So with the drop of ritual of the damned I've decided to go back to my dark angels. I was wondering other than the bolt rifle and 2 wounds per model why the intercessors are a better choice. It just seems like the 170 points it costs to buy a single squad of ini's could be better put toward a multi function tac squad with points left over for something else.
More potential, but less durable. You'll have to play games and weight it out for yourself, because I don't think there is a universal truth despite what others might say. The factors also depend on your Chapter.
I don't usually see 10-man Intercessor blocks; they're better taken as 5 that can run about and hold objectives while taking more effort to get rid of than a 5-man cheap Tactical squad.
I run both in my Salamanders lists. Tacs are for hauling ass up the board while Intercessors are to control the mid.
A 10 marine Squad w special & heavy vs. a 10 Intercessor squad is a study in compromising.
Firstborn have the versatility, "cheap" transports & many options.
Primaris have double wounds & attacks but lack in the squad level support(which Hellblasters fill but are expensive as feth & take up a heavy slot).
Most of the time my Primaris are targeted first, leaving my Tacs "free" to do what I want them to do. Not sure how well they interact in a DA list, but for me I will continue to use both for the foreseeable future.
Intercessors can also eat a lot of firepower with the Transhuman Physiology Stratagem, and the threat of a 10-strong unit with Rapid Fire strat is usually a threat that'll draw a lot of shots to them.
Making the enemy's overcharged plasma, and anything else they throw at the Intercessors only wound on a 4+ or worse is a handy tool.
First off, a lot of the time Stalker or Auto bolt Rifles are better than the basic ones now. So compare to those.
A 5 man Intercessor squad has double the wounds of a Tac squad.
Their guns do a lot more. Auto bolt rifles fire 3 shots to 24", and are Assault to boot meaning they can run and gun. Tacs only get 2 shots to that range if stationary, 1 if they move, none if they run. That's a huge difference. Stalkers are -2 ap and 2 damage up to 36". That is a lot better than Tacs against other marines.
Basically you get a LOT for the extra points, and it's well worth it.
Racerguy180 wrote: I run both in my Salamanders lists. Tacs are for hauling ass up the board while Intercessors are to control the mid.
A 10 marine Squad w special & heavy vs. a 10 Intercessor squad is a study in compromising.
Firstborn have the versatility, "cheap" transports & many options.
Primaris have double wounds & attacks but lack in the squad level support(which Hellblasters fill but are expensive as feth & take up a heavy slot).
Most of the time my Primaris are targeted first, leaving my Tacs "free" to do what I want them to do. Not sure how well they interact in a DA list, but for me I will continue to use both for the foreseeable future.
Interestingly, Tacticals fare better against harder/more elite targets, while Intercessors are better against lighter ones. One Lascannon against a vehicle is worth 10 Bolt Rifle rounds. Double Plasma Tacs fare better against elite infantry than Bolt Rifles, etc.
Intercessors are phenomenal for Dark Angels.
Squads of 5 with the heavy rifle firing 5 S4 ap-3 d2 shoots rerolling ones natively at 42" in devastator doctrine, camping objetives or the backline? You can't ask for a better troop. if they can be in cover too, they are a giant annoyance for any kind of opponent.
Another point to consider is apparent durability vs actual durability. Primaris seem more durable then marines because of that extra wound, but for the most part (at least where I play) the weapons that kill marines have at least 2D meaning that they won't differentiate between Firstborn or Primaris. I'm generally not too concerned with small arms that do 1D either. The part were Primaris really do pull ahead in durability, is against mortal wounds. So if you facing a list that just pumps out mortal wounds like grey knights, the primaris especially with a litany of faith chaplain would probably be the better pick in terms of durability
That's true, theres a lot of D2 weaponry. But you arent paying anywhere near double for the extra wound. And there's also armies that spam a fair bit of D1 weaponry too. So its still a pretty good deal.
Running Ultramarines means both can see certain uses. A max Intercessor Squad will have potentially 36" threat range with 40 shots of S4 AP-2, it is a deadly threat to most infantry and light to mid vehicles (i.e. toughness less than 8 ans Sv3+). Meanwhile, Tac Squad can be cheap troops with 5men, 1 heavy weapon and stormbolter on Sgt, cost range from 72pts to 84pts, which is nice as well.
I'm not sure I buy the argument for Tacs being useful due to cheapness. They're not cheaper enough to outweigh the huge advantages Intercessors have in most scenarios. But even that aside, Scouts exist in the Troops slot too. Infiltrating is extremely useful.
Between Scouts and Intercessor, I really struggle to find a sliver of a niche for Tacs.
When you add a weapon to a tact squad you lose their advantage which is price. 5 intercessors are better all around than 5 tacts with a lascannon and if up against vehicles the intercessors arent that far off unless the extra 12" of range is needed.
Intercessors are good for the wounds. But tacs can specialize depending on what weapon/combiweapon combo you give them. How good tacs are depends on how good you are at making use of your specialized squads. But you rarely go wrong with just taking Intercessors instead, unless you want to be mechanized.
The problem with Tacs is that maybe they can specialize compared with intercessors but if you want something done you won't invest in your Tac squads but in other kind of units.
Troops are there to take objetives and cover ground. Intercessors and Scouts are better at both of those than Tac Squads. Thats why tac squads have no place.
Melissia wrote: Intercessors are good for the wounds. But tacs can specialize depending on what weapon/combiweapon combo you give them. How good tacs are depends on how good you are at making use of your specialized squads. But you rarely go wrong with just taking Intercessors instead, unless you want to be mechanized.
With the effective range though, Intercessors don't NEED to be mechanized. That's a key difference right there. Any transport for them is just an afterthought.
Galas wrote: Intercessors are phenomenal for Dark Angels.
Squads of 5 with the heavy rifle firing 5 S4 ap-3 d2 shoots rerolling ones natively at 42" in devastator doctrine, camping objetives or the backline? You can't ask for a better troop. if they can be in cover too, they are a giant annoyance for any kind of opponent.
I just played my Dark Angels against my buddies Blood Angels, I had 2 5-man Intercessor squads camped on the back line in cover with Stalker Bolt Rifles within the aura of a Primarus Lieutenant. They were awesome. Turn 1, I made 2 5-man squads of Blood Angels just disappear. He brought in Death Company, I played Auspex Scan, and 5 Death Company marines just died.
Dark Angels in the Devastator Doctrine are like the Tau now, I outrange everything, my Invictor Warsuit has an 18" Heavy Flamer that is strength 5, AP -2 (he burned the remaining Death Company off the board).
And the Talon Master just deletes a unit every turn
Stux wrote: Specialised Tac squads arent specialised enough to matter the majority of the time.
I find that this notion that a unit is worthless unless you create a tremendous disruption is a short-sighted conclusion.
A SB, PGtac unit is cheaper than Intercessors, offers the same bolter shot volume plus a PG, and is 12 points cheaper.
5 such tacs that move and shoot intercessors cause 1.5 wounds (26 points). 5 intercessors who stand still and double tap cause 1.7 wounds (20 points) to tacs -- this is the highest potential of this unit. If somehow all those tacs were able to double tap is 2.9 wounds or 2 if the PG can't for a unit that is 85% of the cost.
Intercessors are just easier to use and remove more of your opponent's agency more of the time, but lots of people gear to kill them.
Mathhammer is gak, but it begs the question what people think Intercessors are murdering all the time. They're not wrecking face outside Iron Hands - and even then not as much as other things. A squad of 5 RG SBRs shot at my rubrics yesterday. They were just objective campers so they had no support. Across 3 rounds where they had something to shoot - they killed nothing.
You might be surprised what can happen when your gun has a coin flip to wound and really low shot volume. I get the sense people look at that LVOTH Sarge that scored a 1 in a million set of rolls and base their judgement around scenarios like that.
Galas wrote: The problem with Tacs is that maybe then can specialize compared with intercessors but if you want something done you won't invest in your Tac squads but in other kind of units.
Troops are there to take objetives and cover ground. Intercessors and Scouts are better at both of those than Tac Squads. Thats why tac squads have no place.
Tac squads always have a place/use.
You know what usually gets shot at first...Intercessors. Which is a good thing, since that leaves my tacs free to shoot/scoot/objectivate. Plop Intercessors in cover close the the front of your deployment zone and bam your opponent has dangerous things they have to address.
If I want to disrupt my enemy deepstrike, I use scouts.
If I want to camp objetives on the backline, I use intercessors. If I want a troop to tank for my other more expensive character troops, I use intercessors.
If I want to kill stuff, I use literally everything else. If my enemy is using specialized weapons to kill Intercessors then they aren't shooting at my other better units. If I have TAC squads people will just drown them in low quality fire. If they try to do that to an intercessor unit they have double the durability. I'm sorry but as a Dark Angel player I don't see a reason to use Tacticals having both scouts and intercessors.
Exactly. People forget Tacticals can TRY and do stuff but they pay for being middling to below that at everything. Intercessors pay for just a few things:
1. A better base gun
2. An extra wound
3. An extra attack (not always in play, of course)
For just a few points more, they're really a steal. They're basically everything that Dire Avengers, Necron Warriors/Immortals, and , well, Tacticals aspire to be. Being able to buy a Plasma Gun means nothing with the amount of saturation that can be done elsewhere. People can claim Intercessors will be fired at more, and quite frankly there's a reason why: they're better.
My tacticals get erased pretty quickly when playing against Space Marines or Ad Mech. Like 30 dead by turn 2 quickly! Most of my opponents have tried to convince me that this wouldn't happen with 2 wound intercessors, but I've decided against mixing oldmarines and Primaris for aesthetic reasons. I've yet to stick them in Razorbacks or Rhinos to see how much better they fare, but it still makes me sad to see how soft a power armored Space Marine has become.
aphyon wrote: From a lore perspective i think i would feel dirty using primaris in any DA force. the unforgiven do not take lightly to outsiders.
That being said i only play deathwing/ravenwing (since 3rd ed) so the primaris question never became a thing for me.
The DA untrusting of Primaris has been pretty much all but removed from fluff - with the introduction of Lazarus becoming the first primaris inner circle we should pretty much accept it.. unless this is a mace windu type deal "you are in the inner circle, but you do not have the rank of Master"
Stux wrote: Specialised Tac squads arent specialised enough to matter the majority of the time.
5 such tacs that move and shoot intercessors cause 1.5 wounds (26 points). 5 intercessors who stand still and double tap cause 1.7 wounds (20 points) to tacs -- this is the highest potential of this unit. If somehow all those tacs were able to double tap is 2.9 wounds or 2 if the PG can't for a unit that is 85% of the cost.
Stux wrote: Specialised Tac squads arent specialised enough to matter the majority of the time.
5 such tacs that move and shoot intercessors cause 1.5 wounds (26 points). 5 intercessors who stand still and double tap cause 1.7 wounds (20 points) to tacs -- this is the highest potential of this unit. If somehow all those tacs were able to double tap is 2.9 wounds or 2 if the PG can't for a unit that is 85% of the cost.
1.5 wounds of Intercessors is 13pts, not 26pts.
I stand corrected. Don't drink and math-hammer, folks.
I suppose a different way to skin the cat and deal with the difference in cost -
aphyon wrote: From a lore perspective i think i would feel dirty using primaris in any DA force. the unforgiven do not take lightly to outsiders.
That being said i only play deathwing/ravenwing (since 3rd ed) so the primaris question never became a thing for me.
The DA untrusting of Primaris has been pretty much all but removed from fluff - with the introduction of Lazarus becoming the first primaris inner circle we should pretty much accept it.. unless this is a mace windu type deal "you are in the inner circle, but you do not have the rank of Master"
Yeah, as said, most Primaris now would be no more of an outsider than any normal DA, seeing as existing Astartes can cross the Rubicon Primaris, or new aspirants can be made into Primaris from the start. It's only the first batch of Primaris that would be considered outsiders.
Tacs vs Intercessors are quite similar against each other if you get a plasma gun in there. But without that plasma they get crushed. And that tac squad will be worse against most other things compared to the intercessors. When doctrines and stratagems added in the intercessors blow the tacs out of the water.
For IH/IF stalker intercessors especially outperform tacticals.
I had some success with 10 man intercessors with TH infiltrating/deepstriking with RG and then shooting 40 shots before assaulting in melee. Tacts cant do that nearly as well either.
aphyon wrote: From a lore perspective i think i would feel dirty using primaris in any DA force. the unforgiven do not take lightly to outsiders.
That being said i only play deathwing/ravenwing (since 3rd ed) so the primaris question never became a thing for me.
The DA untrusting of Primaris has been pretty much all but removed from fluff - with the introduction of Lazarus becoming the first primaris inner circle we should pretty much accept it.. unless this is a mace windu type deal "you are in the inner circle, but you do not have the rank of Master"
aphyon wrote: From a lore perspective i think i would feel dirty using primaris in any DA force. the unforgiven do not take lightly to outsiders.
That being said i only play deathwing/ravenwing (since 3rd ed) so the primaris question never became a thing for me.
The DA untrusting of Primaris has been pretty much all but removed from fluff - with the introduction of Lazarus becoming the first primaris inner circle we should pretty much accept it.. unless this is a mace windu type deal "you are in the inner circle, but you do not have the rank of Master"
you assume i accept the retcon fluff.
If you dont, you're essentially following your own fanfic.
Which is fine, just a statement of fact. I have my own head canon about a bunch of things!
It doesn't seem a fanfic, when the new stuff is wrong. I mean we wouldn't have much progress in any century if people decided that just because someone said something new, then it is right, no matter how stupid it is. We got some really unfun stuff thanks to thank way of thinking in the XXth century.
Karol wrote: It doesn't seem a fanfic, when the new stuff is wrong. I mean we wouldn't have much progress in any century if people decided that just because someone said something new, then it is right, no matter how stupid it is. We got some really unfun stuff thanks to thank way of thinking in the XXth century.
It's not wrong though.
The Dark Angels still accept recruits normally, yes? So why wouldn't they accept completely new recruits that just happened to be taller? Why would they completely turn their backs on an already existing battle-brother, just because he was made taller?
I can absolutely understand why the initial wave of Primaris wouldn't be accepted into the DA properly (although, given how badly the DA had been mauled by conflict, it's completely in character for them to accept Primaris normally - just keeping them at arm's length*), but the later generations? It makes no sense, unless you believe that the Dark Angels have NEVER inducted new members into the Inner Circle.
Lazarus has already proven himself as a Dark Angel before he was even a Primaris. Him being Primaris has changed nothing about how the DA should trust him. Similarly, new recruits into the Chapter (ie, unaugmented aspirants) would be treated the same if they were Primaris or not, because it doesn't matter if they're Primaris or not.
*besides, I'd like to see them try and turn around to Guilliman, in person, and tell him that they're not accepting his Primaris - that'd be a sure fire way to get the Chapter censured, and my money's on the army with the vast majority of the Imperium behind his back. Let's not forget, the DA hardly made themselves many political allies, did they?
Karol wrote: It doesn't seem a fanfic, when the new stuff is wrong. I mean we wouldn't have much progress in any century if people decided that just because someone said something new, then it is right, no matter how stupid it is. We got some really unfun stuff thanks to thank way of thinking in the XXth century.
It's not wrong though.
The Dark Angels still accept recruits normally, yes? So why wouldn't they accept completely new recruits that just happened to be taller? Why would they completely turn their backs on an already existing battle-brother, just because he was made taller?
I can absolutely understand why the initial wave of Primaris wouldn't be accepted into the DA properly (although, given how badly the DA had been mauled by conflict, it's completely in character for them to accept Primaris normally - just keeping them at arm's length*), but the later generations? It makes no sense, unless you believe that the Dark Angels have NEVER inducted new members into the Inner Circle.
Lazarus has already proven himself as a Dark Angel before he was even a Primaris. Him being Primaris has changed nothing about how the DA should trust him. Similarly, new recruits into the Chapter (ie, unaugmented aspirants) would be treated the same if they were Primaris or not, because it doesn't matter if they're Primaris or not.
*besides, I'd like to see them try and turn around to Guilliman, in person, and tell him that they're not accepting his Primaris - that'd be a sure fire way to get the Chapter censured, and my money's on the army with the vast majority of the Imperium behind his back. Let's not forget, the DA hardly made themselves many political allies, did they?
They are not recruits though that's the problem.. cawl made them somewhere else in a lab and said presto here are some new improved DA troopers to put into your chapter that you had no hand in choosing, training or indoctrinating into your dogma and you should just accept themn anyway....even though you are incredibly secretive, xenophobic and distrustful, nah shouldn't be a problem right?
Now if you are talking about using the primaris implant process in lue of the standard one that they can do themselves and follow all the traditions of the chapter then thats a reasonable argument. otherwise i see them going the flesh tearers route.
*besides, I'd like to see them try and turn around to Guilliman, in person, and tell him that they're not accepting his Primaris - that'd be a sure fire way to get the Chapter censured, and my money's on the army with the vast majority of the Imperium behind his back. Let's not forget, the DA hardly made themselves many political allies, did they?
You mean like a war or civil war based on differentces in conviction? We had 4 of those in XX century, and 11, only counting the big ones, in XIX century. And am just speaking of my country.
The idea that someone comes to a military organisations, and tells them how they are going to be run, when it is against the basic tenants of how the organisation works sound not just forced, but stupid and improbable. Now GW is of course in full right to do what ever they can with their IP and write the most strange deux ex machina. But having DA take in primaris is like the ortodox church passing a law that now all catholics have to pray in Russsian and not in latin, have holy days according to the julian calendar, and the catholics being okey with it.
On top of it DA are super secretive and kind of a hostile to outsiders, including other marines. It is just too much to be okey with. In fact, DA not taking in primaris, while others do, would be an interesting plot point for the future. And yes I know this is sci fi and not real life, but even scifi has to follow the laws of its own world, especially when they are set in stone for over 30+ years, or is w40k older then that?
And how dramatic changes of lore or odd plot twists work for frenchises end sometimes we all have seen. Thankfuly, w40k lore is a secondary when it comes to playing the game. DA primaris could be forced to run around in only yellow speedos and helmets, and people would run them anyway, if had good rules. And they clearly have good rules.
In fact GW seemed to have learned a lot from AoS reset. Why risk people getting angry, and quiting the game drowning the secondary market in models, when you can slowly give them units to replace the new ones, to top it all off with something like IH rule set, where a new player doesn't really need other old models then thunder canons, and GW probably knows that people will just buy those from other companies, as the GW model is both broken and too expensive.
aphyon wrote:They are not recruits though that's the problem
Errr, yes they are - the second generation is, at least - as I outlined?
cawl made them somewhere else in a lab and said presto here are some new improved DA troopers to put into your chapter that you had no hand in choosing, training or indoctrinating into your dogma and you should just accept themn anyway....even though you are incredibly secretive, xenophobic and distrustful, nah shouldn't be a problem right?
Still wrong, because thankfully, that's not all Primaris. Only the FIRST batch of Primaris were like this, which I literally said made absolute sense for the DA to reject them from the Inner Circle (obviously, rejecting Primaris wholesale would have been suicidal for them, seeing as Guilliman held all the cards politically and militarily).
I'm talking about the later generations, the Primaris Marines who literally were recruited like any other Battle Brother (as in, aspirant implanted with geneseed, enhanced, and indoctrinated directly by the Chapter), or existing Marines who crossed the Rubicon Primaris. There's no reason at all for them not to be treated like any other DA.
Now if you are talking about using the primaris implant process in lue of the standard one that they can do themselves and follow all the traditions of the chapter then thats a reasonable argument. otherwise i see them going the flesh tearers route.
That's exactly what I was talking about.
So we're agreed then? There's no reason for the DA not to have Inner Circle Primaris, because they can just indoctrinate their own Primaris Marines, just like I was saying?
Karol wrote:
*besides, I'd like to see them try and turn around to Guilliman, in person, and tell him that they're not accepting his Primaris - that'd be a sure fire way to get the Chapter censured, and my money's on the army with the vast majority of the Imperium behind his back. Let's not forget, the DA hardly made themselves many political allies, did they?
You mean like a war or civil war based on differentces in conviction? We had 4 of those in XX century, and 11, only counting the big ones, in XIX century. And am just speaking of my country.
By all means, let the DA have their civil war - but they'd be eradicated almost immediately. They'd be one single Legion-sized army, going up against literally every other military force in the Imperium. Clearly, the Da care more about their self-preservation than to throw it all away in a futile gesture against Guilliman.
On top of it DA are super secretive and kind of a hostile to outsiders, including other marines. It is just too much to be okey with. In fact, DA not taking in primaris, while others do, would be an interesting plot point for the future. And yes I know this is sci fi and not real life, but even scifi has to follow the laws of its own world, especially when they are set in stone for over 30+ years, or is w40k older then that?
The Dark Angels aren't also stupid. They know when it's prudent to bend the knee and pay lip service to Guilliman - they've already been doing it for 10,000 years regarding their totally-not-a-Legion. And besides, they still didn't rush to induct any Primaris into the Inner Circle - until they made their own Primaris Marines.
40k's been following it's own rules just fine. It's people taking it to extremes, and calling that tru-40k that's distorted things a bit. But, that's their interpretation, and that's completely valid - but it's no more true than any other version.
But, I think this is a little off-topic, I suppose.
Melissia wrote: Sure, there's a reason why they wouldn't have inner circle primaris.
Because they're paranoid, irrational jerks.
Irrational to the point where previously completely trustworthy brethren, the moment they get three new organs, are now suddenly complete strangers?
I don't buy that personally.
I completely get them not trusting the first wave of Primaris, as I've said. But there's no reason not to trust the other two versions of Primaris Marines any different to their existing Firstborn. They're in control of the implantation, the indoctrination, and the entire post-neophyte lives of their recruits - and while the DA are irrational jerks, I don't believe them to be capable of this degree of idiocy. And clearly, GW don't either.
If anyone's personal DA distrust Primaris to that degree, that's fair enough, but I don't think GW are breaking any fluff "rules" by having second and third generation Primaris inducted into the Inner Circle.
DA acepting primaris is not a retcon, is advancing the fluff. They distrusted the first batch from Terra. Then they started creating their own primaris and they ended up accepting those. Is not that complicated.
Galas wrote: DA acepting primaris is not a retcon, is advancing the fluff. They distrusted the first batch from Terra. Then they started creating their own primaris and they ended up accepting those. Is not that complicated.
Exactly this.
The current timeline is a good century or two after the Primaris were originally revealed. There will be Primaris in the Dark Angels who are older than many members of the Inner Circle, and who were directly recruited by the chapter.
Klickor wrote: Tacs vs Intercessors are quite similar against each other if you get a plasma gun in there. But without that plasma they get crushed. And that tac squad will be worse against most other things compared to the intercessors. When doctrines and stratagems added in the intercessors blow the tacs out of the water.
For IH/IF stalker intercessors especially outperform tacticals.
I had some success with 10 man intercessors with TH infiltrating/deepstriking with RG and then shooting 40 shots before assaulting in melee. Tacts cant do that nearly as well either.
Sure. . . But Tacs can arrive via Drop Pod better, and load up on those sweet, sweet Specials and Heavies.
Klickor wrote: Tacs vs Intercessors are quite similar against each other if you get a plasma gun in there. But without that plasma they get crushed. And that tac squad will be worse against most other things compared to the intercessors. When doctrines and stratagems added in the intercessors blow the tacs out of the water.
For IH/IF stalker intercessors especially outperform tacticals.
I had some success with 10 man intercessors with TH infiltrating/deepstriking with RG and then shooting 40 shots before assaulting in melee. Tacts cant do that nearly as well either.
Sure. . . But Tacs can arrive via Drop Pod better, and load up on those sweet, sweet Specials and Heavies.
"Load up" LOL good one there.
Also you have to incorporate the Drop Pod into that cost.
but can Primaris be deployed that way??? As of right now they do not have any way of deep striking an Intercessor squad, so not exactly apples to apples.
Racerguy180 wrote: but can Primaris be deployed that way??? As of right now they do not have any way of deep striking an Intercessor squad, so not exactly apples to apples.
By that same virtue, can Tacticals be deployed via Repulor/Impulsor?
Realistically, how much use is the Drop Pod, how much good does it do, and is the cost of that Drop Pod worth it, especially being used on Tacticals?
It's all well and good that they *can* use it, and I'm a big advocate for "take what you like no matter how good/bad it is", but just listing off "they can do this!" as a positive, when Primaris can boast their own unique transport doesn't really do much.
Yeah, why are people putting Tacs in drop pods rather than Devs or Vets? Seems extremely niche again.
I get it. You like Tacticals, you dont like the new tall boys everyone is fawning over. That's fine, use them if you want. They arent awful especially in the stronger Marine chapters now. They just arent optimal.
Stux wrote: Yeah, why are people putting Tacs in drop pods rather than Devs or Vets? Seems extremely niche again.
I get it. You like Tacticals, you dont like the new tall boys everyone is fawning over. That's fine, use them if you want. They arent awful especially in the stronger Marine chapters now. They just arent optimal.
Because you don't always want to deploy in the same way, and sometimes, for whatever reason, stashing your Devastators in the backfield or using some other method might be better.
What I've occasionally done is put two Combat Squads of Tacs into a Pod with all their weapons, then kept the Bolter guys camping objectives. But that gets you a Pod with 2 Grav Cannons and four Plasma Guns, which hits harder than a single Devastator Squad. 16 AP -3 or 4 2D/D3D shots out of a pair of Troops choices is nothing to sneeze at.
Stux wrote: Yeah, why are people putting Tacs in drop pods rather than Devs or Vets? Seems extremely niche again.
I get it. You like Tacticals, you dont like the new tall boys everyone is fawning over. That's fine, use them if you want. They arent awful especially in the stronger Marine chapters now. They just arent optimal.
It can be a relatively cheap way to put 10+ wounds in the middle of the battlefield (Where an objective usually is) which will usually cause your opponent to freak out and want to kill it immediately. This requires a ton of wasted firepower and allows you to move units like intercessors up the board. If I was a Codex marine player I would do this (It has no use in Blood Angels or Deathwatch) they may not be optimal on paper, but when it comes to the psychological aspect of it and the strategic aspect, it can be useful.
I like the new marines and the old marines! They both have their place and both are cool
Stux wrote: Yeah, why are people putting Tacs in drop pods rather than Devs or Vets? Seems extremely niche again.
I get it. You like Tacticals, you dont like the new tall boys everyone is fawning over. That's fine, use them if you want. They arent awful especially in the stronger Marine chapters now. They just arent optimal.
Because you don't always want to deploy in the same way, and sometimes, for whatever reason, stashing your Devastators in the backfield or using some other method might be better.
What I've occasionally done is put two Combat Squads of Tacs into a Pod with all their weapons, then kept the Bolter guys camping objectives. But that gets you a Pod with 2 Grav Cannons and four Plasma Guns, which hits harder than a single Devastator Squad. 16 AP -3 or 4 2D/D3D shots out of a pair of Troops choices is nothing to sneeze at.
Which is worse for the Grav strat (one of the primary reasons to use Grav Cannons in the first place) and the Bolter dudes hit like wet noodles. They can't hold an objective to save their lives LOL
Back on the subject at had, with 8th ed using anything other than drop pods for dreads is pretty pointless. the pod was the "safe" delivery system. especially for a unit that was CC oriented or had special short ranged weapons like sternguard with combi meltas because it could get them in close without a deepstrike mishap.
Primaris can do the same thing now via vanguard/phobos units.
Like every other edition GW is basing rules on sales/marketing-
players who have been in the game a while already have all the basic marines they need so they had to make marines with better stats and weapons so old players as well as new would be moved to update to the newest models.
Stux wrote: Yeah, why are people putting Tacs in drop pods rather than Devs or Vets? Seems extremely niche again.
I get it. You like Tacticals, you dont like the new tall boys everyone is fawning over. That's fine, use them if you want. They arent awful especially in the stronger Marine chapters now. They just arent optimal.
Because you don't always want to deploy in the same way, and sometimes, for whatever reason, stashing your Devastators in the backfield or using some other method might be better.
What I've occasionally done is put two Combat Squads of Tacs into a Pod with all their weapons, then kept the Bolter guys camping objectives. But that gets you a Pod with 2 Grav Cannons and four Plasma Guns, which hits harder than a single Devastator Squad. 16 AP -3 or 4 2D/D3D shots out of a pair of Troops choices is nothing to sneeze at.
Which is worse for the Grav strat (one of the primary reasons to use Grav Cannons in the first place) and the Bolter dudes hit like wet noodles. They can't hold an objective to save their lives LOL
If bolter dudes "hit like wet noodles", then Intercessors hit like slightly less wet noodles.
The primary reason to bring Grav Cannons is because they're excellent weapons. Better AT than Las, better anti-elite than Plasma.
I agree that the DA having Primaris isn't a problem. The ones that are not kept at a very far distance from the "legions" secrets are the ones that they either made themselves and recruited up to know about stuff or ones that went through the legio primaris to be upgraded into primaris and survived. Anyone who was made outside of the DA and sent to them were probably sent on suicide missions and/or had an "accident".
Stux wrote: Yeah, why are people putting Tacs in drop pods rather than Devs or Vets? Seems extremely niche again.
I get it. You like Tacticals, you dont like the new tall boys everyone is fawning over. That's fine, use them if you want. They arent awful especially in the stronger Marine chapters now. They just arent optimal.
Because you don't always want to deploy in the same way, and sometimes, for whatever reason, stashing your Devastators in the backfield or using some other method might be better.
What I've occasionally done is put two Combat Squads of Tacs into a Pod with all their weapons, then kept the Bolter guys camping objectives. But that gets you a Pod with 2 Grav Cannons and four Plasma Guns, which hits harder than a single Devastator Squad. 16 AP -3 or 4 2D/D3D shots out of a pair of Troops choices is nothing to sneeze at.
Which is worse for the Grav strat (one of the primary reasons to use Grav Cannons in the first place) and the Bolter dudes hit like wet noodles. They can't hold an objective to save their lives LOL
If bolter dudes "hit like wet noodles", then Intercessors hit like slightly less wet noodles.
The primary reason to bring Grav Cannons is because they're excellent weapons. Better AT than Las, better anti-elite than Plasma.
Seeing as Intercessors have better threat range and random Strats to better that output (forgot about Rapid Fire 2 at a low cost, huh?), not exactly.
And no, the Strat is the primary reason to use Grav Cannons in excess. Devastation Squads getting 4 in a squad along with one of them getting a +1 to hit and a Cherub for double fire is a lot better than your configuration, period.
Melissia wrote: Sure, there's a reason why they wouldn't have inner circle primaris.
Because they're paranoid, irrational jerks.
Irrational to the point where previously completely trustworthy brethren, the moment they get three new organs, are now suddenly complete strangers?
I don't buy that personally.
Why? It completely fits with 40k lore.
So does them having Primaris - deference to quasi-religious figures, lost technology, etc etc.
I just don't agree with the idea that the Dark Angels would reject any and all Primaris, including ones they made themselves. They're secretive, but they're not suicidal. It'd be like them not taking any equipment from Mars or even recruiting in the first place. There's degrees to which their irrationality goes, and for me, it doesn't go as far as rejecting home-grown Primaris.
Insectum7 wrote: ^@ Slayer, how many Intercessors does it take to shoot a Leman Russ to death?
Not many points more than Tacticals, both of which suck at shooting them compared to other units with better Heavy weapon saturation. Based on that and the better durability, Intercessors still win.
Insectum7 wrote: ^@ Slayer, how many Intercessors does it take to shoot a Leman Russ to death?
Not many points more than Tacticals, both of which suck at shooting them compared to other units with better Heavy weapon saturation. Based on that and the better durability, Intercessors still win.
5 Tacticals with Grav-Cannons, btw. With rerolls. 6 with Las. Beat that.
So does them having Primaris - deference to quasi-religious figures, lost technology, etc etc.
I just don't agree with the idea that the Dark Angels would reject any and all Primaris, including ones they made themselves. They're secretive, but they're not suicidal. It'd be like them not taking any equipment from Mars or even recruiting in the first place. There's degrees to which their irrationality goes, and for me, it doesn't go as far as rejecting home-grown Primaris.
then you have absolutly no idea how quasi religious organisations functions. DA are like a cult, or a Opus Dei with guns. There are groups of people who take their memberships serious, and are fully willing to get destroyed to the last person and will never compromise.
And by the way if Mars asked something like lets say access to the Rocks data banks, if DA still want to keep getting some sort of specific gear or ammo they alone can no longer produce, they would say no. this is no irrationality, this is faith and religion. And unless we assume that DA were all just pretending to be secretive to a point where they blew up a BT ship, just because it came in to contact with Cypher, then them accepting primaris makes no sense.
But GW can retcon or change any lore they want in the end. Want a real life example? My people are greek ortodox, to an outsider practicaly identical to eastern ortodox. We have undergone 70 years of purges, killings, people not being allowed to be buried, getting married or having their children christianed.
And all it would took for them is to say, that they are not greek ortodox, and that they are okey with priest being send from Moscow. heck to this day in ukrain, this is part of the conflict.
Insectum7 wrote: ^@ Slayer, how many Intercessors does it take to shoot a Leman Russ to death?
Not many points more than Tacticals, both of which suck at shooting them compared to other units with better Heavy weapon saturation. Based on that and the better durability, Intercessors still win.
5 Tacticals with Grav-Cannons, btw. With rerolls. 6 with Las. Beat that.
So that is...
4 heavy shots at S5 AP-3 Dd3
8 rapid fire shots at S4 AP-1 D1
Per squad, with a 24" range in Tactical Doctrine (being used because it's better to go AP0 to -1 than it is to go from AP-3 to -4). Assuming CM and Lt rerolls, I get...
4 shots
32/9 hits
112/81 wounds
280/243 unsaved wounds
560/243 damage, or 2.30 damage per squad
8 shots
64/9 hits
112/81 wounds
56/81 unsaved
56/81 damage, or .69 per squad
Total of 2.99 per squad, meaning you actually only need four.
The same points of Intercessors gets us just under 19 Intercessors. I'll round up, since I did for killing the Russ.
Insectum7 wrote: ^@ Slayer, how many Intercessors does it take to shoot a Leman Russ to death?
Not many points more than Tacticals, both of which suck at shooting them compared to other units with better Heavy weapon saturation. Based on that and the better durability, Intercessors still win.
5 Tacticals with Grav-Cannons, btw. With rerolls. 6 with Las. Beat that.
So that is...
4 heavy shots at S5 AP-3 Dd3
8 rapid fire shots at S4 AP-1 D1
Per squad, with a 24" range in Tactical Doctrine (being used because it's better to go AP0 to -1 than it is to go from AP-3 to -4). Assuming CM and Lt rerolls, I get...
4 shots
32/9 hits
112/81 wounds
280/243 unsaved wounds
560/243 damage, or 2.30 damage per squad
Five squads nets you, then, 11.5 damage. A CP reroll on damage for the Grav Cannons or a failed Grav wound can swing that, so okay. That's 400 points, plus buffers.
EDIT: FORGOT TO ADD BOLTERS, THAT SHOULD MORE THAN COVER THE .5!
The same points of Intercessors gets us 23.5 Intercessors. I'll round up, since I did for killing the Russ, and say 24 Primaris.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So does them having Primaris - deference to quasi-religious figures, lost technology, etc etc.
I just don't agree with the idea that the Dark Angels would reject any and all Primaris, including ones they made themselves. They're secretive, but they're not suicidal. It'd be like them not taking any equipment from Mars or even recruiting in the first place. There's degrees to which their irrationality goes, and for me, it doesn't go as far as rejecting home-grown Primaris.
then you have absolutly no idea how quasi religious organisations functions.
I'm talking about the wider Imperium - Guilliman, like all Primarchs, are revered by practically everyone, either in a religious sense, or a semi-religious one. Even the Dark Angels, for all their aloofness, know better than to oppose a living Primarch.
DA are like a cult, or a Opus Dei with guns. There are groups of people who take their memberships serious, and are fully willing to get destroyed to the last person and will never compromise.
So you're saying that the Dark Angels shouldn't exist any more then? Because I'd believe them having a chance against the rest of the Imperium even less than I would them even trying to fight back against it.
This isn't like the real world - the power levels are FAR too imbalanced, the stakes far too high, for the DA to have had any chance of maintaining autonomy without going full blown renegade and fleeing into the Warp.
And by the way if Mars asked something like lets say access to the Rocks data banks, if DA still want to keep getting some sort of specific gear or ammo they alone can no longer produce, they would say no. this is no irrationality, this is faith and religion.
Agreed, but they still rely on Mars for their equipment and technology. However, Mars know better than to poke the bear, and have no need to go prying. The DA certainly CAN be secretive and stubborn, but it won't get them out of everything.
Look at the situation they were in - decimated by their war with Magnus and the Great Rift opening, heavy losses amongst the ENTIRE Unforgiven army. Guilliman shows up IN PERSON, and offers them fresh reinforcements, superior to their own troops, and how to make them. It's a stupidly good offer, even for reclusive Astartes, but considering that you have a literal Primarch telling you this, with his whole army at his back - you think Azrael would have the guts to deny him? I just don't believe it would happen.
And unless we assume that DA were all just pretending to be secretive to a point where they blew up a BT ship, just because it came in to contact with Cypher, then them accepting primaris makes no sense.
A random BT ship isn't a Primarch.
But GW can retcon or change any lore they want in the end. Want a real life example? My people are greek ortodox, to an outsider practicaly identical to eastern ortodox. We have undergone 70 years of purges, killings, people not being allowed to be buried, getting married or having their children christianed. And all it would took for them is to say, that they are not greek ortodox, and that they are okey with priest being send from Moscow. heck to this day in ukrain, this is part of the conflict.
Real life isn't 40k. Guilliman has had 10,000 years of (admittedly non-consentual) worship and devotion at him. He's both physically and psychologically a saviour to Imperium. The cult of personality surrounding him is immense, far greater than anything we'd be able to really imagine on earth now.
Think of the craze people have these days around certain influential figures, and multiply that tenfold, and you're still not near the effect Guilliman has on people within the setting. That's all part of the Imperial cult, and, short of outright disavowing the church altogether publicly, there is very little Guilliman could even do to break the faith the Imperium has in him. This feverish devotion to the Primarchs and heroes of old has been part of 40k since essentially it's inception.
JNAProductions wrote: How the hell do you get 5 models to kill a Russ from a TACTICAL SQUAD?
You'd have QUADRUPLE their damage output to kill it!
Easy! 5 models from 5 Tactical Squads.
Don't you need to buy three Drop Pods for that, if you want them all getting close? If you're looking at equivalent points, the Intercessors have you long beat there too?
JNAProductions wrote: How the hell do you get 5 models to kill a Russ from a TACTICAL SQUAD?
You'd have QUADRUPLE their damage output to kill it!
Easy! 5 models from 5 Tactical Squads.
Okay, yeah, no dip if you take five heavy weapons from five squads you can be more effective than a single squad that doesn't have specials or heavies.
But how are you getting them all to within 24"? And without having counted as moved? Since that drops the damage from 2.30 to 1.94, meaning you need 6 Grav Cannons to do it.
JNAProductions wrote: How the hell do you get 5 models to kill a Russ from a TACTICAL SQUAD?
You'd have QUADRUPLE their damage output to kill it!
Easy! 5 models from 5 Tactical Squads.
Okay, yeah, no dip if you take five heavy weapons from five squads you can be more effective than a single squad that doesn't have specials or heavies.
But how are you getting them all to within 24"? And without having counted as moved? Since that drops the damage from 2.30 to 1.94, meaning you need 6 Grav Cannons to do it.
*shrug*, call it 6 if you want, same as the Las with a 48" range and stationary.
Also, ignoring the move penalty is easy for a number of chapters. UM in Tactical is my method.
The grav cannon makes your squad too fragile. And a good player won't let you shoot a russ with it. I really want to like it, because I have several painted ones, but it's a relic of 7th ed.
JNAProductions wrote: How the hell do you get 5 models to kill a Russ from a TACTICAL SQUAD?
You'd have QUADRUPLE their damage output to kill it!
Easy! 5 models from 5 Tactical Squads.
Okay, yeah, no dip if you take five heavy weapons from five squads you can be more effective than a single squad that doesn't have specials or heavies.
But how are you getting them all to within 24"? And without having counted as moved? Since that drops the damage from 2.30 to 1.94, meaning you need 6 Grav Cannons to do it.
*shrug*, call it 6 if you want, same as the Las with a 48" range and stationary.
Also, ignoring the move penalty is easy for a number of chapters. UM in Tactical is my method.
Yeah, six is probably the number, since five has a less than fifty/fifty chance of killing a Russ while six has around 70% odds.
Hes trying to illustrate the point that tactical squads are better than intercessors (Or at least, that they have a use) by proving that they can inflict more damage agaisnt heavy targets when the point here is that you don't what your troops for that. Is poor optimization of resources.
Intercessors excell at killing other armies troops, at fighting agaisnt elite infantry and capturing objetives. If they were also good at killing tanks and heavy stuff they would be bananas.
And TBH, 10-15 ntercessors firing the stalker rifle at light tanks can totally destroy or heavely damage them at the same time that they are contributing to the battle from a safe distance.
As I said earlier, DA 42" stalker rifles shooting intercessors with innate rerroll of 1's to hit are, at least on my opinion, the best troop of the game.
The pricetag on the gun kills it for me. That's always been the achilles heel of marines. Paying for their "versatility", which only really increases their fragility.
As I said earlier, DA 42" stalker rifles shooting intercessors with innate rerroll of 1's to hit are, at least on my opinion, the best troop of the game.
May we play differently but I would never really leave my Intercessors out in the open to get shot at. That said stalkers are cool even with the move penalty and lack of grim resolve bonus.
Martel732 wrote: The pricetag on the gun kills it for me. That's always been the achilles heel of marines. Paying for their "versatility", which only really increases their fragility.
I play the good offense is the best defense card, and since its pretty easy to pack 100 Grav shots into an army, I'm happy to play that way. My usual is a mix with more plasma in it, but that's also D2 and greater range.
I'm not saying Tacs are superior. I'm saying they can do things that Intercessors can't, and I argue that if you design around their strengths, they make fine troops.
From a fluff point of view, Lazarus was an OG marine so therefore becoming a primaris is a moot point. Given that he took over as 5th company master, he was already inducted into the inner circle. Isnt this correct?
I dont think Dark Angels would trust a random batch of primaris but I can imagine them being ok with it if they recruited and trained the primaris marines from the start of the process.
Insectum7 wrote: ^@ Slayer, how many Intercessors does it take to shoot a Leman Russ to death?
Why are you using your tactical squads to destroy leman russes?
Why wouldn't I fire Lascannons at heavy targets? The other guys are killing Guardsmen or whatever with their bolters. Units can split fire.
Because the 24" Bolters are gonna double tap Infantry squads and the Lascannon is in range to hit the Leman Russ without having used up a turn to use a Rhino or using a Drop, which at that point you might as well just switch to the Grav Cannon?
I have found that the offensive output of tactical squads is just not worth the cost when marines have much better offensive options.
In return, they die way to fast to volume of low quality fire. Intercessors are much better at that. The enemy needs to put a little more effort into killing them (They are gonna kill them ,of course, but in 8th everything dies... with the exception of an IH Leviathan), and that effort is not shooting at the rest of my list.
Galas wrote: I have found that the offensive output of tactical squads is just not worth the cost when marines have much better offensive options.
In return, they die way to fast to volume of low quality fire. Intercessors are much better at that. The enemy needs to put a little more effort into killing them (They are gonna kill them ,of course, but in 8th everything dies... with the exception of an IH Leviathan), and that effort is not shooting at the rest of my list.
Fair enough. I've found that my Tacticals last a while because the opponent is busy killing my devs, etc. And their offensive output in turn helps my army's overall surviveability by knocking out a few extra heavy hitters.
Yes when many armies are taking TFC and indirect fire, I think the tact marines are the first to die to get the easy kills. Likewise with scouts. Or strategically killed to get kill more.
Given the intercessors are efficient wounds, it would be silly to try and kill them first, unless your weapons are D2, more so if people are silly enough to bring heavy weapons on their tacticals.
Smirrors wrote: Yes when many armies are taking TFC and indirect fire, I think the tact marines are the first to die to get the easy kills. Likewise with scouts. Or strategically killed to get kill more.
Given the intercessors are efficient wounds, it would be silly to try and kill them first, unless your weapons are D2, more so if people are silly enough to bring heavy weapons on their tacticals.
Its pretty typical of my army to have over 70 2D or D3D shots.
Its pretty typical of my army to have over 70 2D or D3D shots.
Well that's probably unique to your army or even list. If you are geared for intercessors then naturally you will want to shoot them over tactical marines. But lets be honest, an easy kill is an easy kill. If you are geared to take intercessors you will have no trouble kill less wound efficient tactical marines, particularly if you know they are going to shoot you with a lascannon shot.
Many armies will have 1D weapons too. Im talking thunderfire cannons/heavy bolters/heavy onslaught gatlings, assault cannons equivalents etc. If any of these are in range of tacticals, you probably will see them aimed at them.
Galas wrote: I have found that the offensive output of tactical squads is just not worth the cost when marines have much better offensive options.
In return, they die way to fast to volume of low quality fire. Intercessors are much better at that. The enemy needs to put a little more effort into killing them (They are gonna kill them ,of course, but in 8th everything dies... with the exception of an IH Leviathan), and that effort is not shooting at the rest of my list.
A lot of people opt for Scorpius when the TFC is an option. Why? D2.
When shooting marines in cover from Heavy Doc - TFC kills 2.2 mini (26.4 points) and 1.1 primaris (18.8 points). The Scorpius kills 1.8 mini (21 points) and 1.8 primaris (30 points).
In one scenario mini marines 40% more points. In the other Primaris lose 42% more points. Of course this applies up until you start pulling the PG models off the table, but then you'll lean more into damage the primaris will lean more into defense.
I just get the sense that people have an aversion to losing models.
Christ. DA mini-marines are 30" guns making the grav-guns 24" or 30" plasma with innate reroll 1s. Such a squad can sit like Intercessors, double tap, and toss a PG shot in for good measure. And I bet you won't miss the AP1 when stealers or sisters ignore it.
aphyon wrote: From a lore perspective i think i would feel dirty using primaris in any DA force. the unforgiven do not take lightly to outsiders.
That being said i only play deathwing/ravenwing (since 3rd ed) so the primaris question never became a thing for me.
The DA untrusting of Primaris has been pretty much all but removed from fluff - with the introduction of Lazarus becoming the first primaris inner circle we should pretty much accept it.. unless this is a mace windu type deal "you are in the inner circle, but you do not have the rank of Master"
you assume i accept the retcon fluff.
If you dont, you're essentially following your own fanfic.
Which is fine, just a statement of fact. I have my own head canon about a bunch of things!
I don't need any head cannon to explain my (current) lack of DA Primaris.
Any battle my DA are in just happens to be on a slice of the battlefield where there are no DA Primaris operating atm.
Galas wrote: I have found that the offensive output of tactical squads is just not worth the cost when marines have much better offensive options.
In return, they die way to fast to volume of low quality fire. Intercessors are much better at that. The enemy needs to put a little more effort into killing them (They are gonna kill them ,of course, but in 8th everything dies... with the exception of an IH Leviathan), and that effort is not shooting at the rest of my list.
A lot of people opt for Scorpius when the TFC is an option. Why? D2.
When shooting marines in cover from Heavy Doc - TFC kills 2.2 mini (26.4 points) and 1.1 primaris (18.8 points). The Scorpius kills 1.8 mini (21 points) and 1.8 primaris (30 points).
In one scenario mini marines 40% more points. In the other Primaris lose 42% more points. Of course this applies up until you start pulling the PG models off the table, but then you'll lean more into damage the primaris will lean more into defense.
I just get the sense that people have an aversion to losing models.
Christ. DA mini-marines are 30" guns making the grav-guns 24" or 30" plasma with innate reroll 1s. Such a squad can sit like Intercessors, double tap, and toss a PG shot in for good measure. And I bet you won't miss the AP1 when stealers or sisters ignore it.
That Plasma Gun is precisely the problem though. Those weapons add up very quick. Also I've seen a couple of lists take both the Scorpius and TFC in tandem (I gotta find those lists though). Regardless, the D2 profile isn't wasted as long as you keep adding stuff to make squads the same amount of points, which is kinda shocking with Primaris and other W2 models being THE preferred target.
I just sit in a weird place as W1 infantry that hates D2 weapons and I notice them more distinctly. So maybe i'm unwittingly creating a narrative to get more D1 on the table.
I do not play intercessors but I played against it, as probably almost every 40k player nowadays... imao intercessors S4 -2 AP bolt rifles with a decent rof is way too good. Especially the combination of S4 and -2 AP means that you pretty much do not need any other tool to deal with anything with less than T8 which is everything but the heaviest of the heaviest (imperial knighs, replusors, landriders and a few more).
-2AP and 2D are just too much, basically, it virtually behaves like plasma gun and takes out of the equation almost all the armor saves. Only terminators in cover are relatively safe from it. The rest will fall in large numbers.
You just need to bring a couple of LC to deal with the rest. Perhaps in some vehicles or spread across a few tac units, but mostly to cover you against T8.
I just sit in a weird place as W1 infantry that hates D2 weapons and I notice them more distinctly. So maybe i'm unwittingly creating a narrative to get more D1 on the table.
Depends how many points you add to them. For example, my Liasbomb list uses ×3 10 Sternguard with 2 Grav Cannons. That's 180 a squad or, simply put, 18 points a model. Without Lias providing any safety that would bleed points. With the better Bolters and/or better weapon saturation from Devs, why would Lias choose to teleport Tacticals with him when you just need the offense to clear the opponent's objectives? Dead units don't hold objectives, Objective Secured or not. I simply think of Intercessors + Scouts as the best source of CP. I can count on both Hands the amount of times I wish I had Objective Secured for some reason in the totality of 8th, and I can kinda say the same for 7th not gonna lie.
psipso wrote: I do not play intercessors but I played against it, as probably almost every 40k player nowadays... imao intercessors S4 -2 AP bolt rifles with a decent rof is way too good. Especially the combination of S4 and -2 AP means that you pretty much do not need any other tool to deal with anything with less than T8 which is everything but the heaviest of the heaviest (imperial knighs, replusors, landriders and a few more).
-2AP and 2D are just too much, basically, it virtually behaves like plasma gun and takes out of the equation almost all the armor saves. Only terminators in cover are relatively safe from it. The rest will fall in large numbers.
You just need to bring a couple of LC to deal with the rest. Perhaps in some vehicles or spread across a few tac units, but mostly to cover you against T8.
It seems like you're mixing Stalkers and Bolt Rifles? A Stalker is low volume and you need more models and reroll wounds to keep them effective.
All this talk about tacs VS intercessor job and performance... this is why i love what FW did with HH-every troop option is good and a fire support tac squad can focus to kill hordes or tanks ( i much prefer the old system where you can't wound a leman russ with a las gun simillar to shooting an AK 47 at an abrams and expecting to do damage ) with equal effectiveness
Primaris are the new codex creep from GW the same way they nerfed carnifex's back when they wanted people to buy the new plastic trygon models. It is a marketing move to make them look and perform better so you will want to buy them. and now that primaris have a flying rhino the transport thing isn't an issue anymore...not like it really was with 30" range rifles.
aphyon wrote: All this talk about tacs VS intercessor job and performance... this is why i love what FW did with HH-every troop option is good and a fire support tac squad can focus to kill hordes or tanks ( i much prefer the old system where you can't wound a leman russ with a las gun simillar to shooting an AK 47 at an abrams and expecting to do damage ) with equal effectiveness
Primaris are the new codex creep from GW the same way they nerfed carnifex's back when they wanted people to buy the new plastic trygon models. It is a marketing move to make them look and perform better so you will want to buy them. and now that primaris have a flying rhino the transport thing isn't an issue anymore...not like it really was with 30" range rifles.
First off, it takes 36 Lasgun shots to on average ping a single wound off a Russ. I really cannot understand how this is an issue for people.
Second, while they undoubtedly gave Intercessors a big boost in the new Codex, the idea that GW intentionally make new lines more powerful to boost sales is a total fallacy. They have released loads of new kits in the last couple of years that are struggling due to power level. Honestly, it just looks random more than anything.
Grav tacticals might be better against t8 than intercessors but when its only t7 and the stalkers wounds on 5+ the difference isnt that big. Intercessors are great against almost everything in the game except perhaps t8. But even then, if you are playing imperial fists close to a chapter master and LT, even knights are starting to sweat.
What really makes them so good is that all 3 weapon options are good so if you are Imperial Fists with exploding 6s, ignores cover and a good super doctrine you can load up your intercessors with stalker bolt rifles and kill anything with ease. Loss of number of shots on your troops are compensated by quality of each shot and lots of dakka from other units. Same with Iron Hands. Those 2 chapters do not want tacticals at all since they want units that take full benefit from being in devastator doctrine.
In other chapters in which you have good anti tank from melee you might just need the intercessors to clear screens and then both the other options are really good and both superior to what tacticals bring.
Tacts might be better point for point against some targets and matchups but unless you are tailoring a list against a certain opponent the intercessors will just be better overall. If I know my opponent only have t8 and d2 or better weapons then tacticals might be better but how often do you actually play against something like that.
aphyon wrote: All this talk about tacs VS intercessor job and performance... this is why i love what FW did with HH-every troop option is good and a fire support tac squad can focus to kill hordes or tanks ( i much prefer the old system where you can't wound a leman russ with a las gun simillar to shooting an AK 47 at an abrams and expecting to do damage ) with equal effectiveness
Primaris are the new codex creep from GW the same way they nerfed carnifex's back when they wanted people to buy the new plastic trygon models. It is a marketing move to make them look and perform better so you will want to buy them. and now that primaris have a flying rhino the transport thing isn't an issue anymore...not like it really was with 30" range rifles.
First off, it takes 36 Lasgun shots to on average ping a single wound off a Russ. I really cannot understand how this is an issue for people.
Second, while they undoubtedly gave Intercessors a big boost in the new Codex, the idea that GW intentionally make new lines more powerful to boost sales is a total fallacy. They have released loads of new kits in the last couple of years that are struggling due to power level. Honestly, it just looks random more than anything.
It does not matter how many shots it takes, the entire point is IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. thats why it is an issue. i play nearly a dozen different game systems and none of them have jumped that rubicon to the level that 8th has where everything is a monster with varying levels of toughness to represent armor but can always be hurt on a roll of a 6.
you wanna kill a tank you bring an anti-tank weapon., you do not bring an anti-infantry small arm. even DUST that used a wound system similar to 8th, before it became a thing in 40K, reflects that by armor class for vehicles. small arms can hurt light vehicles but heavy armor like tanks you get no shots because it is not designed to hurt them. they also retain weapon facing/LOS to maintain immersion so that things like strike aircraft are not firing fixed forward weapons out their butt.
In infinity they do have a crit system that represents the "lucky" hit but generally when you are facing the heaviest of power armor (TAGs) you use armor piercing and high explosive ammunition. or have a hacker take over the computer system.
Second, if you have been around 40K/GW as long as some of us you do know they in fact did in the past specifically change rules on older models to sell new kits. the anecdotal reference you make to current sales figures doesn't change the fact that they have a history of doing just that in the past if not so at present.
Remember the GW company line was-"were are not a game company, we are a model company that has a game attached to our models"
All this talk about tacs VS intercessor job and performance... this is why i love what FW did with HH-every troop option is good and a fire support tac squad can focus to kill hordes or tanks ( i much prefer the old system where you can't wound a leman russ with a las gun simillar to shooting an AK 47 at an abrams and expecting to do damage ) with equal effectiveness
Primaris are the new codex creep from GW the same way they nerfed carnifex's back when they wanted people to buy the new plastic trygon models. It is a marketing move to make them look and perform better so you will want to buy them. and now that primaris have a flying rhino the transport thing isn't an issue anymore...not like it really was with 30" range rifles.
First off, it takes 36 Lasgun shots to on average ping a single wound off a Russ. I really cannot understand how this is an issue for people.
Second, while they undoubtedly gave Intercessors a big boost in the new Codex, the idea that GW intentionally make new lines more powerful to boost sales is a total fallacy. They have released loads of new kits in the last couple of years that are struggling due to power level. Honestly, it just looks random more than anything.
It does not matter how many shots it takes, the entire point is IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. thats why it is an issue. i play nearly a dozen different game systems and none of them have jumped that rubicon to the level that 8th has where everything is a monster with varying levels of toughness to represent armor but can always be hurt on a roll of a 6.
you wanna kill a tank you bring an anti-tank weapon., you do not bring an anti-infantry small arm. even DUST that used a wound system similar to 8th, before it became a thing in 40K, reflects that by armor class for vehicles. small arms can hurt light vehicles but heavy armor like tanks you get no shots because it is not designed to hurt them. they also retain weapon facing/LOS to maintain immersion so that things like strike aircraft are not firing fixed forward weapons out their butt.
In infinity they do have a crit system that represents the "lucky" hit but generally when you are facing the heaviest of power armor (TAGs) you use armor piercing and high explosive ammunition. or have a hacker take over the computer system.
Second, if you have been around 40K/GW as long as some of us you do know they in fact did in the past specifically change rules on older models to sell new kits. the anecdotal reference you make to current sales figures doesn't change the fact that they have a history of doing just that in the past if not so at present.
Remember the GW company line was-"were are not a game company, we are a model company that has a game attached to our models"
Empty 10 machine guns into the same sheet of metal used for the hull of a tank. Then go look at the state of the metal afterwards. stuff that is incredibly resilient, is just that. Resilient.
Lasgun's are a meme yes but they aren't exactly throwing pebbles, they still do damage. Given enough shots and time they can work their way through.
All this talk about tacs VS intercessor job and performance... this is why i love what FW did with HH-every troop option is good and a fire support tac squad can focus to kill hordes or tanks ( i much prefer the old system where you can't wound a leman russ with a las gun simillar to shooting an AK 47 at an abrams and expecting to do damage ) with equal effectiveness
Primaris are the new codex creep from GW the same way they nerfed carnifex's back when they wanted people to buy the new plastic trygon models. It is a marketing move to make them look and perform better so you will want to buy them. and now that primaris have a flying rhino the transport thing isn't an issue anymore...not like it really was with 30" range rifles.
First off, it takes 36 Lasgun shots to on average ping a single wound off a Russ. I really cannot understand how this is an issue for people.
Second, while they undoubtedly gave Intercessors a big boost in the new Codex, the idea that GW intentionally make new lines more powerful to boost sales is a total fallacy. They have released loads of new kits in the last couple of years that are struggling due to power level. Honestly, it just looks random more than anything.
It does not matter how many shots it takes, the entire point is IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. thats why it is an issue. i play nearly a dozen different game systems and none of them have jumped that rubicon to the level that 8th has where everything is a monster with varying levels of toughness to represent armor but can always be hurt on a roll of a 6.
you wanna kill a tank you bring an anti-tank weapon., you do not bring an anti-infantry small arm. even DUST that used a wound system similar to 8th, before it became a thing in 40K, reflects that by armor class for vehicles. small arms can hurt light vehicles but heavy armor like tanks you get no shots because it is not designed to hurt them. they also retain weapon facing/LOS to maintain immersion so that things like strike aircraft are not firing fixed forward weapons out their butt.
In infinity they do have a crit system that represents the "lucky" hit but generally when you are facing the heaviest of power armor (TAGs) you use armor piercing and high explosive ammunition. or have a hacker take over the computer system.
Second, if you have been around 40K/GW as long as some of us you do know they in fact did in the past specifically change rules on older models to sell new kits. the anecdotal reference you make to current sales figures doesn't change the fact that they have a history of doing just that in the past if not so at present.
Remember the GW company line was-"were are not a game company, we are a model company that has a game attached to our models"
Empty 10 machine guns into the same sheet of metal used for the hull of a tank. Then go look at the state of the metal afterwards. stuff that is incredibly resilient, is just that. Resilient.
Lasgun's are a meme yes but they aren't exactly throwing pebbles, they still do damage. Given enough shots and time they can work their way through.
Uh yeah i remember what happened ,saw the pictures to when the US drove a tank column through bahgdad right near the end of combat operations in 2003.
lots and lots of little nicks in the paint from AK rounds bouncing off the armor. the state of the metal was-it needed a new coat of paint. there are images from Iraq of damage done to the front of M1s from PRGs that didn't even pen the armor, made a nice hole or a few in the outer layers.....thats a glancing hit from a krak missile under the old damge chart...so tell me again how an autogun/lasgun or even a bolter is gonna hurt a leman russ from the front?
But now that i answered that little question-back on topic-8th ed armor reduction rules with a simple D6 systems means that any vehicle with a normal 3+ save becomes severely less durable when the basic infantry arm can force a dice roll of a 4+ (or worse with stalker bolters)instead. dropping the success rate to 50%
By giving primaris a blanket AP-1 on top of all their weapons normal stats then throw in doctrines that add an additional -1 to all astartes affected by that doctrine and suddenly the single heavy and special weapon in a tac squad becomes far less justifiable.,
As an old deathwing player i lost more terminators to las guns than las cannons because of the simple mathmatics of having to roll a single 5+ save VS a dozen 2+ saves.
aphyon wrote: [spoiler]All this talk about tacs VS intercessor job and performance... this is why i love what FW did with HH-every troop option is good and a fire support tac squad can focus to kill hordes or tanks ( i much prefer the old system where you can't wound a leman russ with a las gun simillar to shooting an AK 47 at an abrams and expecting to do damage ) with equal effectiveness
Primaris are the new codex creep from GW the same way they nerfed carnifex's back when they wanted people to buy the new plastic trygon models. It is a marketing move to make them look and perform better so you will want to buy them. and now that primaris have a flying rhino the transport thing isn't an issue anymore...not like it really was with 30" range rifles.
First off, it takes 36 Lasgun shots to on average ping a single wound off a Russ. I really cannot understand how this is an issue for people.
Second, while they undoubtedly gave Intercessors a big boost in the new Codex, the idea that GW intentionally make new lines more powerful to boost sales is a total fallacy. They have released loads of new kits in the last couple of years that are struggling due to power level. Honestly, it just looks random more than anything.
It does not matter how many shots it takes, the entire point is IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. thats why it is an issue. i play nearly a dozen different game systems and none of them have jumped that rubicon to the level that 8th has where everything is a monster with varying levels of toughness to represent armor but can always be hurt on a roll of a 6.
you wanna kill a tank you bring an anti-tank weapon., you do not bring an anti-infantry small arm. even DUST that used a wound system similar to 8th, before it became a thing in 40K, reflects that by armor class for vehicles. small arms can hurt light vehicles but heavy armor like tanks you get no shots because it is not designed to hurt them. they also retain weapon facing/LOS to maintain immersion so that things like strike aircraft are not firing fixed forward weapons out their butt.
In infinity they do have a crit system that represents the "lucky" hit but generally when you are facing the heaviest of power armor (TAGs) you use armor piercing and high explosive ammunition. or have a hacker take over the computer system.
Second, if you have been around 40K/GW as long as some of us you do know they in fact did in the past specifically change rules on older models to sell new kits. the anecdotal reference you make to current sales figures doesn't change the fact that they have a history of doing just that in the past if not so at present.
Remember the GW company line was-"were are not a game company, we are a model company that has a game attached to our models"
Empty 10 machine guns into the same sheet of metal used for the hull of a tank. Then go look at the state of the metal afterwards. stuff that is incredibly resilient, is just that. Resilient.
Lasgun's are a meme yes but they aren't exactly throwing pebbles, they still do damage. Given enough shots and time they can work their way through.
Got some real world measurements for that?
I mean, the Grand Canyon is water plunking away at stone, too. . . it just took millions of years.
And all of that is irrelevant to the fact that it is statistically so unlikely that Guardsmen will kill a Russ within the context of a real game that honestly no one should care that its technically possible.
And if it DOES happen, personally I'd see that as an awesome once in a lifetime event for your army that represents getting an extremely lucky shot into a fuel line or ammo hopper or something that causes an unlikely chain reaction to go off etc. Would it happen in real life? Maybe not. But frankly it's such a minor thing to get annoyed about.
Stux wrote: And all of that is irrelevant to the fact that it is statistically so unlikely that Guardsmen will kill a Russ within the context of a real game that honestly no one should care that its technically possible.
And if it DOES happen, personally I'd see that as an awesome once in a lifetime event for your army that represents getting an extremely lucky shot into a fuel line or ammo hopper or something that causes an unlikely chain reaction to go off etc. Would it happen in real life? Maybe not. But frankly it's such a minor thing to get annoyed about.
Weeeeellllll. . . . I disagree now. For example, in the older paradigm, them Bolt Rifles wouldn't even be able to hurt a Rhino, because they would be S4+D6 armor penetration for 10 max to a Rhinos 11.
This is why I call them Starcraft marines. Just like Starcraft, their solution to everything is to just hurl more bullets at a target, as opposed to deploying actual anti-armor weapons. The feeling is quite different.
Eh, no less different than a lasgun being able to kill a Riptide or Terminator in my eyes. The difference between a Riptide and a walker is negligible IMO, which is why I'm glad they were given the same sort of profile, and considering that Terminators are supposed to be mini-tanks in their own right, wearing armour that can withstand plasma generators, shouldn't you also "need" anti-tank weaponry to kill them too?
Maybe they hit a weak spot in the armour/tracks/fuel source/weapon magazine/vision slit/manufacturing defect, maybe they're shooting through an existing hole blown through by another squad.
There's plenty of ways to rationalise it beyond just "shoot enough lasguns and it rolls over dead".
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Eh, no less different than a lasgun being able to kill a Riptide or Terminator in my eyes. The difference between a Riptide and a walker is negligible IMO, which is why I'm glad they were given the same sort of profile, and considering that Terminators are supposed to be mini-tanks in their own right, wearing armour that can withstand plasma generators, shouldn't you also "need" anti-tank weaponry to kill them too?
Maybe they hit a weak spot in the armour/tracks/fuel source/weapon magazine/vision slit/manufacturing defect, maybe they're shooting through an existing hole blown through by another squad.
There's plenty of ways to rationalise it beyond just "shoot enough lasguns and it rolls over dead".
Absolutely.
It was entirely arbitrary in 7e that a Lasgun couldn't hurt a Rhino but could hurt a Riptide, just because one has AV and the other Toughness. That makes way less sense to me than the current system.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Eh, no less different than a lasgun being able to kill a Riptide or Terminator in my eyes. The difference between a Riptide and a walker is negligible IMO, which is why I'm glad they were given the same sort of profile, and considering that Terminators are supposed to be mini-tanks in their own right, wearing armour that can withstand plasma generators, shouldn't you also "need" anti-tank weaponry to kill them too?
Maybe they hit a weak spot in the armour/tracks/fuel source/weapon magazine/vision slit/manufacturing defect, maybe they're shooting through an existing hole blown through by another squad.
There's plenty of ways to rationalise it beyond just "shoot enough lasguns and it rolls over dead".
Absolutely.
It was entirely arbitrary in 7e that a Lasgun couldn't hurt a Rhino but could hurt a Riptide, just because one has AV and the other Toughness. That makes way less sense to me than the current system.
Couldn't hurt a Carnifex either. Once you got over 3 T values above the S, target was immune. Makes sense enough to me.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Eh, no less different than a lasgun being able to kill a Riptide or Terminator in my eyes. The difference between a Riptide and a walker is negligible IMO, which is why I'm glad they were given the same sort of profile, and considering that Terminators are supposed to be mini-tanks in their own right, wearing armour that can withstand plasma generators, shouldn't you also "need" anti-tank weaponry to kill them too?
Maybe they hit a weak spot in the armour/tracks/fuel source/weapon magazine/vision slit/manufacturing defect, maybe they're shooting through an existing hole blown through by another squad.
There's plenty of ways to rationalise it beyond just "shoot enough lasguns and it rolls over dead".
Absolutely.
It was entirely arbitrary in 7e that a Lasgun couldn't hurt a Rhino but could hurt a Riptide, just because one has AV and the other Toughness. That makes way less sense to me than the current system.
Couldn't hurt a Carnifex either. Once you got over 3 T values above the S, target was immune. Makes sense enough to me.
So why was a Riptide weaker than a Trukk?
And similarly, for the "walking tank" Terminators, why should they have been vulnerable to lasguns?
As BA, melta being pure garbage is such a kick on the balls. Vanilla park and shoot is so much better than BA even after PA, its disgusting. It's like 2nd ed all over again for BA.
Martel732 wrote: As BA, melta being pure garbage is such a kick on the balls. Vanilla park and shoot is so much better than BA even after PA, its disgusting. It's like 2nd ed all over again for BA.
I was hoping before the edition came out that Melta would get it's blast back. Too bad :/
I was also hoping that every model could use it's grenades in CC against vehicles, etc. again. Also too bad. :/
I don't know exactly what you are bringing, but the fact that they heaped a shitton of new rules on BA without actually improving them much is just amazing to me. It goes back to fallback, cheap models, and marines still being glass cannons. And things like melta being dysfunctional. This all adds up to BA, and every melee-focused marine army having the same old problems.
I can bring one wound or two wound marines, but at the end of the day, the gun lines will still beat me.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Eh, no less different than a lasgun being able to kill a Riptide or Terminator in my eyes. The difference between a Riptide and a walker is negligible IMO, which is why I'm glad they were given the same sort of profile, and considering that Terminators are supposed to be mini-tanks in their own right, wearing armour that can withstand plasma generators, shouldn't you also "need" anti-tank weaponry to kill them too?
Maybe they hit a weak spot in the armour/tracks/fuel source/weapon magazine/vision slit/manufacturing defect, maybe they're shooting through an existing hole blown through by another squad.
There's plenty of ways to rationalise it beyond just "shoot enough lasguns and it rolls over dead".
Absolutely.
It was entirely arbitrary in 7e that a Lasgun couldn't hurt a Rhino but could hurt a Riptide, just because one has AV and the other Toughness. That makes way less sense to me than the current system.
Riptides not being treated as vehicles was a mistake from day 1 and should never have happened.
Uh yeah i remember what happened ,saw the pictures to when the US drove a tank column through bahgdad right near the end of combat operations in 2003.
lots and lots of little nicks in the paint from AK rounds bouncing off the armor. the state of the metal was-it needed a new coat of paint. there are images from Iraq of damage done to the front of M1s from PRGs that didn't even pen the armor, made a nice hole or a few in the outer layers.....thats a glancing hit from a krak missile under the old damge chart...so tell me again how an autogun/lasgun or even a bolter is gonna hurt a leman russ from the front?
Are you trying to compare real world realities to a game of dice set 40,000 years from now
Its just a game mechanic.
Do you know that the baneblade has its fuel tank exposed in the rear? Is it possible that an explosive round from a bolter can pop some tracks off a tank? Is it possible that a laser beam can destroy or damage some equipment on the tank?
Tanks got fragile marginally but also no longer have shooting arcs and the same armor all round. Its just a game mechanic at the end of the day.
A lot of people opt for Scorpius when the TFC is an option. Why? D2.
When shooting marines in cover from Heavy Doc - TFC kills 2.2 mini (26.4 points) and 1.1 primaris (18.8 points). The Scorpius kills 1.8 mini (21 points) and 1.8 primaris (30 points).
In one scenario mini marines 40% more points. In the other Primaris lose 42% more points. Of course this applies up until you start pulling the PG models off the table, but then you'll lean more into damage the primaris will lean more into defense.
I just get the sense that people have an aversion to losing models.
Christ. DA mini-marines are 30" guns making the grav-guns 24" or 30" plasma with innate reroll 1s. Such a squad can sit like Intercessors, double tap, and toss a PG shot in for good measure. And I bet you won't miss the AP1 when stealers or sisters ignore it.
What game are you playing? The TFC was the number one heavy weapon choice at the LVO and all tournaments prior. Its also a 215pt model vs a 92 point model You bet your ass that the Scorpius better be firing to maximise its points recovery. And as someone else mentioned, Scorpius is also taken in conjunction with TFC. So the TFC will likely be used to finish up something the Scorpius can't kill or otherwise it certainly will go for Tacticals.
Losing models is a key part of the game. When the reason people bring troops is usually to hold objectives, its pretty important not to lose them.
If the squad can shoot, it can be shot back in return. A squad that job is to sit you want to build into durability rather than output. The issue is that intercessors can do both pretty well. Bring assault bolters for volume, stalkers for damage.
If the squad can shoot, it can be shot back in return.
Not if all eligible shooters are dead.
Sounds good in your head I am sure.
No one should ever bring Tactical Squads unless they have the models and desperate to use them (like the dude that hates primaris fluff and so no point debating). They dramatically lost effectiveness prior to primaris so I am not sure why people are fighting for them now.
If your argument is D2 weapons then you are really trying to debate that because no one takes Tacticals any more that makes them an edge case and therefore magically viable. No they will die just as fast and give away free kills.
If the squad can shoot, it can be shot back in return.
Not if all eligible shooters are dead.
Sounds good in your head I am sure.
No one should ever bring Tactical Squads unless they have the models and desperate to use them (like the dude that hates primaris fluff and so no point debating). They dramatically lost effectiveness prior to primaris so I am not sure why people are fighting for them now.
If your argument is D2 weapons then you are really trying to debate that because no one takes Tacticals any more that makes them an edge case and therefore magically viable. No they will die just as fast and give away free kills.
"Good in my head"? It's literally how I've played all edition.
Except that the way you load them up makes them just as expensive as Intercessors for significantly less durability, all for not much an offensive punch either.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Eh, no less different than a lasgun being able to kill a Riptide or Terminator in my eyes. The difference between a Riptide and a walker is negligible IMO, which is why I'm glad they were given the same sort of profile, and considering that Terminators are supposed to be mini-tanks in their own right, wearing armour that can withstand plasma generators, shouldn't you also "need" anti-tank weaponry to kill them too?
Maybe they hit a weak spot in the armour/tracks/fuel source/weapon magazine/vision slit/manufacturing defect, maybe they're shooting through an existing hole blown through by another squad.
There's plenty of ways to rationalise it beyond just "shoot enough lasguns and it rolls over dead".
Absolutely.
It was entirely arbitrary in 7e that a Lasgun couldn't hurt a Rhino but could hurt a Riptide, just because one has AV and the other Toughness. That makes way less sense to me than the current system.
Couldn't hurt a Carnifex either. Once you got over 3 T values above the S, target was immune. Makes sense enough to me.
Except it really doesn't make sense because a Carnifex could be shot at in its eyes, which is an obvious weak point.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except that the way you load them up makes them just as expensive as Intercessors for significantly less durability, all for not much an offensive punch either.
Still win plenty though. That's good enough for me.
Seriously, it's like Tacticals killed your dog or something.
Fair enough. I've found that my Tacticals last a while because the opponent is busy killing my devs, etc. And their offensive output in turn helps my army's overall surviveability by knocking out a few extra heavy hitters.
Why not use grav devastators for knocking out heavy hitters and leaving the tax troops slots to intercessors?
^It's a strange pathology that can't admit to a unit having any possible advantage. Well armed Tacticals can out damage Intercessors, esp. against heavier targets. Whether you want to make the 1 wound sacrifice for that potential is up to you.
I'm not saying Tacs are superior. I'm saying they can do things that Intercessors can't, and I argue that if you design around their strengths, they make fine troops.
Why would you ever design anything around a strength of what is basically a tax unit. GW doesn't care for them, not sure why you do so much.
Funny thing is Intercessors are so good that you legit can actually do that with them with their bulk wounds, simply adding a 5+++ really makes them tough and strats like transhuman make them even more durable.
Play IH, used cogitated martyrdom to act as tau drones, walk around freely with uber stalker rifles
Play IF, do damage 3 to vehicles, shoot went you die with an ancient shenanigans
Play RG, deepstrike a 10 man squad, 30 shots on arrival, then another 32 attacks on the charge
For ITC, if you have nothing else to do, play them as engineers.
Intercessors have so much play value its crazy.
But yes you go play with your Tacticools!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: ^It's a strange pathology that can't admit to a unit having any possible advantage. Well armed Tacticals can out damage Intercessors, esp. against heavier targets. Whether you want to make the 1 wound sacrifice for that potential is up to you.
I can freely admin that if you wanted to you could make skewed arguments for tacticals having an advantage
But that's also called a niche
Or otherwise known as handicap
Reality is, and how everyone else plays it, if you want to target heavier targets, you just bring devastators if you want OG marines. But you want to argue bringing 5 units of tacticals to do the same job.
^Missed the point entirely then. If Devs are good because they have Heavy weapons, then why not bring the Troops "tax" choice that can also bring heavy weapons? You wind up with even more heavy weapons.
Insectum7 wrote: Well armed Tacticals can out damage Intercessors, esp. against heavier targets.
Can they? The last argument I saw you making was something about 5 Tacticals all with grav-cannons, at which point is just a Devastator Squad?
With bolters being in all ways inferior to bolt rifles, it's down to the Sergeant's weapon and the single weapon carried by the 5th guy to do all the heavy lifting - can they make that different mathematically? That's a genuine question, btw - assuming things like no Chapter Tactics, no stratagems, no buffing characters, etc, can Tacticals out-damage Intercessors? Can they do so at a cheaper cost? Will they be capable of contributing aside from mere DPS?
Again, considering that the bulk of Tactical damage comes from their single support weapon, why not take a whole unit of support weapons?
How would you feel about Intercessor Squads if one guy could have the equivalent plasma incinerator "support" weapon (ie, whole squad with stalker bolt rifles, and heavy plasma incinerator support, or auto bolt rifles, and the assault plasma incinerator)?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: ^Missed the point entirely then. If Devs are good because they have Heavy weapons, then why not bring the Troops "tax" choice that can also bring heavy weapons? You wind up with even more heavy weapons.
But wouldn't you still have to pay for those weapons? On a tax unit, don't you want to keep the cost low?
Doesn't affect me, I play PL, but on a points standpoint, wouldn't that be a concern for you?
Insectum7 wrote: ^Missed the point entirely then. If Devs are good because they have Heavy weapons, then why not bring the Troops "tax" choice that can also bring heavy weapons? You wind up with even more heavy weapons.
It just shows your lacking of understanding the game from a competitive point of view.
Devs are good because they are efficient. You are not paying for much wastage. Plus there is the cherub. The only tax is the sergeant.
Secondly the game from a competitive stand point is all about efficiency of strategems. The grav amp strat allows you to reroll wounds and damage. It is the only thing that makes grav devastators viable at killing stuff. Same with centurion devastators. Being able to reroll wounds on T6+ is critical to making this gun work. The damage boost is nice cherry on top.
It can only be played once per phase. Spending 1cp so that it affects 4 grav cannons is going to be much better than affecting 1. That 5 man team is going to be sent to its death via drop pod but kill something on its way out. There is virtually no point in having extra bodies because everything in the game can kill a tactical marine with ease. Try getting 4 separate squads to bear all their heavy weapons (range 24") at the right target...yeah its not going to happen.
I think in a separate post you mentioned bring in 2 combat squads that have all the special/heavy weapons. Once again efficiency of the grav strat can only go to 1 combat squad and you are likely going to waste those tactical marines after they've landed.
Once again, not having a go at your choice of playing tactical squads with heavy weapons, its just not a competitive choice.
With bolters being in all ways inferior to bolt rifles, it's down to the Sergeant's weapon and the single weapon carried by the 5th guy to do all the heavy lifting - can they make that different mathematically? That's a genuine question, btw - assuming things like no Chapter Tactics, no stratagems, no buffing characters, etc, can Tacticals out-damage Intercessors? Can they do so at a cheaper cost? Will they be capable of contributing aside from mere DPS?
Again, considering that the bulk of Tactical damage comes from their single support weapon, why not take a whole unit of support weapons?
That's a good question, but lets put out an example for it. You have two options
Option A) 5 Intercessors, 5 Hellblasters with incinerators - (85) + (165) for 250pts total
Option B) 5 tacticals with Plasma/Combi-Plas (82) * 3 for 246pts total
Pretty close Option A has 10 bodies with 20 wounds, and 5 RF plasma weapons which are better then the Tac counterpart
Option B has 15 bodies with 15 wounds, and 6 RF plasma weapons, albeit at shorter range. And fills out two more troop slots
Now lets put these in a common situation. Fighting Riptides (Str 6 -2 2D is a common profile).
If I brought Option A, I have absolutely no way of stopping the riptide from killing primaris beyond LoS. So the opponent realizing that the Hellblasters are a larger threat is going to fire into them.
W/O markerlight support but novacharging the gun its 18 Shots -> 9 Hits -> 6 Wounds -> 4 Dead Hellblasters. That is a SIGNIFICANT degradation of firepower.
If I brought Option B, The riptide fires at one of the tactical squads, kills 4 leaving the Sgt with his combi-plas. Leaving me with 5 Plasma Guns compared to 1 Plasma Incinerator. Embedded Special weapons are one of the biggest advantages that Tacs have over intercessors. If Intercessors ever take that ability then Tacs are truly dusted.
Sure Option A is slightly more durable when it comes to mortal wounds and 1 Damage weapons. Even in that case need to take 5 wounds to remove 2 Plasma guns, whereas the hellblaster only need to lose 4 to remove two.
Martel732 wrote: I'm not sure heavy weapons on one wound marines is very good anymore.
Not in general but Devs with Gravs can do solid work. A 210pt unit (Iron Hands, 5 man with cherub and drop pod) with 1 CP can deal out 15.84 wounds to a T8 3+. Thats basically killing a 324 point Repulsor Executioner with 1 salvo. And can do so on T1. Or it can do 9.51 wounds to T8 4++.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Missed the point entirely then. If Devs are good because they have Heavy weapons, then why not bring the Troops "tax" choice that can also bring heavy weapons? You wind up with even more heavy weapons.
But wouldn't you still have to pay for those weapons? On a tax unit, don't you want to keep the cost low?
Tactical unit costs 80 points. Intercessor unit costs 85. So my "tax unit" costs less. In our scenario against Intercessors, the Tactical Squad almost doubles the damage output of the Intercessors. Also, because the damage output of the unit is primarily from one model, the damage output of the unit will degrade slower.
Dual Plasma costs 2 points more, but averages more damage with S8 and AP-4 in Tactical. For 91 points you can add a Combi-Plasma to the Grav-Cannon squad, which gets them to 5w vs. Intercessors.
Smirrors wrote: The grav amp strat allows you to reroll wounds and damage. It is the only thing that makes grav devastators viable at killing stuff.
What's better, four Grav Cannons with the Stratagem? Or eight Grav Cannons with four using the Stratagem? MOAR is better.
Smirrors wrote: The grav amp strat allows you to reroll wounds and damage. It is the only thing that makes grav devastators viable at killing stuff.
What's better, four Grav Cannons with the Stratagem? Or eight Grav Cannons with four using the Stratagem? MOAR is better.
Your logical is bad.
Just take another devastator squad which has another cherub.
There is no reason to take tactical marines if you think about it.
Hehehe, you misunderstand. I'm already taking three Devastator Squads, which is the max. But four additional Tactical Squads (with four Grav Cannons and eight Plasma guns) is like taking three MORE Devastators Squads, except they're troops.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Missed the point entirely then. If Devs are good because they have Heavy weapons, then why not bring the Troops "tax" choice that can also bring heavy weapons? You wind up with even more heavy weapons.
Tactical unit costs 80 points. Intercessor unit costs 85. So my "tax unit" costs less. In our scenario against Intercessors, the Tactical Squad almost doubles the damage output of the Intercessors. Also, because the damage output of the unit is primarily from one model, the damage output of the unit will degrade slower.
Dual Plasma costs 2 points more, but averages more damage with S8 and AP-4 in Tactical. For 91 points you can add a Combi-Plasma to the Grav-Cannon squad, which gets them to 5w vs. Intercessors.
While theory hammer serves you well in this argument, the practical argument will tell you that a 5 man tactical squad will never realistically get an opportunity to shoot at a 5 man intercessor squad. With a range of 24, the squad will be lucky to even shoot once per game. More than likely they will be the first units to die. And thats why durability becomes important.
Naturally you like to pick and choose when it suits you. A 5 man tactical squad with grav does 4.22 damage at 24" range. The 5 man intercessor squad with stalker bolt rifles will do 2.78 damage at 36" range. If we want to play the range game, the 5 man tactical squad will never get a chance to shoot at the intercessors and die in 2 turns.
Intercessors will shoot first and kill 2-3 tacticals. At best the tactical will kill 2 intercessors (if it is even in range). The remaining 3 intercessors will just as likely finish off the last 2 tacticals. That is being generous.
Hehehe, you misunderstand. I'm already taking three Devastator Squads, which is the max. But four additional Tactical Squads (with four Grav Cannons and eight Plasma guns) is like taking three MORE Devastators Squads, except they're troops.
No I am not misunderstanding anything. You can make up any scenario to make something better. Your arguments are all fundamentally flawed. And you keep adding special conditions to make tacticals "better".
Insectum7 wrote: ^Missed the point entirely then. If Devs are good because they have Heavy weapons, then why not bring the Troops "tax" choice that can also bring heavy weapons? You wind up with even more heavy weapons.
Tactical unit costs 80 points. Intercessor unit costs 85. So my "tax unit" costs less. In our scenario against Intercessors, the Tactical Squad almost doubles the damage output of the Intercessors. Also, because the damage output of the unit is primarily from one model, the damage output of the unit will degrade slower.
Dual Plasma costs 2 points more, but averages more damage with S8 and AP-4 in Tactical. For 91 points you can add a Combi-Plasma to the Grav-Cannon squad, which gets them to 5w vs. Intercessors.
While theory hammer serves you well in this argument, the practical argument will tell you that a 5 man tactical squad will never realistically get an opportunity to shoot at a 5 man intercessor squad. With a range of 24, the squad will be lucky to even shoot once per game. More than likely they will be the first units to die. And thats why durability becomes important.
Naturally you like to pick and choose when it suits you. A 5 man tactical squad with grav does 4.22 damage at 24" range. The 5 man intercessor squad with stalker bolt rifles will do 2.78 damage at 36" range. If we want to play the range game, the 5 man tactical squad will never get a chance to shoot at the intercessors and die in 2 turns.
Intercessors will shoot first and kill 2-3 tacticals. At best the tactical will kill 2 intercessors (if it is even in range). The remaining 3 intercessors will just as likely finish off the last 2 tacticals. That is being generous.
Who's theory hammering with zero maneuvering and a featureless table?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Not all opponents are marines. Grav cannons fall apart vs hordes.
Few armies don't have any multiwound models or vehicles of any kind. I mix my Grav with other weapons, depending on meta.
Besides, I hear Marines are pretty popular right now.
Hehehe, you misunderstand. I'm already taking three Devastator Squads, which is the max. But four additional Tactical Squads (with four Grav Cannons and eight Plasma guns) is like taking three MORE Devastators Squads, except they're troops.
No I am not misunderstanding anything. You can make up any scenario to make something better. Your arguments are all fundamentally flawed. And you keep adding special conditions to make tacticals "better".
Really? Shooting at Intercessors is some extremely contrived "special condition" scenario?
DIce averages are just that, an average under optimal conditions. as an opponent i am not going to just let you get those optimal positions if i can help it. as the old saying goes-no plan survives contact with the enemy.
8th edition is an entirely different game from the last 5 editions just like switching from 2nd to 3rd.
GW redesigned marines to fit into this new edition even adding some terribly written lore to try and justify it instead of just saying these are the new edition version of marines. but in doing so they didn't want to invalidate peoples collections for once. so you can still take tac marines but now with the lack of fixed armor saves, hard cover saves and the exponential increase in shots being fired Tactical marines are out of their element.
GW wants you to buy primaris units. they are slowly giving them every option they need to do what tacticals did but better. we know bikes are coming and thats added to the already long list-better bolters, better plasma rifles, better rhinos, better land raiders, better terminator stand ins(aggressors) better jump infantry, better scouts (vanguard/phobos) etc...
Like always it is up to each player to choose an army they want to run and what formations they enjoy. it is also up to each player to choose what type of player they are casual, ITC tournament level competative. etc...
So the base question which is better-GW thinks it is primaris and thats what they are pushing. this doesn't mean you have to agree or even play the way they want you to.
No amount of dice hammer will answer that question.
As a super casual 8th edition "light" player who still plays and prefers HH or 5th edition. i don't care about stratagems overmuch, i don't run armies with lots of command points but i fight people who do and i still win from time to time as well as have enjoyable games. for 8th editon at least i do not run tacticals. i have play tested a variety of primaris builds because they are just straight up better in real play, but i always go back to the units i love most-bikes and vehicles(lots of dreadnoughts)....
Insectum7 wrote: Well armed Tacticals can out damage Intercessors, esp. against heavier targets.
Can they?
5 man Tactical Squad w/ Grav Cannon vs. Intercessors, Tactical Doctrine
8 x .666 x .5 x.5 + (4 x .666 x .666 x .83 x 2) = 4.27w
5 Intercessors vs. Intercessors, Tactical Doctrine
10 x .666 x .5 x .666 = 2.2w
Fair point, but did you consider the range the Primaris Marines have? Don't forget, depending on where the Intercessors the grav-cannon is firing are, couldn't they move and reduce the shots the grav can put out? Again, still assuming no strats, no support, etc.
But, yes, I see how that grav is making a deal of difference.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Missed the point entirely then. If Devs are good because they have Heavy weapons, then why not bring the Troops "tax" choice that can also bring heavy weapons? You wind up with even more heavy weapons.
But wouldn't you still have to pay for those weapons? On a tax unit, don't you want to keep the cost low?
Tactical unit costs 80 points. Intercessor unit costs 85. So my "tax unit" costs less. In our scenario against Intercessors, the Tactical Squad almost doubles the damage output of the Intercessors. Also, because the damage output of the unit is primarily from one model, the damage output of the unit will degrade slower.
Dual Plasma costs 2 points more, but averages more damage with S8 and AP-4 in Tactical. For 91 points you can add a Combi-Plasma to the Grav-Cannon squad, which gets them to 5w vs. Intercessors.
Fair point, but their operating range is still shorter, meaning that against those Intercessors, unless they have a (expensive) transport, they're going to have to soak up at least one round of fire before they get into their comfortable range. And again, the Intercessors are getting double the Wounds, for 5 points more. The only real redeeming factor about the Tacticals is that embedded weapon, which essentially turns the entire squad into babysitters for that one gun. Which, personally, I don't like thematically, for what it insinuates, but that's a whole other issue.
When the gun is the most valuable thing about that unit, isn't it better to go find more guns instead, with more whole squads dedicated to it?
Also, I don't believe you answered how you'd feel if Intercessors got embedded plasma incinerators?
Tailored tacticals win vs intercessors and T8 but intercessors win against almost everything else. And since there are no tacticals being played the only bad matchups is t8 which is kind of ok to let things other than basic troops handle. Sure a list with 100 IF/IH stalker intercessors would probably own most t8 lists as well.
Intercessors have a full movement phase of range advantage over tacticals, two if they are dark angels. Comparing tacticals and intercessors shooting at each other in a vacum is just unrealistic.
"Few armies don't have any multiwound models or vehicles of any kind. I mix my Grav with other weapons, depending on meta."
But a lot of them don't have 3+ saves to trigger the D3 damage. Grotesques and invuln bulls come to mind. Grav is expensive AND specialized. Unfortunately. If grav cannons were much cheaper, I'd be much more inclined to use them. But I'm already giving up wound efficiency 12 pts/W vs 8.5 pts/W and then on top of it I'm paying for expensive gear.
Insectum7 wrote: Well armed Tacticals can out damage Intercessors, esp. against heavier targets.
Can they?
5 man Tactical Squad w/ Grav Cannon vs. Intercessors, Tactical Doctrine
8 x .666 x .5 x.5 + (4 x .666 x .666 x .83 x 2) = 4.27w
5 Intercessors vs. Intercessors, Tactical Doctrine
10 x .666 x .5 x .666 = 2.2w
Fair point, but did you consider the range the Primaris Marines have? Don't forget, depending on where the Intercessors the grav-cannon is firing are, couldn't they move and reduce the shots the grav can put out? Again, still assuming no strats, no support, etc.
But, yes, I see how that grav is making a deal of difference.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Missed the point entirely then. If Devs are good because they have Heavy weapons, then why not bring the Troops "tax" choice that can also bring heavy weapons? You wind up with even more heavy weapons.
But wouldn't you still have to pay for those weapons? On a tax unit, don't you want to keep the cost low?
Tactical unit costs 80 points. Intercessor unit costs 85. So my "tax unit" costs less. In our scenario against Intercessors, the Tactical Squad almost doubles the damage output of the Intercessors. Also, because the damage output of the unit is primarily from one model, the damage output of the unit will degrade slower.
Dual Plasma costs 2 points more, but averages more damage with S8 and AP-4 in Tactical. For 91 points you can add a Combi-Plasma to the Grav-Cannon squad, which gets them to 5w vs. Intercessors.
Fair point, but their operating range is still shorter, meaning that against those Intercessors, unless they have a (expensive) transport, they're going to have to soak up at least one round of fire before they get into their comfortable range. And again, the Intercessors are getting double the Wounds, for 5 points more. The only real redeeming factor about the Tacticals is that embedded weapon, which essentially turns the entire squad into babysitters for that one gun. Which, personally, I don't like thematically, for what it insinuates, but that's a whole other issue.
When the gun is the most valuable thing about that unit, isn't it better to go find more guns instead, with more whole squads dedicated to it?
Also, I don't believe you answered how you'd feel if Intercessors got embedded plasma incinerators?
Well here's my deal, I don't mind spending points on transports if they can get me better positioning or a guaranteed alpha. At least where I play, there's usually a reasonable amount of terrain as well. So I'm comfortable putting things, even Tacs, into Rhinos or Pods if need be. With Guaranteed alpha strikes and some terrain for maneuver, I've often found that I can section off parts of an opposing army and deal enough damage to give me a good chance for the mid-late game. I'm not just trying to walk them up the board.
Which brings another more subtle point, and that is the fact that Tacs can share the transports of Devastators and Sternguard, which I also take. So that gives me more flexibility on deployment in terms of what goes where, and how I can push models around in the middle of a fight. If I used Intercessors, no shared Transports.
As for Intercessors with embedded Plasma. . . imo that would be a pretty irritating development when it comes to choosing between Intercessors and Tacticals. But then again, there's no Plasma in the kit, and with GW these days, no model no rules. Plus, who knows how the game will develop? Plasma might become less optimal than it currently is. Imo Tacticals have weathered editions well because they have lots of choices.
Klickor wrote: Tailored tacticals win vs intercessors and T8 but intercessors win against almost everything else. And since there are no tacticals being played the only bad matchups is t8 which is kind of ok to let things other than basic troops handle. Sure a list with 100 IF/IH stalker intercessors would probably own most t8 lists as well.
Vs T7 3+ (REQ)
5 Intercessors, Tactical Doctrine
10 x .666 x .333 x .666 = 1.47
5 Man Grav Cannon Tac Team, Tactical Doctrine
8 x .666 x .333 x .5 + (4 x .666 x .333 x .83 x 2) = 2.35 Tacs win
Vs T5 2+ 4++ (Custodes)
5 Intercessors,
10 x .666 x .333 x .5 = 1.1
Grav Team
8 x .666 x .333 x .333 + (4 x .666 x .5 x .5 x 2) = 1.9 Tacs win
Vs. GEQ 5 Intercessors
10 x .666 x .666 x = 4.43
Grav Team
8 x .666 x .666 x .83 + (4 x .666 x .666) = 4.71 Tacs win, and against Guard, use the Grav Cannon against the Leman Russ anyways. What, you afraid of Guardsmen?!
And keep in mind that 2 Intercessors lost from a squad is almost half their firepower. While 2 Tactical Marines lost is much less than half, as their firepower is skewed towards the heavy.
Galas wrote: Intercessors have a full movement phase of range advantage over tacticals, two if they are dark angels. Comparing tacticals and intercessors shooting at each other in a vacum is just unrealistic.
But it does illustrate a point. Deliver them and they can out-alpha Intercessors, and handily win against them. It's more of a glass-hammer approach, but I'm comfortable with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: "Few armies don't have any multiwound models or vehicles of any kind. I mix my Grav with other weapons, depending on meta."
But a lot of them don't have 3+ saves to trigger the D3 damage. Grotesques and invuln bulls come to mind. Grav is expensive AND specialized. Unfortunately. If grav cannons were much cheaper, I'd be much more inclined to use them. But I'm already giving up wound efficiency 12 pts/W vs 8.5 pts/W and then on top of it I'm paying for expensive gear.
It's fine, Tacs have 6 Heavies, 4 Specials and 4 Combi's to choose from. If the meta changes, the loadout can change.
Deathwatch can imbed plasma in Intercessor squads, for cheep bodies to soak wounds like a tac squad. Of course, those “cheep” bodies are putting SIA downrange, so not just there to take hits.
If you have a grav on tacts you should add either stalkers to intercessors against units like custodes or t7 vehicles and/or add in an extra shooting phase for the intercessors due to longer range. Best intercessors right now are the stalker variants and they even get doctrines on turn 1 instead of having to wait for turn 2.
With 12" extra range and getting doctrines from turn 1 make up the difference in output and then they pay less for each wound than tacticals and have more attacks in melee.
For my BA, intercessors is the obvious choice as well. Scouts for advancing and then intercessors to stand back and hold objectives. The cheaper wounds and 6" extra range is crucial. That 6" max range and 3" RF range really helps getting shots off from standing back and holding objectives. Not sure if the rapid fire version or the assault version is the best one for my play style yet though. Getting to advance and still fire 3 shots is quite nice as well. But they sure as hell beat tacticals any day.
Klickor wrote: If you have a grav on tacts you should add either stalkers to intercessors against units like custodes or t7 vehicles and/or add in an extra shooting phase for the intercessors due to longer range. Best intercessors right now are the stalker variants and they even get doctrines on turn 1 instead of having to wait for turn 2.
With 12" extra range and getting doctrines from turn 1 make up the difference in output and then they pay less for each wound than tacticals and have more attacks in melee.
For my BA, intercessors is the obvious choice as well. Scouts for advancing and then intercessors to stand back and hold objectives. The cheaper wounds and 6" extra range is crucial. That 6" max range and 3" RF range really helps getting shots off from standing back and holding objectives. Not sure if the rapid fire version or the assault version is the best one for my play style yet though. Getting to advance and still fire 3 shots is quite nice as well. But they sure as hell beat tacticals any day.
The moment you switch to Stalkers is the moment the unit becomes less good against hordes (or my Tacs). There's a definite sacrifice being made. Also, unless I'm mistaken a 5 man team averages 1.84 wounds against REQ, which is still less than the Grav Tacs, who get 2.35.
Not saying they're a bad unit, esp. if you want to sit them in the backfield. But the Tacs still deliver more damage and more flexibility of target.
Stalkers in for example IF dont need to be that good against hordes. You can just load up on thunderfires to help with that and against GEQ in cover IF stalkers at 36" perform almost equal to other chapters 5 tacticals rapid firing.
And comparing tacts vs intercessors isnt representative at all. Since tacticals arent used but intercessors are everywhere we should probably compare both to intercessors and if we do that we find that Stalker intercessors are even closer in performance + 12" extra range and 5 extra wounds.
Klickor wrote: Stalkers in for example IF dont need to be that good against hordes. You can just load up on thunderfires to help with that and against GEQ in cover IF stalkers at 36" perform almost equal to other chapters 5 tacticals rapid firing.
And comparing tacts vs intercessors isnt representative at all. Since tacticals arent used but intercessors are everywhere we should probably compare both to intercessors and if we do that we find that Stalker intercessors are even closer in performance + 12" extra range and 5 extra wounds.
Although the Tacs still kill Intercessors faster than Stalker Intercessors do, and I haven't given them a Combi Plasma yet.
What you have is two units, similar point costs, and each unit has strengths and weaknesses. That's exactly how it should be. Tacs are shorter ranged, but deal more damage against a wider array of targets. Stalkers have longer range and better defensive capability. Choose the one that you want to use, plain and simple.
Although the Tacs still kill Intercessors faster than Stalker Intercessors do, and I haven't given them a Combi Plasma yet.
What you have is two units, similar point costs, and each unit has strengths and weaknesses. That's exactly how it should be. Tacs are shorter ranged, but deal more damage against a wider array of targets. Stalkers have longer range and better defensive capability. Choose the one that you want to use, plain and simple.
Once again your theory hammer is not going to play out on the table top. You wont have a chance to shoot at the intercessors because thats not how 40k is played...wild west walking towards each other. I dont take intercessors to kill tactical marines because reality is no one players them competitively anymore. My intercessors are busy holding objectives where possible. And if we both have Thunderfire cannons, you will learn why tacticals are useless pretty quick.
Only your last line has any relevance. Play with tacticools because you like them. No point convincing people when your arguments are fundamentally flawed.
Smirrors wrote: You wont have a chance to shoot at the intercessors because thats not how 40k is played...wild west walking towards each other.
Last I checked the wild west was your scenario, not mine:
Smirrors wrote: If we want to play the range game, the 5 man tactical squad will never get a chance to shoot at the intercessors and die in 2 turns.
Intercessors will shoot first and kill 2-3 tacticals. At best the tactical will kill 2 intercessors (if it is even in range). The remaining 3 intercessors will just as likely finish off the last 2 tacticals. That is being generous.
Last I checked the wild west was your scenario, not mine:
Correct because that is the only scenario where tactical marines will be able to be effective. 24" range on 1W bodies aint going to cut it.
You are the one talking about how much more damage tactical marines can do when reality is that is not going to be their purpose (unless you force it upon them).
Devastators I can absolutely see their usage but no reason to take tactical squads, particularly ones limited to 24" range.
Last I checked the wild west was your scenario, not mine:
Correct because that is the only scenario where tactical marines will be able to be effective. 24" range on 1W bodies aint going to cut it.
You are the one talking about how much more damage tactical marines can do when reality is that is not going to be their purpose (unless you force it upon them).
Devastators I can absolutely see their usage but no reason to take tactical squads, particularly ones limited to 24" range.
It's like you've never heard of transports, terrain, covering fire, or any other number of variables that could be used to get them within 24" of a foe. Other armies can get by with 1w bodies, we can too. Especially now that we have Doctrine and Chapter bonuses. Potentially doing double the damage means 5 Tacticals can alpha as well as 10 Intercessors. If you don't want to make use of that, then don't use them. It's fine.
Your analysis is correct for your own turn. What about the opponent's turn? I don't know about you, but I generally lose the match on my opponent's turn.
Also, five tac marines can't clear nearly the chaff of five autobolter intercessors.
". Other armies can get by with 1w bodies, we can too"
They get by with cheap wounds, not expensive wounds that get even more expensive with overpriced gear. Mortal wounds alone make me balk at this approach.
Martel732 wrote: Your analysis is correct for your own turn. What about the opponent's turn? I don't know about you, but I generally lose the match on my opponent's turn.
Also, five tac marines can't clear nearly the chaff of five autobolter intercessors.
". Other armies can get by with 1w bodies, we can too"
They get by with cheap wounds, not expensive wounds that get even more expensive with overpriced gear. Mortal wounds alone make me balk at this approach.
In my experience chaff has never really been an issue, probably because I bring a hoard of marines and so just have a hoard of bolters. Autobolters still shoot less than Storm Bolters, too, which are common enough in a classic marine list. Classic or Primaris, it's easy to get a bunch of S4 shots.
The opponent gets to fight back, sure. But the weapons I fear are the weapons with a high AP, and more often than not high AP weapons come with multi-wound damage, and they're going to chew through Primaris just as fast. But a lot of the time those high AP weapons are concentrated in specific units, too. So my take on it is I want to hit first with more damage, and focus on getting rid of those high AP-output units.
As for Mortal wounds, I haven't played a list like that recently. Last time I fought against TSons though I sorta blew them off the board, and that was before the new marine books. So I have less experience with MW spam, but I'm still confident that I can solve the problem.
Also, I already have played with an "Intercessors-ish" army of Tyranid Warriors. They have 3W, 3A and a 3+ (Jorm) and basically all have Heavy Bolters with a S5 AP-1 Assault 3 24"gun. I found the unit not capable enough in the anti-armor/anti-elite department, so I started loading them up with Venom Cannons (which they get 1 out of 3 models). And they work much better for me. I just like my heavies/specials distributed around my army as it gives me more redundancy and more chances to deal with priority targets.
Martel732 wrote: " But the weapons I fear are the weapons with a high AP,"
That's the flaw in your reasoning. AP 0 kills 3+ models just fine. I do it to others and its done to me all the time. AP 0 only struggles vs 2+.
Right, well, cover is the on-table solution for that. It's why IF are really strong. (Jormungander can ignore cover too)
Martel732 wrote: "In my experience chaff has never really been an issue, probably because I bring a hoard of marines and so just have a hoard of bolters"
I"m playing BA, so chaff literally ends me. And I will necessarily have fewer models than vanilla.
Yeah I get that, we're going to have different experiences with chaff because of it. I'm only playing for advantageous firefights, not relying on the delivery of CC. Our order of operations against something like Guard is different. I shoot the tanks first and mop up the infantry second. You have to get through the infantry to get to the tanks. On the macro scale it's totally opposite.
Also, probably because I'm not relying on delivery of models to CC, I suspect I can take advantage of cover for the 2+ easier.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Tau Strike Teams eat tacticals for breakfast. Intercessors on the other hand totally obliterate them, for example.
I'm not sure what you mean by Strike Teams, but either way it's fine. As long as your army has some solution for the problem, then you're good to go.
My 3+ armor models almost never have cover. So I can tell you exactly how fast they die to AP 0. Fast. It's telling how amazingly inefficient CC is from this conversation.
Martel732 wrote: My 3+ armor models almost never have cover. So I can tell you exactly how fast they die to AP 0. Fast. It's telling how amazingly inefficient CC is from this conversation.
Yeah, well, maybe Intercessors work out better for your situation. There's so many ways to play marines these days that it seems obvious that "optimal unit" is going to depend on a whole host of variables. Salamanders (or Master Artisans) make Lascannon Tacticals incredibly valuable right out of the gate with their re-rolls. Unsupported, the output of the Lascannon nearly doubles in average, while Intercessors gain almost nothing from that trait.
It's like you've never heard of transports, terrain, covering fire, or any other number of variables that could be used to get them within 24" of a foe. Other armies can get by with 1w bodies, we can too. Especially now that we have Doctrine and Chapter bonuses. Potentially doing double the damage means 5 Tacticals can alpha as well as 10 Intercessors. If you don't want to make use of that, then don't use them. It's fine.
Once again you are playing theory hammer. If you have to invest in transports for your tacticals, you are already losing. If you have to rely on terrain for durability, you are already losing. Its the way 8th currently is being played (perhaps not in your local area). There is virtually no way you would want to invest anything to get tacticals into 24 range, that is my practical experience. Troop units need to operate efficiently from the get go to be considered effective. Thats why units like Scouts and Intercessors are so much better for their purpose.
I think we are debating competitiveness here. You are just choosing a non-competitive unit because you like them. That is ok.
Other armies get by with 1w bodies for very particular reason - Guardsmen, Orks, Tau and Nid troops etc - dirt cheap and available in hordes. Grey Knight Strike Squads, the ability to deepstrike and get a chance to do damage and now Smite, Deathwatch teams get durability through storm shields and extra abilities and deepstrike and redeploy. Your best example would be Chaos space marines...and it doesnt work for them either.
But the weapons I fear are the weapons with a high AP, and more often than not high AP weapons come with multi-wound damage, and they're going to chew through Primaris just as fast. But a lot of the time those high AP weapons are concentrated in specific units, too. So my take on it is I want to hit first with more damage, and focus on getting rid of those high AP-output units.
There are plenty of heavy bolter and gatlings, and assault cannons in marine lists and they all are AP2 D1 for example. These will chew through marines with ease. Its same reason I stated about devastators in pods. They are good but they aren't expected to survive after they turn they arrive. Tactical marines are objectively worse since you rarely should invest in transports and they will die before they even get to shoot their points worth. There job is to survive and they typically cannot do so in such a lethal edition of 40k. By putting weapons into them, you are actually encouraging people to shoot them. And if they are in 24" range, most armies will sneeze some shots their way and they will go down too quick.
You wouldnt be the first to claim it, but I do well enough.
That last comment wasn't meant to be disparaging you and how you decide to play.
But when you discuss things its going to be bias towards what you like, and in this case what you like doesn't happen to be that good.
I and many others would love to use tactical squads and look through rose coloured glasses like you are, but GW has decided they are not the core of marines anymore and their rules reflect this..
Guys, i think the facts have been hashed out. Now its only degrading into a right at all cost argument when nothing short of the almighty saying something would change minds one way or the other.
I agree with insectum they still have use, and a better player vs a worse player will still clean house with tac squads and old marines. Newboys are better, they were made that way inevitably however it doesn't put Tacs in the hole unless you're only ever playing the most bleeding edge of competitive.
I beleive insectum when he says he plays and wins vs hard lists with tacs. I favor experience over just raw numbers said in a vaccum. As well I'd say if anyone running new marines loses to him they should hand off their army, as tacs are an auto lose, so to lose to it should be the shame of shames.
I'd also say this, some players don't want the easy button and actually like the struggle.
I don't think anyone is saying intercessors aren't the stronger unit, it's a no brainer, they were made to be the no brainer choice. All anyone is saying is Tacs can win, period. Like it or not people will need to breath in a bag and calm down, the world will keep spinning yet.
I'm sure some players can't win with them however, not all players are made equal.
But when you discuss things its going to be bias towards what you like, and in this case what you like doesn't happen to be that good.
Says the guy with "mirror" is his name . You seem to be unable to even admit that Tacs have some advantages, such as flexibility and damage output.
Smirrors wrote: I and many others would love to use tactical squads and look through rose coloured glasses like you are, but GW has decided they are not the core of marines anymore and their rules reflect this..
It's pretty straight forward, but first you have to stop thinking of Troops as a "tax" unit. It's a unit, with advantages and disadvantages. I get that the advantage of Intercessors is that you plop them down in cover and just start shooting. It's an easy unit to get value out of. Tacs are a little more subtle, and take more effort. But that doesnt mean they don't have value or are necessarily less competetive. The Master Artisans trait is a prime example of this, as a Tac Lascannon nearly doubles in power vs. It's intended targets, which can free up other portions of a list to do things other than tank hunting , if they choose. A unit that's harder to use doesnt make it an inferior unit, it just might require more thought to get the value out of. As UM I often make them battle-line squads, where they hit hard up front, and then perform disruption maneuvers with assaulting because I can back them out and keep firing whenever I want. Tricky? Sure. Risky? Yup. But effective? Yes. There's nothing more satisfying than having one marine left forcing a unit to not fire next turn because he made base contact. And Alpha-ing with 80+ 2D/D3D shots plus rerolls catches lots of players totally off guard, to the point where they can have trouble recovering, even if my guys are only 1w.
Although the Tacs still kill Intercessors faster than Stalker Intercessors do, and I haven't given them a Combi Plasma yet.
What you have is two units, similar point costs, and each unit has strengths and weaknesses. That's exactly how it should be. Tacs are shorter ranged, but deal more damage against a wider array of targets. Stalkers have longer range and better defensive capability. Choose the one that you want to use, plain and simple.
Once again your theory hammer is not going to play out on the table top. You wont have a chance to shoot at the intercessors because thats not how 40k is played...wild west walking towards each other. I dont take intercessors to kill tactical marines because reality is no one players them competitively anymore. My intercessors are busy holding objectives where possible. And if we both have Thunderfire cannons, you will learn why tacticals are useless pretty quick.
Only your last line has any relevance. Play with tacticools because you like them. No point convincing people when your arguments are fundamentally flawed.
Uh...he does play using these units.
Lets make a counter argument. Why would the intercessors be around to shoot at the tac marines? I mean, that's how 40K is played...
I don't think anyone is saying intercessors aren't the stronger unit,
I'm saying it. I'm not saying they're weaker either though. They have a job, they do it well. Tacs have a different job. They do it as well as intercessors do theirs.
Well aside from one person no one is saying Intercessors aren't the better unit.
Hey I play tacs all the time, not every game is against top tournament players, or tournament players at all. You can theory craft all day but I can say for sure I'd love to see those two play a game and see what happens between the lists.
I have one army where I run both types of marines and they synergize well and nothing wrong with tacs can't be fixed with some point costs if their current stats all stay the same.
I honestly can't understand why people get so fired when people use inferior units or considered to be inferior units.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists having to choose between tacticals and primaris. Just be glad your choice isn't between csm or cultists....
I get where you're coming from, but I'd jump at Cultists as an in-faction troop selection to just camp back-field objectives and shoot for that point cost in Custodes and Slannesh Daemons. I'd probably even use them in Loyalist Marine armies occasionally.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Well aside from one person no one is saying Intercessors aren't the better unit.
Hey I play tacs all the time, not every game is against top tournament players, or tournament players at all. You can theory craft all day but I can say for sure I'd love to see those two play a game and see what happens between the lists.
I have one army where I run both types of marines and they synergize well and nothing wrong with tacs can't be fixed with some point costs if their current stats all stay the same.
I honestly can't understand why people get so fired when people use inferior units or considered to be inferior units.
It's because those same exact people are the ones that pretend the bad balance doesn't exist.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists having to choose between tacticals and primaris. Just be glad your choice isn't between csm or cultists....
I get where you're coming from, but I'd jump at Cultists as an in-faction troop selection to just camp back-field objectives and shoot for that point cost in Custodes and Slannesh Daemons. I'd probably even use them in Loyalist Marine armies occasionally.
Yeah anything even remotely cheap would probably be welcomed by Custodes players.
Of course that would go against the entire concept of the army. Most elite of the elite and all that.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists having to choose between tacticals and primaris. Just be glad your choice isn't between csm or cultists....
I get where you're coming from, but I'd jump at Cultists as an in-faction troop selection to just camp back-field objectives and shoot for that point cost in Custodes and Slannesh Daemons. I'd probably even use them in Loyalist Marine armies occasionally.
Yeah anything even remotely cheap would probably be welcomed by Custodes players.
Of course that would go against the entire concept of the army. Most elite of the elite and all that.
Eh, there's always The Loyal 32 for Custodes. Slannesh, not so much. (Stupid question, are there actual rules for R&H floating around somewhere? I keep seeing it referenced like a thing that exists instead of something everyone wants, but I'm coming up empty looking for them.)
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists having to choose between tacticals and primaris. Just be glad your choice isn't between csm or cultists....
I get where you're coming from, but I'd jump at Cultists as an in-faction troop selection to just camp back-field objectives and shoot for that point cost in Custodes and Slannesh Daemons. I'd probably even use them in Loyalist Marine armies occasionally.
Yeah anything even remotely cheap would probably be welcomed by Custodes players.
Of course that would go against the entire concept of the army. Most elite of the elite and all that.
Ah there's always The Loyal 32 for Custodes. Slannesh, not so much. (Stupid question, are there actual rules for R&H floating around somewhere? I keep seeing it referenced like a thing that exists instead of something everyone wants, but I'm coming up empty looking for them.)
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists having to choose between tacticals and primaris. Just be glad your choice isn't between csm or cultists....
I get where you're coming from, but I'd jump at Cultists as an in-faction troop selection to just camp back-field objectives and shoot for that point cost in Custodes and Slannesh Daemons. I'd probably even use them in Loyalist Marine armies occasionally.
Yeah anything even remotely cheap would probably be welcomed by Custodes players.
Of course that would go against the entire concept of the army. Most elite of the elite and all that.
Ah there's always The Loyal 32 for Custodes. Slannesh, not so much. (Stupid question, are there actual rules for R&H floating around somewhere? I keep seeing it referenced like a thing that exists instead of something everyone wants, but I'm coming up empty looking for them.)
They're in a FW Index.
And they suck.
They have their good points. Marauders are the only game in town for sniper rifles if you roll chaos. Fairly resilient if you run them as stalkers as well. R&h are also the cheapest cp battery in the game last I checked although that could have changed since ca.
The Newman wrote: ...(Stupid question, are there actual rules for R&H floating around somewhere? I keep seeing it referenced like a thing that exists instead of something everyone wants, but I'm coming up empty looking for them.)
They're in a FW Index.
And they suck.
...wow, that's kind of atrocious. 4 ppm for a model that hits on 5s, and 5 ppm for a Guardsman with no orders available. No wonder they generate so much salt.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Well aside from one person no one is saying Intercessors aren't the better unit.
Hey I play tacs all the time, not every game is against top tournament players, or tournament players at all. You can theory craft all day but I can say for sure I'd love to see those two play a game and see what happens between the lists.
I have one army where I run both types of marines and they synergize well and nothing wrong with tacs can't be fixed with some point costs if their current stats all stay the same.
I honestly can't understand why people get so fired when people use inferior units or considered to be inferior units.
It's because those same exact people are the ones that pretend the bad balance doesn't exist.
Untrue, I often rail about GWs gak balance and even the other staunch tac supporter has spoken to the faults of balance this game has. I don't think any old marine lover wouldn't like better parity with the options. There is a difference though between understanding stuff isn't balanced and never running the worse option because you either like it, favor the role or still win just fine with it. For me, this game is way too borked to take it so seriously for large tournaments. It's good as a fun waste of your time and some extra money. I wish it was more but I doubt I'll ever see that day at this point. Tacs though are capable in some opinions even if intercessors are better in almost every other way. Which like I said, could be fixed with points and make tacs more a flexible glass cannon, as opposed to intercessors mono focus with more wounds and CC capability.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Well aside from one person no one is saying Intercessors aren't the better unit.
Hey I play tacs all the time, not every game is against top tournament players, or tournament players at all. You can theory craft all day but I can say for sure I'd love to see those two play a game and see what happens between the lists.
I have one army where I run both types of marines and they synergize well and nothing wrong with tacs can't be fixed with some point costs if their current stats all stay the same.
I honestly can't understand why people get so fired when people use inferior units or considered to be inferior units.
It's because those same exact people are the ones that pretend the bad balance doesn't exist.
Untrue, I often rail about GWs gak balance and even the other staunch tac supporter has spoken to the faults of balance this game has. I don't think any old marine lover wouldn't like better parity with the options. There is a difference though between understanding stuff isn't balanced and never running the worse option because you either like it, favor the role or still win just fine with it. For me, this game is way too borked to take it so seriously for large tournaments. It's good as a fun waste of your time and some extra money. I wish it was more but I doubt I'll ever see that day at this point. Tacs though are capable in some opinions even if intercessors are better in almost every other way. Which like I said, could be fixed with points and make tacs more a flexible glass cannon, as opposed to intercessors mono focus with more wounds and CC capability.
Funny thing for an old player like me is that GW did show restraint in the roll out of the primaris. At first they were worse, from a point efficiency standpoint. Very quickly that changed, but I am sure that allowed them to introduce them without as much opposition. Looks more like a PR move than anything else, but it is clever.
Karol wrote: technicly speaking if you don't say anything, you aint lieing. Specially if you never get caught.
They do get caught, though.
Apparently primaris were supposed to be the new official line (much like they squatted things in fantasy) under Kirby, and the more gradual phasing out we are seeing is just a softening of the initially planned punch to the face. Those things get out; even if they don't, people start putting the story together quite effectily on their own.
Apparently primaris were supposed to be the new official line (much like they squatted things in fantasy) under Kirby, and the more gradual phasing out we are seeing is just a softening of the initially planned punch to the face. Those things get out; even if they don't, people start putting the story together quite effectily on their own.
Source on the apparently? Because I hear a lot of people say what GW "plan" to do, but it's never really been backed up.
Source on the apparently? Because I hear a lot of people say what GW "plan" to do, but it's never really been backed up.
I would never be able to back it up in a way that is fully satisfactory given the nature of the thing. Get an employee on the record to get them fired?
As someone who recently came back, this made sense to me given the other decisions by the company. I had no stake on this, nor bad feelings accumulated throughout my absence.
Hence, I trusted the information and my guts. But I can understand if you don't.
Does it matter if there is some neferious GW plan, or if they just don't think about it, in the end? What matters is that non primaris stuff does not get updated. And that is all. Any use from stuff like classic marines HQs, would evaporate if primaris HQs had a high mobility option. And RG technicly have one already, so it is more the case of we don't have a model right now, then there won't be a thunder hammer primaris chapter master with some sort of jet pack.
Karol wrote: Does it matter if there is some neferious GW plan, or if they just don't think about it, in the end? What matters is that non primaris stuff does not get updated. And that is all. Any use from stuff like classic marines HQs, would evaporate if primaris HQs had a high mobility option. And RG technicly have one already, so it is more the case of we don't have a model right now, then there won't be a thunder hammer primaris chapter master with some sort of jet pack.
Nefarious? It’s just the current business strategy. Does anyone honestly believe this is not a strategic plan carefully thought out?
I just hope they revert to the previous style after they get it out of their system. I hope these are just remaining effects of Kirby s decisions.
Karol wrote: Does it matter if there is some neferious GW plan, or if they just don't think about it, in the end? What matters is that non primaris stuff does not get updated.
Weren't nearly all of the old Marine core sculpts (Tacticals, Devastators, Assault Marines, etc) updated in like 2014/2015? That's pretty recent, in GW terms.
The kits don't *need* remaking. Why would they need updating?
I don't understand the logic of remaking kits for the sake of it. There's definitely SM kits that could do with a recut (Command Squad, Bikes, Scouts, maybe Terminators), but even they're not archaic looking. Arguably, CWE, Orks and Guardsmen need new kits far more than any power armoured force.
Karol wrote: Does it matter if there is some neferious GW plan, or if they just don't think about it, in the end? What matters is that non primaris stuff does not get updated.
Weren't nearly all of the old Marine core sculpts (Tacticals, Devastators, Assault Marines, etc) updated in like 2014/2015? That's pretty recent, in GW terms.
The kits don't *need* remaking. Why would they need updating?
I don't understand the logic of remaking kits for the sake of it. There's definitely SM kits that could do with a recut (Command Squad, Bikes, Scouts, maybe Terminators), but even they're not archaic looking. Arguably, CWE, Orks and Guardsmen need new kits far more than any power armoured force.
This, basically.
The current Tacticals are light years ahead of say the Cadian Infantry box... oof, that kit has aged.
The current Tacticals are light years ahead of say the Cadian Infantry box... oof, that kit has aged.
Maybe it is because of nostalgia, but I just bought some Valhallan units precisely because I think they have the "old look" appeal.
But, to be frank, guard units have always look much better than classic marines in my eyes.
The classic ultramarine stuff has never been my taste; I need more flavor!
That's why I liked the non-perfect chapters such as DA or SW; they almost don't look like marines. GK also look quite different, sad I came back to them dated.
That's also why I dislike primaris, since they are fluff and rules wise "perfect" and just better.
In fact, I am looking for ways to role some SM marine detachments without standard primaris marines in them (nor old marines, don't want to be squatted).
Suggestions welcome, but I shouldn't derail the thread.
The Valhallans have probably aged better than the plastic Cadians in all honesty. That kit is horrible, the way the pieces go together, the mold lines etc.
Karol wrote: Does it matter if there is some neferious GW plan, or if they just don't think about it, in the end? What matters is that non primaris stuff does not get updated. And that is all. Any use from stuff like classic marines HQs, would evaporate if primaris HQs had a high mobility option. And RG technicly have one already, so it is more the case of we don't have a model right now, then there won't be a thunder hammer primaris chapter master with some sort of jet pack.
I do find myself wanting to defend the Primaris release occasionally because it looks like GW deliberately tried to not invalidate classic Marines, but it's also not hard to see it as GW just not being able to cover all the bases quickly enough. Classic Marines are still relevant because they have tools that Primaris don't have yet.
Primaris don't have anything that directly competes with Whirlwinds, Stalkers, Vindicators, Bikes, Vanguard Vets, or Capt. Smash, Esq. (or his associates Capt. Wheels and Lt. J. Pack.) It wouldn't take very many releases to change that. Especially since the only thing keeping the Classic range transports relevant is that Repulsors/Impulsors can't carry Centurions/Company Veterans.
Do you really count the vehicles in this case though? For intents and purposes, those don't have Manlet Marines poking out of them unless you're trying to model one firing a pintle weapon, which with just a little work can be done with a Primaris.
Karol wrote: Does it matter if there is some neferious GW plan, or if they just don't think about it, in the end? What matters is that non primaris stuff does not get updated. And that is all. Any use from stuff like classic marines HQs, would evaporate if primaris HQs had a high mobility option. And RG technicly have one already, so it is more the case of we don't have a model right now, then there won't be a thunder hammer primaris chapter master with some sort of jet pack.
I do find myself wanting to defend the Primaris release occasionally because it looks like GW deliberately tried to not invalidate classic Marines, but it's also not hard to see it as GW just not being able to cover all the bases quickly enough. Classic Marines are still relevant because they have tools that Primaris don't have yet.
Primaris don't have anything that directly competes with Whirlwinds, Stalkers, Vindicators, Bikes, Vanguard Vets, or Capt. Smash, Esq. (or his associates Capt. Wheels and Lt. J. Pack.) It wouldn't take very many releases to change that. Especially since the only thing keeping the Classic range transports relevant is that Repulsors/Impulsors can't carry Centurions/Company Veterans.
primaris have 3 hulls to mount turrets on. to me this is more then enough to cover any type of vehicle normal marines have. rocket aritlery can be mounted on a repulsor just as well as it can be mounted on a rhino. but I guess GW likes to do the slow drip, so recasters and 3ed party companies can just specilised in the most used units or weapon load outs. Although even that ain't true, because the kromlech thunder cannons are selling real well.
I don't have the sm codex or supplements, so I have a question. All those apothecaries and techmarines upgrades, like being a master or operating thunderfire cannons etc, are they non primaris versions only, ?
Which makes total sense, because of the pure Primaris Chapters founded in the Indomitus Crusade, who'd also need Chief Apothecaries, Masters of Sanctity and so on.
Karol wrote: Does it matter if there is some neferious GW plan, or if they just don't think about it, in the end? What matters is that non primaris stuff does not get updated. And that is all. Any use from stuff like classic marines HQs, would evaporate if primaris HQs had a high mobility option. And RG technicly have one already, so it is more the case of we don't have a model right now, then there won't be a thunder hammer primaris chapter master with some sort of jet pack.
I do find myself wanting to defend the Primaris release occasionally because it looks like GW deliberately tried to not invalidate classic Marines, but it's also not hard to see it as GW just not being able to cover all the bases quickly enough. Classic Marines are still relevant because they have tools that Primaris don't have yet.
Primaris don't have anything that directly competes with Whirlwinds, Stalkers, Vindicators, Bikes, Vanguard Vets, or Capt. Smash, Esq. (or his associates Capt. Wheels and Lt. J. Pack.) It wouldn't take very many releases to change that. Especially since the only thing keeping the Classic range transports relevant is that Repulsors/Impulsors can't carry Centurions/Company Veterans.
primaris have 3 hulls to mount turrets on. to me this is more then enough to cover any type of vehicle normal marines have. rocket aritlery can be mounted on a repulsor just as well as it can be mounted on a rhino. but I guess GW likes to do the slow drip, so recasters and 3ed party companies can just specilised in the most used units or weapon load outs. Although even that ain't true, because the kromlech thunder cannons are selling real well.
Rocket artillery could be added to an Impulsor or Repulsor hull in the future. Such a thing does not exist now. That's kind of the point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Do you really count the vehicles in this case though? For intents and purposes, those don't have Manlet Marines poking out of them unless you're trying to model one firing a pintle weapon, which with just a little work can be done with a Primaris.
I absolutely do count them, because an Impulsor-based artillery tank, flak tank, or tank destroyer puts the equavalent Rhino-based tank out of business. If you have the option to take a hover-tank that can leave melee without penalty and (more importantly) can't be tri-pointed you're always going to take it over the conventional tank unless it's vastly more expensive.
You thought the Tac vs Intercessor debate was a joke, what about a 69pt Rhino and a 79pt Impulsor.
For 10pts you get an extra wound, Fly, 2" extra movement, the ability to deploy infantry after moving and finally the exclusive transport of primaris. 10pts!
But of course the argument is even a rhino can be made to "work"
Smirrors wrote: You thought the Tac vs Intercessor debate was a joke, what about a 69pt Rhino and a 79pt Impulsor.
For 10pts you get an extra wound, Fly, 2" extra movement, the ability to deploy infantry after moving and finally the exclusive transport of primaris. 10pts!
But of course the argument is even a rhino can be made to "work"
"The exclusive transport of Primaris" is a down-side, not an advantage. There are only two Primanis units that want to ride in the thing and only one of them can actually do so. If it could carry Company Veterans though...
What are you referring to? Impulsors can transport autobolt intercessors and eliminators. Both are great options.
Well i'd argue otherwise re disadvantage. Tacticals have a 67pt Rhino, prior to the Impulsor, Primaris had to resort to the Repulsor at 282pts. The Impulsor coming in at 79pts is a steal for what it does compared to a Rhino.
You could also argue that the rhino disadvantage is it cant carry primaris which is more prevalent than tacticals.
I am sure someone like Insectum could come up with ways to use the Rhino but its objectively inferior in almost every way. Its only advantage is it can carry Tacticals and my feelings on those have been made very clear.
Smirrors wrote: You thought the Tac vs Intercessor debate was a joke, what about a 69pt Rhino and a 79pt Impulsor.
For 10pts you get an extra wound, Fly, 2" extra movement, the ability to deploy infantry after moving and finally the exclusive transport of primaris. 10pts!
But of course the argument is even a rhino can be made to "work"
That is just a problem with GW having crap balance. They are either so dim as to not understand that comparison is way off, or they are pushing one model over another but people will say they never make rules to sell models. So who knows ?
Doesn't mean a rhino can't work though especially if it has to as for some reason old marines can't even get into the impulsor because of segregation that makes no sense at all but to move models. I'll tell you this though, my rhinos get much more work done because I will not buy these over priced jokes of internal balance so they have 0% success for me where rhinos do their job as well as can be expected, especially for chaos.
Smirrors wrote: What are you referring to? Impulsors can transport autobolt intercessors and eliminators. Both are great options.
Autobolter Intercessors and Eliminators are good on their own merits, but an advantage of both is that they have zero need for a transport. Bolt Rifle Intercessors would be a better argument, but they have Bolter Discipline and good range. The only units that care at all are Rapid Fire Hellblasters and Aggressors, and Aggressors can't use the thing.
Edit: ...ok, Autobolter or Bolt Rifle Veteran Intercessors with melee weapons for the Sergeants or a melee-focused Captain aren't arguing with getting into melee a turn sooner. They just don't need the transport to be worth fielding.
Smirrors wrote: What are you referring to? Impulsors can transport autobolt intercessors and eliminators. Both are great options.
Autobolter Intercessors and Eliminators are good on their own merits, but an advantage of both is that they have zero need for a transport. Bolt Rifle Intercessors would be a better argument, but they have Bolter Discipline and good range. The only units that care at all are Rapid Fire Hellblasters and Aggressors, and Aggressors can't use the thing.
Edit: ...ok, Autobolter or Bolt Rifle Veteran Intercessors with melee weapons for the Sergeants or a melee-focused Captain aren't arguing with getting into melee a turn sooner. They just don't need the transport to be worth fielding.
Autobolt Intercessors are amazing in Impulsors. 14" Move, 3" Disembark with free 1", 6" Move, Optional D6" Advance, Fire 15 Shots. That is 24" Minimum move we are talking about. If you are playing both ITC or CA missions this is gold.
Eliminators are the same, people can avoid them by out ranging or try to kill them first. With an Impulsor that is virtually impossible to do. 59" threat range.
These are all legitimate competitive options to take. The boon is the Impulsor itself is great for what it does, the fact that you can bolster the effectiveness of your current good choices that you already take makes it even better.
This is a counter argument to a Rhino or Drop which is required to enhance the base unit which is subpar. Grav Devs are virtually useless without the Drop Pod as example.
I am sure someone like Insectum could come up with ways to use the Rhino but its objectively inferior in almost every way. Its only advantage is it can carry Tacticals and my feelings on those have been made very clear.
Rhinos are better LOS blockers because they don't fly, and transport more models.
Sure if you are just going to look at base rules with point costs, which are all subject to change. Take into account no realities of making an army around it, of course they are good options. You can play hard with both types of units and transports as of right now. With the side benefit being the old marines for many are already owned , and the new ones many would need to go out and buy and won't find with nearly the same discount second hand.
I like to look at the big picture unless someones just going to buy me all the best options its a matter of value on the table, mixed with value for dollar and enjoyment. The old marines with support units plus vehicles still get the job done well in most circumstances but for the most extreme of competitive scenes.
Autobolt Intercessors are amazing in Impulsors. 14" Move, 3" Disembark with free 1", 6" Move, Optional D6" Advance, Fire 15 Shots. That is 24" Minimum move we are talking about. If you are playing both ITC or CA missions this is gold.
That seems not as exciting as 10 Sternguard in a Pod landing anywhere and sptting out 40 Storm Bolter shots.
The pts transported units / pts transport is way better for the rhino then all other options. 69pts to transport 178pts worth of marines (the way I run them) an impulsor (which is by far the best ratio they have for primaris) is 79 to 85, still not a bad ratio, but not nearly as good as the rhino, and to carry equivalent firepower to the tacs, they would need a lot more impulsors
That aside, Intercessors are good units in their own right, but more skilled players will be able to get better leverage out of tacticals. The generalist loadout requires better positioning and board sense but also allows for more efficient shooting when a variety of targets present themselves.
The pts transported units / pts transport is way better for the rhino then all other options. 69pts to transport 178pts worth of marines (the way I run them) an impulsor (which is by far the best ratio they have for primaris) is 79 to 85, still not a bad ratio, but not nearly as good as the rhino, and to carry equivalent firepower to the tacs, they would need a lot more impulsors
That aside, Intercessors are good units in their own right, but more skilled players will be able to get better leverage out of tacticals. The generalist loadout requires better positioning and board sense but also allows for more efficient shooting when a variety of targets present themselves.
Which is the exact point of the tactical squad in its creation, leveraging good board control with board sense and flexible shooting against a variety of targets as they need to be engaged.
Vilehydra wrote: That aside, Intercessors are good units in their own right, but more skilled players will be able to get better leverage out of tacticals. The generalist loadout requires better positioning and board sense but also allows for more efficient shooting when a variety of targets present themselves.
Which is the exact point of the tactical squad in its creation, leveraging good board control with board sense and flexible shooting against a variety of targets as they need to be engaged.
But how do I stop them getting deleted? Transhuman physiology only allows me to save one unit, at which point my opponent just shoots the other two units instead.
Vilehydra wrote: That aside, Intercessors are good units in their own right, but more skilled players will be able to get better leverage out of tacticals. The generalist loadout requires better positioning and board sense but also allows for more efficient shooting when a variety of targets present themselves.
Which is the exact point of the tactical squad in its creation, leveraging good board control with board sense and flexible shooting against a variety of targets as they need to be engaged.
But how do I stop them getting deleted? Transhuman physiology only allows me to save one unit, at which point my opponent just shoots the other two units instead.
You don't, this edition see's often super heavies deleted in one turn and tougher units than tacs. Even the mighty intercessors aren't immune to this peril. There only safety is that they have gotten cheaper so you can field more of them and quantity has a quality all its own. You want to keep them alive, pray for a less swingy edition.
Edit: Or play Iron hands, they make everything better.
Vilehydra wrote: That aside, Intercessors are good units in their own right, but more skilled players will be able to get better leverage out of tacticals. The generalist loadout requires better positioning and board sense but also allows for more efficient shooting when a variety of targets present themselves.
Which is the exact point of the tactical squad in its creation, leveraging good board control with board sense and flexible shooting against a variety of targets as they need to be engaged.
But how do I stop them getting deleted? Transhuman physiology only allows me to save one unit, at which point my opponent just shoots the other two units instead.
You don't, this edition see's often super heavies deleted in one turn and tougher units than tacs. Even the mighty intercessors aren't immune to this peril. There only safety is that they have gotten cheaper so you can field more of them and quantity has a quality all its own. You want to keep them alive, pray for a less swingy edition.
Edit: Or play Iron hands, they make everything better.
Yeah, even Custodes feel like they're made of paper this edition.
It's true and it all goes back around to the fact that in this edition while some aspects are good, elite forces don't feel as elite in regard to survival.
In the real world we always face a struggle of weapon vs armor, sooner or later one beats the other and the race goes on. In 40k the game is far skewed towards offense being the only defense of worth. Which leads to elite type armies that rely on good armor and toughness feeling not very tough or safe. Just from how swingy most good weapons are, how armor works with modifiers and limitations of the point system not being granular enough to properly gauge worth on the table top. Not even mentioning Str V Toughness and how that makes lower strength weapons fired in heavy amounts more of a fearful prospect.
A bit of a rant but it would be nice if they figured out a way to make elite feel more elite and dial back the offensive creep so first turn didn't feel quite so brutal. As so far all they've done to make elite more elite is turn up the damage capability compounding the problem across the board.
Wanna know how to stop T1 from being so brutal? I'll give you a hint. It's not letting one player do everything in a single turn. The game is either Alpha or Beta strike basically simply because of IGOUGO.
Yes but they aren't going to so fundamentally change the game and I kind of think that would make the size of this game just amazingly cumbersome. It would require an entire game system redesign and I don't think we'll see that any time within the next decade at least.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Yes but they aren't going to so fundamentally change the game and I kind of think that would make the size of this game just amazingly cumbersome. It would require an entire game system redesign and I don't think we'll see that any time within the next decade at least.
If they were to, I don't know, stop designing armies around the idea that it should be possible to wipe half the other guy's force from the other side of the table top of turn one independent of LOS...
Warmahordes also had a problem with lethality (at least in Mk2) but it wasn't such a general problem for the game overall because of the weapon ranges. If your opponent focused on something that something was going to die, but first they had to get within range to attack it. Practically nothing could directly attack an enemy model at the top of turn one because 18" was a long range gun and deployment zones were something like 6" for player one and 10" for player two on a four foot table.
Reducing the range if something like a Whirlwind or a Basilisk to those kinds of numbers would be pretty immersion-breaking though.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Yes but they aren't going to so fundamentally change the game and I kind of think that would make the size of this game just amazingly cumbersome. It would require an entire game system redesign and I don't think we'll see that any time within the next decade at least.
No more cumbersome than now. People will legit still forget they had particular units and they have access to everything IN THEIR OWN TURN! I don't think it's a legit excuse especially for a game like this, where half an hour more of gameplay is better than how it is now with no interaction outside Stratagems.
Slayer-Fan123 does have a point about lethality being dulled if 40k operated away from IGOUGO. It is much harder to conduct a focused aplha strike if not only your target(s) has activated and is impotent for the rest of the round anyway, but d the rest of their units are crippling your unactivated units. You'll have a bunch of crippled units while they may have only lost a couple things. Those cripple units aren't likely to amount to much the remaining turns as the opponent basically mops up.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: Slayer-Fan123 does have a point about lethality being dulled if 40k operated away from IGOUGO. It is much harder to conduct a focused aplha strike if not only your target(s) has activated and is impotent for the rest of the round anyway, but d the rest of their units are crippling your unactivated units. You'll have a bunch of crippled units while they may have only lost a couple things. Those cripple units aren't likely to amount to much the remaining turns as the opponent basically mops up.
I've been saying it like an annoying broken record now as the forum can attest to, and they don't seem to understand this is where a lot of the game's issues comes from, especially when the game is extremely focused on shooting as is.
It would be short sighted to just change the game for that though. As then not only would horde armies win the CP farm role, but they'd also be able to go activation to activation with you and use their strong units, then still have a large amount of time with all their other horde o units.
I just think it would lead to unintended issues, much like CP farming which is dumb and and leads to lame army builds. It would further reward MSU style, cement in CP farms which are already an issue as is.
Which is why I said they'd need a game redesign and as they can't even be bothered to make good books or internal balance I doubt they'd put in the effort to tone back the lethal nature of the game to make it less swingy by altering the games core operational feature since forever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Wanna know how to stop T1 from being so brutal? I'll give you a hint. It's not letting one player do everything in a single turn. The game is either Alpha or Beta strike basically simply because of IGOUGO.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Wanna know how to stop T1 from being so brutal? I'll give you a hint. It's not letting one player do everything in a single turn. The game is either Alpha or Beta strike basically simply because of IGOUGO.
You've never mentioned this before...
I haven't been incorrect about it being a core problem regardless of how annoyed you are.
) with equal effectiveness
