short after a failed charge your initiative is irrelevant as you die to shooting. I'm happy it's gone, maybe that's because my melee units don't get clubbed before they do something if I'm pressing the attack. Banshees lack good stratagems like +1 to wound and fight twice, relying instead on psychic powers more effectively used in combination with ranged attacks. One thing to remember is that a couple of dead Banshees could lead to a useless unit of Banshees next turn.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Banshees didn't do better. You're looking through rose tinted glasses there. Scorpions had the deployment shenanigans at least, but weren't exactly making any waves.

4+ save, weapons that ignore armor and I6 was definitely better than a save that's reduced to a 5+, AP -3 weapons and a system that allows whoevers turn it is to fight first. Not to mention bonus attacks and extra wounds on the marines they're pitted against.

Forgetting the +2 M, Banshees still have a 4+ Sv, if you were to port Primaris back to 7th they'd be AP 4 so the 5+ (or 6+ if your opponent is in the right Doctrine) is better than what you would have had. Necron Gauss Immortals were pretty much the exact same as Intercessors are today, 4+ FNP translates to 2W and 24" S5 RF vs 30" SE4 RF, their only lacks were bolter discipline and +1 atk in the first round of combat. Maybe you just weren't playing against competitive lists with your Howling Banshees, not that I fault you that would be horrible. The old morale rules were horrible, you might think the new tri-point rules and tagging is bad, but pulling off more than a dozen Warriors after less than half a dozen died was stupid.

Spoletta wrote:
Intercessors will always be there.

You need 6 troops. More than one or 2 scouts are literally tax without any functions. Tac marines are bad. Infliltrators can be nice, but still in limited numbers due to the high cost.

No matter what you do, you WILL have intercessors, and that's even before considering that they are actually a really good troop.

If they weren't pts effective (CP included) they wouldn't get brought and people would bring a Battalion of Scouts or no Troops at all, we've seen that work for some competitive armies. You're not bringing 6 copies of a unit just because, it's doing something for your list. I've played a couple of games with 6x5 Intercessors and they haven't really been amazing. I have been playing against more or less perfect counter lists and victory was only denied me based on games going to turn 7 in the two last games I used them in so maybe I would have seen how truly amazing they are under different circumstances or if my list was tailored differently. I didn't really find Flesh Tearers to be any stronger or weaker than Necrons and I beat BA with my Necrons just a couple of games ago and have been beating Marines the majority of the games I've played against them since their rework (although I took a short hiatus before the first IH nerf).

Comparing Intercessors to 1W models is a little hard because 2 W does not equal twice as durable as 1W except against 1D weapons. Increasing the cost of the best Intercessor weapon for each Chapter by 1 would be a good idea I think. If you want to run heavy BA Intercessors or Assault IH Intercessors I think you're punishing yourself enough already, no need to further increase the pts cost.

 vict0988 wrote:

Banshees are better now than they were previously because the Fight phase has mechanics that makes melee worthwhile. If you're thinking as far back as AP2 power weapons then Banshees might have been an important asset against certain units.

I am refering to 2nd and 3rd edition. If we were to compute the melee point efficiency of banshees in those editions against marines and now (say intercessors) I am sure you would find a big difference.

have been beating Marines the majority of the games I've played against them since their rework (although I took a short hiatus before the first IH nerf).

I am sorry, but what we as individuals accomplish in some specific tables is irrelevant. IH win rates are there for everyone to check and l2p is not a valid answer. Those win rates indicate that the rules are not good; in fact they are really bad. Besides win rates, marines are super prevalent and IH do extremely well (almost never finish last positions of tourney). So thisis not just a few players getting a lot of victories.

My hearth really sunk when i saw 2 units of intercessors slaughtered two of Sean Naydes`s Spears units.
It`s not normal that shooting units just destroy everything in close combat just because they get extra attacks for free, they should rly get the extra attack when they charge.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This has become one of the most cringe-worthy threads on this forum right now.

It's pretty clear what Scotsman is trying to illustrate with his examples at the start of this thread.

Does anyone actually believe that Marines and in particular Intercessors are balanced right now? If the answer is 'no' then why are people picking bizarre, minor faults with the OP and using extreme, outlier examples to prove it wrong?

I get this is dakka, the place where we argue for the sake of it sometimes, but I'm still amazed at how contentious this thread has become.

That marines are not balanced doesn't mean intercessors are OP. Intercessors were 17 points in CA 2018. Beta Bolters came a month later. Shock Assault was a few weeks before supplements. Is it 5 extra S4 AP0 attacks that really tipped the boat for people?

It is kind of just soap boxing without a real desire to address the root issue.

I think the maths in the OP shows exactly why Intercessors themselves are OP.

Why? You've got three units that are the melee backbone of their respective (sub-)factions that handily beat the Intercessions, two melee units that haven't been viable for (at least) four editions that don't, one melee unit that straight up loses (Harlequins) and one that still wins if they can make it in enough numbers (Genestealers). Is this some Orkoid maths that the rest of us aren't green enough to understand?

EDIT: By all means, buff Striking Scorpions and (especially!) Howling Banshee so that they actually work. Expand Harlequins so they have actual options. Give Nids something to give them a better chance. While we're at it, do the same to Assault Marines, Kroot, Bloodcrushers, Nobz, and a bunch of other melee units that have been sub-par the entire edition.

One (Elite) unit that does seem to fair pretty well against Intercessors (on a purely theorycrafting basis) are Bullgryn with Brute shields. Since they cost 42 Points each I would compare 4 of them (164 Points) against 10 Intercessors (170) split in two units with chainswords on their sergants (cause why not). I factor in Bolter Discipline and Shock assault but not Doctrines etc.

Assuming they jump out of a chimera and make the charge (which was more or less the assumption of the initial examples):
The Bullgryns take 20 x 1/6 x 1/3 x 1/3 = 0.37 damage from Overwatch (which is negligble)
IG Turn: Bullgryns kill 17 x 2/3 x 2/3 x 1/2 = 3.77 of the intercessors
The remaining 7 intercessors hit back with 25 x 2/3 x 1/3 x 1/6 = 0.93 wounds (so together with Overwatch cause the first wound to the big Boys

SM Turn: the Intercessors shoot their pistols 7 x 2/3 x 1/3 x 1/6 = 0.26 (again neglible)
The do another 18 x 2/3 x 1/3 x 1/6 = 0.66 wounds in their fight phase, still not killing their first Bullgryn
The Bullgryns hit back: 13 x 2/3 x 2/3 x 1/2= 2.89 wounds, finishing of the first squad and killing the first guy from the second

IG Turn: The Bullgryns hit again for another 2.89 wounds, leaving only the last sergant standing.
between pistol Shooting and his CC attacks, the Sergant causes 0.19 wounds and is killed in the next round


=> I'm not 100% sure if I did it completely correct, for example I'm not sure if the Intercessors still profit from shock assault in their turn, but it does not really Change much on the outcome. It also does not make much difference, if the Intercessors charge first.


What is my take from that? Purely looking at the CC abbility of troops/elites, while the Intercessors have really a s***load of attacks for a shooty troop choice the use of those attacks fades extremely against durable Units (like T5, sv2+ Bullgryns).
BUT: I'm still of the opinion that the CC troop choices mentioned in the initial post should perform much better against a shooty troop choice.

Pyroalchi wrote:
One (Elite) unit that does seem to fair pretty well against Intercessors (on a purely theorycrafting basis) are Bullgryn with Brute shields. Since they cost 42 Points each I would compare 4 of them (164 Points) against 10 Intercessors (170) split in two units with chainswords on their sergants (cause why not). I factor in Bolter Discipline and Shock assault but not Doctrines etc.

Assuming they jump out of a chimera and make the charge (which was more or less the assumption of the initial examples):
The Bullgryns take 20 x 1/6 x 1/3 x 1/3 = 0.37 damage from Overwatch (which is negligble)
IG Turn: Bullgryns kill 17 x 2/3 x 2/3 x 1/2 = 3.77 of the intercessors
The remaining 7 intercessors hit back with 25 x 2/3 x 1/3 x 1/6 = 0.93 wounds (so together with Overwatch cause the first wound to the big Boys

SM Turn: the Intercessors shoot their pistols 7 x 2/3 x 1/3 x 1/6 = 0.26 (again neglible)
The do another 18 x 2/3 x 1/3 x 1/6 = 0.66 wounds in their fight phase, still not killing their first Bullgryn
The Bullgryns hit back: 13 x 2/3 x 2/3 x 1/2= 2.89 wounds, finishing of the first squad and killing the first guy from the second

IG Turn: The Bullgryns hit again for another 2.89 wounds, leaving only the last sergant standing.
between pistol Shooting and his CC attacks, the Sergant causes 0.19 wounds and is killed in the next round


=> I'm not 100% sure if I did it completely correct, for example I'm not sure if the Intercessors still profit from shock assault in their turn, but it does not really Change much on the outcome. It also does not make much difference, if the Intercessors charge first.


What is my take from that? Purely looking at the CC abbility of troops/elites, while the Intercessors have really a s***load of attacks for a shooty troop choice the use of those attacks fades extremely against durable Units (like T5, sv2+ Bullgryns).
BUT: I'm still of the opinion that the CC troop choices mentioned in the initial post should perform much better against a shooty troop choice.

.
To much fantasy, SM could kill the chimera and 2-3 Bullgryns die during disembark. You usually don`t want such expensive units in transport that can be blasted.

Yeah, they do worse the closer you get to a marine statline.

Isn't the chance to die from disembarking only 1/6? So for 4 Bullgryns it would be more 0-1 dying and not 2-3

Space Marines just got nerfs by the way. FYI

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/785881.page

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Space Marines just got nerfs by the way. FYI

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/785881.page

Only read the Doctrine change as it applies to my marine army. That was basically what I would have purposed. I don't know about the other changes.

Seems fair for a first tuning pass. Not being able to sit in Devastator Doctrine all game really does change a lot.

It looks like you can never go back to it either. So armies that were tuned to use the devastator doctrin and not tactical or assault lost a lot, because you can very well sit in tactical for multiple turns.

It is going to be interesting to see how this impacts the units people take, and what chapters are going to be run.

I feel sad for those people that emptied GW store houses out of old and costly centurion models, only to have them return to how their were pre new sm codex.

Grey40k wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
I have been beating Marines the majority of the games I've played against them since their rework (although I took a short hiatus before the first IH nerf).

I am sorry, but what we as individuals accomplish in some specific tables is irrelevant. IH win rates are there for everyone to check and l2p is not a valid answer. Those win rates indicate that the rules are not good; in fact they are really bad. Besides win rates, marines are super prevalent and IH do extremely well (almost never finish last positions of tourney). So thisis not just a few players getting a lot of victories.

How is it irrelevant that I have more success against nu-Marines than with them? The ITC win-rates? Has somebody started compiling proper stats for CA events yet and seperated out the paint and sportsmanship scores? I didn't say gitgud and I didn't say IH are fair, in fact I took a break from 40k for a couple of weeks because IH was so unfair at launch. I also suggested a small nerf to Intercessors, was the suggestion outrageously small? Are Intercessors still boogiemen at +1 pt? How much do you feel they should cost? Should the cost of doctrines and super doctrines never be taken into account? For BA it seems to for some people that the super doctrine isn't worth the cost. What exactly is it that you think the stats say and what do you think would fix the issues the stats highlight?

Edit: the update is right up my alley. Assault SM lost nothing which is interesting. The designers commentary made me laugh out loud, where were the playtesters?

 vict0988 wrote:
What exactly is it that you think the stats say and what do you think would fix the issues the stats highlight?

Bring back the old initiative, and the old weapon skill checks for melee.
Tone down charge mechanics.
Remove 1 attack from intercessors.
Remove 1 D and 1 AP from the stalker rifle.
Bring back rapid fire instead of assault for small arms (e.g. for the autobolt rifle).
Worsen the save from shield dome to 5++ or 6++ for impulsors.
Tone down the thunderfire cannon slow.

And that's just a start

you realise marines just got a nerfbat to the head right?

And an actual decent one imo.

Grey40k wrote:
Remove 1 D and 1 AP from the stalker rifle.

Makes it pretty irrelevant then, really? One shot less than the regular bolt rifle, less mobility, but slight better range? No thank you.
I'm fine with removing the extra Damage or AP, but not both.

Bring back rapid fire instead of assault for small arms (e.g. for the autobolt rifle).

You'd want the auto at Rapid Fire 3? Yikes. Even Rapid Fire 2 would feel like a lot. And it certainly shouldn't be Rapid Fire 1, because then the regular BR is superior in every way.

Grey40k wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
What exactly is it that you think the stats say and what do you think would fix the issues the stats highlight?

Bring back the old initiative, and the old weapon skill checks for melee.
Tone down charge mechanics.
Remove 1 attack from intercessors.
Remove 1 D and 1 AP from the stalker rifle.
Bring back rapid fire instead of assault for small arms (e.g. for the autobolt rifle).
Worsen the save from shield dome to 5++ or 6++ for impulsors.
Tone down the thunderfire cannon slow.

And that's just a start

This reeks of someone that's butthurt that they lost to Intercessors like holy cow

Not Online!!! wrote:
you realise marines just got a nerfbat to the head right?

And an actual decent one imo.

Hit them hard, in all the right places, IMO. The main offending things (camping in Devastator Doctrine, Infiltrating Centurions, etc) have been mitigated now, and Ultramarines feel more like Ultramarines, being more tactical versatile (although, I still think their Doctrine ability is a bit too strong).

Not Online!!! wrote:
you realise marines just got a nerfbat to the head right?

And an actual decent one imo.

That and Tau got some major buffs in their PA. Tau already had a better game against the new marines than some and with the nerfs to marines plus Tau buffs they probably are back to having the advantage in that match up.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Grey40k wrote:
Remove 1 D and 1 AP from the stalker rifle.

Makes it pretty irrelevant then, really? One shot less than the regular bolt rifle, less mobility, but slight better range? No thank you.
I'm fine with removing the extra Damage or AP, but not both.

Bring back rapid fire instead of assault for small arms (e.g. for the autobolt rifle).

You'd want the auto at Rapid Fire 3? Yikes. Even Rapid Fire 2 would feel like a lot. And it certainly shouldn't be Rapid Fire 1, because then the regular BR is superior in every way.

I don't think intercessors needed a whole new bolter class, to be honest. I'd remove the cost but make them only slightly better than the good old marine bolter, the specifics could be discussed (it is not like I am designing this myself).

Grey40k wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
What exactly is it that you think the stats say and what do you think would fix the issues the stats highlight?

Bring back the old initiative, and the old weapon skill checks for melee.
Tone down charge mechanics.
Remove 1 attack from intercessors.
Remove 1 D and 1 AP from the stalker rifle.
Bring back rapid fire instead of assault for small arms (e.g. for the autobolt rifle).
Worsen the save from shield dome to 5++ or 6++ for impulsors.
Tone down the thunderfire cannon slow.

And that's just a start

The old WS was a waste of text and boxes, the new is much improved. I think it'd be really cool if all Craftworld and Harlequin melee units were -1 to hit in melee. Initiative was a useless stat most of the time, Movement is much more important.
Charge mechanics?
And give them +1 S? I could agree to removing angels of death from them so they just get the +1 attack all the time while firstborn get it in first round of combat. They're bigger I think it makes sense they hit harder somehow.
Way too much of a nerf for the stalker, it'd be complete trash. You do know that it's heavy 1 and has to compete with a weapon that fires 2 shots at 30" right? Devastator Doctrine also just got nerfed and they're probably going to be pretty bad without additional nerfs.
Why can't Space Marines have weapons they can use after advancing?
Why not just increase the price?
TFC slow is unfair, especially since it can be double-dipped with shoot twice.

You made that pretty clear you didn't think out any of those ideas, you're right.

Marines just got a lot less elite :-P

Grey40k wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Grey40k wrote:
Remove 1 D and 1 AP from the stalker rifle.

Makes it pretty irrelevant then, really? One shot less than the regular bolt rifle, less mobility, but slight better range? No thank you.
I'm fine with removing the extra Damage or AP, but not both.

Bring back rapid fire instead of assault for small arms (e.g. for the autobolt rifle).

You'd want the auto at Rapid Fire 3? Yikes. Even Rapid Fire 2 would feel like a lot. And it certainly shouldn't be Rapid Fire 1, because then the regular BR is superior in every way.

I don't think intercessors needed a whole new bolter class, to be honest. I'd remove the cost but make them only slightly better than the good old marine bolter, the specifics could be discussed (it is not like I am designing this myself).

Regardless, the different classes *do* exist, and your proposals wouldn't really have a positive impact on how they function.

 vict0988 wrote:

The old WS was a waste of text and boxes, the new is much improved. I think it'd be really cool if all Craftworld and Harlequin melee units were -1 to hit in melee. Initiative was a useless stat most of the time, Movement is much more important.

When you say old, I do not think you mean the same as me. You have to understand that I just caught up to 8th with my old armies. I do not know how recent previous editions worked.

Way too much of a nerf for the stalker, it'd be complete trash. You do know that it's heavy 1 and has to compete with a weapon that fires 2 shots at 30" right?

What I meant, genarally speaking, was to distinguish the bolters between rapid fire (without AP) and precision fire (with AP). Anything equal or only slightly better to bolters with those profiles would be sufficient, IMHO.

Why can't Space Marines have weapons they can use after advancing?

That used to be a terminator thing, in terms of the theme. Assault to basic troops is too much, IMHO.

Why not just increase the price?
TFC slow is unfair, especially since it can be double-dipped with shoot twice.

I honestly don't care too much if it is cost or else, but quite clearly some primaris stuff is too cost effective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Regardless, the different classes *do* exist, and your proposals wouldn't really have a positive impact on how they function.

See my answer above. Besides the fact that we are not here to design the game, I meant it as how generally I would handle nerfing some of the primaris stuff. Keep the them, tone down the stats. The specific values are more complex to choose.

 Ishagu wrote:
Marines just got a lot less elite :-P

We'll see. I'm very skeptical.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Marines just got a lot less elite :-P

We'll see. I'm very skeptical.

Remember when you were sceptical about the Castellan being weak after the nerfs it got? I remember you saying that it was still the most powerful unit and a week later is vanished from any and all tables. I still run one for a laugh from time to time as I love the model.

This isn't quite as drastic, but it will have a tangible impact.

 Ishagu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Marines just got a lot less elite :-P

We'll see. I'm very skeptical.

Remember when you were sceptical about the Castellan being weak after the nerfs it got? I remember you saying that it was still the most powerful unit and a week later is vanished from any and all tables. I still run one for a laugh from time to time as I love the model.

This isn't quite as drastic, but it will have a tangible impact.

I underestimated what a knifes edge those lists were on. Also, that nerf involved pts changes if i recall. This definitely dings marines, but seems hollow without points hikes.

I can now destroy a Leviathan in one round of shooting, no problem.

You don't think that's a big deal?

Iron Hands and Raven Guard have lost some of their strongest tools.

Is it? I hate that model and think about it as little as possible. I usually go for the surround on them and shoot units that are actually mortal.

They missed IF LUL

 Ishagu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Marines just got a lot less elite :-P

We'll see. I'm very skeptical.

Remember when you were sceptical about the Castellan being weak after the nerfs it got? I remember you saying that it was still the most powerful unit and a week later is vanished from any and all tables. I still run one for a laugh from time to time as I love the model.

This isn't quite as drastic, but it will have a tangible impact.

Weren't you the one that was going around the forums saying that it was only Iron Hands that were the problem? If Space Marines continue doing well (mainly non-IH), it would make that look rather foolish. I wouldn't go around trying to start beef with people the way you are doing when you are as equally guilty yourself.

Iron Hands were the biggest problem. I never said they were the only problem. Let's see how it pans out now, anyways.

I actually think they are still very strong. They have the Methodical Firepower Strat, and can get infantry with a 5+++

IF and IH were crippling me in 2 turns anyway.

They got only 1 turn to do it now.

How so? Tactical doctrine rips my units to pieces too.