Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Eonfuzz wrote:


It's xeno.
On one side he's comparing a basic unit, on another side he's comparing a squad of 5" movement models with 7" of enemy custodians while at full strength and effected by My Will Be Done.
Meanwhile, he didn't even include Manrione Rerolls or Sadalomandor faction bonus. It's not even worth arguing with him

Wait, so when xeno players are pointed out on their shield drones or inari rules etc it is okey to use the defence that no everyone plays those. But when we are talking about marines, every marine is playing salamanders and IH, or what ever is the best marine at the time.

Just wait until people discover Tau Breachers.

Karol wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:


It's xeno.
On one side he's comparing a basic unit, on another side he's comparing a squad of 5" movement models with 7" of enemy custodians while at full strength and effected by My Will Be Done.
Meanwhile, he didn't even include Manrione Rerolls or Sadalomandor faction bonus. It's not even worth arguing with him

Wait, so when xeno players are pointed out on their shield drones or inari rules etc it is okey to use the defence that no everyone plays those. But when we are talking about marines, every marine is playing salamanders and IH, or what ever is the best marine at the time.

You understand the concept that Orks are not Ynnari or Tau but that any Marine army can become any Chapter by simply saying you are right?

And you don't even need to bring in chapters to break his comparison when simply applying Tactical Doctrine will double the Aggressors wounds and make them as good as the Necrons.

So this time Xenomancer I am talking to you when i say

Its fun watching a marine player try to prove that marines are not broken only to grasp and fail at finding comparable scenario's.

 Ordana wrote:
You understand the concept that Orks are not Ynnari or Tau but that any Marine army can become any Chapter by simply saying you are right?

And you don't even need to bring in chapters to break his comparison when simply applying Tactical Doctrine will double the Aggressors wounds and make them as good as the Necrons.

But the assumption was put forward that marine units should be changed to be nerfed for the most optimal version of us of the model. And I know how this ends. This ends with razorback point nerfs for armies that do not have access to Gulliman or chapter master re-rolls. Tactical doctrin is an extra rule, and necron seem to have their version of it too. Plus we are comparing aggresor an elite squad vs a troop option of an army. The options to spam those, capture objectives are all a much better option for a unit of warriors. They also suffer less from multi D weapons, and I am sure the meta is going to move to weapons doing d2 or more wounds per hit. Also, unlike the necron warriors, the aggressors tend to not stend back up.

@Karol: As far as I followed this discussion it was argued that Eradicators as well as Aggressors are a bit over the top even without chapters. So it is not argued about them "in their most optimal version" but in their base version.

Both units killing their points in one round of shooting without chapter boni (as repeatedly calculated throughout the thread) is the problem argued about, not some specific chapter interaction.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, Tactical doctrine literally doubles the damage against Custodes.

And tactical doctrine is when those 18 range guns will be used most often. Double firing aggressors in the tactical doctrine will also average 16 wounds against T7 3+ targets, meaning they can efficiently wipe out Predators, rhinos, most Eldar vehicles, and every daemon engine I can think of off the top of my head. That's excessive for a "chafe clearing" unit. They only drop off when T8 is involved.

Karol wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
You understand the concept that Orks are not Ynnari or Tau but that any Marine army can become any Chapter by simply saying you are right?

And you don't even need to bring in chapters to break his comparison when simply applying Tactical Doctrine will double the Aggressors wounds and make them as good as the Necrons.

But the assumption was put forward that marine units should be changed to be nerfed for the most optimal version of us of the model. And I know how this ends. This ends with razorback point nerfs for armies that do not have access to Gulliman or chapter master re-rolls. Tactical doctrin is an extra rule, and necron seem to have their version of it too. Plus we are comparing aggresor an elite squad vs a troop option of an army. The options to spam those, capture objectives are all a much better option for a unit of warriors. They also suffer less from multi D weapons, and I am sure the meta is going to move to weapons doing d2 or more wounds per hit. Also, unlike the necron warriors, the aggressors tend to not stend back up.

Blame GW for giving out rules for free. You can't charge more for a Salamander Aggressor so what other option is there then nerfing all chapter tactics into doing nothing so they are equal or nerfing the base unit?

Same gak that killed 7th edition, free rules are garbage for balance.

 Ordana wrote:

Spoiler:

Karol wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
You understand the concept that Orks are not Ynnari or Tau but that any Marine army can become any Chapter by simply saying you are right?

And you don't even need to bring in chapters to break his comparison when simply applying Tactical Doctrine will double the Aggressors wounds and make them as good as the Necrons.

But the assumption was put forward that marine units should be changed to be nerfed for the most optimal version of us of the model. And I know how this ends. This ends with razorback point nerfs for armies that do not have access to Gulliman or chapter master re-rolls. Tactical doctrin is an extra rule, and necron seem to have their version of it too. Plus we are comparing aggresor an elite squad vs a troop option of an army. The options to spam those, capture objectives are all a much better option for a unit of warriors. They also suffer less from multi D weapons, and I am sure the meta is going to move to weapons doing d2 or more wounds per hit. Also, unlike the necron warriors, the aggressors tend to not stend back up.

Blame GW for giving out rules for free. You can't charge more for a Salamander Aggressor so what other option is there then nerfing all chapter tactics into doing nothing so they are equal or nerfing the base unit?

Same gak that killed 7th edition, free rules are garbage for balance.

So maybe you should have to pay points for faction traits, etc?

This isn't how the game works because you have synergy.

You use rule X with unit Y.
Gets nerfed?
Okay, I'll put rule A with unit B.
Gets nerfed - or some other thing gets added to the game?
Okay, I'll put rule K with unit L.

Its not Salamanders. Its not Iron Hands. Its not Imperial Fists or Raven Guard or White Scars or Ultramarines.

Its the core engine of Marines, which bring with it a vast suite of potential buffs, far in excess for what other factions can get.

Now maybe you could fundamentally kill the Chapter Tactic system, and replace it selectively purchasable *buffs* at a points cost. But that's not going to happen (and, as seen before, doesn't necesarilly result in a better balanced game). If you want Marines to be *worse* its the engine that has to go. Not attacks on a specific build, that just evolves into another.

Tyel wrote:
This isn't how the game works because you have synergy.

You use rule X with unit Y.
Gets nerfed?
Okay, I'll put rule A with unit B.
Gets nerfed - or some other thing gets added to the game?
Okay, I'll put rule K with unit L.

Its not Salamanders. Its not Iron Hands. Its not Imperial Fists or Raven Guard or White Scars or Ultramarines.

Its the core engine of Marines, which bring with it a vast suite of potential buffs, far in excess for what other factions can get.

Now maybe you could fundamentally kill the Chapter Tactic system, and replace it selectively purchasable *buffs* at a points cost. But that's not going to happen (and, as seen before, doesn't necesarilly result in a better balanced game). If you want Marines to be *worse* its the engine that has to go. Not attacks on a specific build, that just evolves into another.

The problem is also with the sheer number of options SM have. Whether it's in their Chapter Tactics or in the vast number of units they have access to, the likelihood of something being broken simply because there's so much to balance is always going to be high. In general I agree that the problem lies with the core ruleset for SM but I do think the vast array of Chapter Tactics are also a problem, along with the ability to mix custom traits with parent Chapters to create builds with more felxibility than any other Codex has access to.

Tyel wrote:
This isn't how the game works because you have synergy.

You use rule X with unit Y.
Gets nerfed?
Okay, I'll put rule A with unit B.
Gets nerfed - or some other thing gets added to the game?
Okay, I'll put rule K with unit L.

Its not Salamanders. Its not Iron Hands. Its not Imperial Fists or Raven Guard or White Scars or Ultramarines.

Its the core engine of Marines, which bring with it a vast suite of potential buffs, far in excess for what other factions can get.

Now maybe you could fundamentally kill the Chapter Tactic system, and replace it selectively purchasable *buffs* at a points cost. But that's not going to happen (and, as seen before, doesn't necesarilly result in a better balanced game). If you want Marines to be *worse* its the engine that has to go. Not attacks on a specific build, that just evolves into another.

Its a combination of things. Yes a whole bunch of Marine units are simply broken, no matter what chapter they are and this can be solved by simply changing the units point cost or changing their rules but how can you balance a Flamer Aggressor when 1 out of however many chapters gets +1 to wound with them? If they are balanced for everyone else the Salamander version is to good. If the Salamander version is balanced everyones else's is bad.
Because of how GW has set up points independently from the unit entry they could make Salamanders pay +10 points for Flamestorm gauntlets, in addition to tweaking the base numbers, if they wanted to.

Free rules mess up balance.

Ice_can wrote:

- Lots of new units
That just primarachads and your not going to see such a crazy doubling in size of any other faction.
- Old units have been made viable
They haven't realy as they're never in competitive lists which is what is actually 100% viable.
- Tons of relics, warlord traits, stratagems and psychic disciplines
You might think that's good plenty of others on this forum think it's a bad thing as they have over laping effects and are way too many to memorise.
- Supplements for the most popular sub-factions
Or we could just have better subfaction rules in the codex no xeno codex includes anything like the bloat of marines
- Good internal balance for casual play
If by that you mean they are so above the level of every other codex they can take whatever, if everyone else is as OP marines won't have that any more it's a function of them being rediculous compaired to other factions.

Sorry but none of what your asking for is anything to do with the marine codex's power level, or atleast can't be still true if marines are actually balanced against other codex's.

This is a perfect example why discussing anything related to Marines on this board has become so tedious. You are against it because you are against it.

1. What does it matter if new models for Marines were Primaris? How does it counter my point that the faction got new models? Apart from that, they are popular within the target audience.

2. Not showing up in tournament lists means they are not viable? Must have only imagined all those threads on Dakka for the past year where people complained that Marines can bring whatever they want and other factions still have to bring their tournament lists to compete lol. Maybe tournament players go for an army composition where all units are A tier. Doesn't say anything about the rest of the faction who could be A- tier.

3. Yes, lots of options are good. Out of 200* options 25 are good, 50 situational and the rest is "maybe" to "nah". Still beats your average codex with 6 relics where one is "viable". Who forces you to memorise the whole codex and supplements? And since only so many things are showing up in tournaments, shouldn't it be easy?

4. So you agree that fleshed out subfactions are good. You just don't want them to be separate from the main codex. While I personally don't mind either way, I can see the burning threads on Dakka "Why do I have to pay extra for 4 subfactions that I don't play, GW bad".

5. Yeah no. I mean that you can take Infiltrator or Incursor or Intercessor or Assault Intercessor according to your preference, because all of them work. You can take Eradicator or Eliminator or Hellblaster according to your preference, because all of them work. You can take a Captain, a Chaplain or a Librarian according to your preference, because all of them work. And so on. Imagine Eldar would have a viable Avatar and Autarch on top of their Farseer? You make it sound like there must be an imbalance between codizes. Multiple factions on the same level of internal and external balance are possible, GW only has to want it.

How is having new units, buffed old units, supplements and extra options not possible if Marines are balanced against other codizes?

I'm sorry, but if you aren't trolling, then we disagree on a fundamental level. I'm out of the discussion.


*Made up number

Breton wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


I've mentioned this before but I guess I'll do so again, maybe you'll respond this time. 200pts of Intercessors fires 20 shots for 14ish hits and 7ish wounds at 30' range which kill 7 ork boyz a turn. 7 orkz = 56pts, Intercessors, with just shooting, will make back their points on turn 4, and realistically before that when you add in morale. Those same 10 Intercessors are dishing out the same 14 hits vs a T7 3+ save vehicle, but instead of 7 wounds they get a bit less than 5 and at -1 it ends up doing 2.5ish damage a turn (tac doctrine over 3), not great but still a lot better than most infantry can manage. Against a Terminator elite they do 7 wounds for 2.33 dmg (tac doctrine its 3.5), so you have killed at least 1 (unless terminators get 3 wounds) terminators making back 36pts and possibly damaging another terminator. So in other words, those boring intercessors are capable of slaying hordes and elite infantry fairly well. Definitely not wiping out a squad of boyz per turn but that shouldn't even be a thing to begin with for a single unit.

First off, Did I ever Intercessors should be able to wipe out a squad of boys per turn?

I am pointing out that you do NOT need aggressors or eradicators to be as ridiculously OP as they are and that your typical Intercessor is capable of handling the role as TAC. So when you argue that you need or should have the option to include aggressors..you are saying you want to wipe out a boyz mob in 1 turn with 1 unit. Again, the math is above but i'll do it here for ease of access. 4 Aggressors cost 180pts, they pump out 96 shots a turn, against boyz they get 64 hits which does 32 wounds, without tactical doctrine, without rerolls, without chapter benefits that does 26 to 27 dmg which is 208 to 216pts of dmg to a boys squad. Literally earning back MORE than their points in a single shooting phase. If you add in any kind of buffs they wipe out the Mob completely.

Breton wrote:
Second: What is there to reply to? That sounds like the math I put up pointing out Intercessors were a little slow but in the performance ballpark. Well technically you're trying to convert it into "winning it's points back" which isn't accurate or related to the point I'm making. You can shoot all the T1 1W 1 point models you want, if they have a thousand of them, you'll win your points back, and never been able to shoot/attack enough of them to make any headway on the objectives. You're not actually disagreeing with anything I've already said there.

Well since you are pushing the logic that SM's need Aggressors and Eradicators in order to be competitive since your basic troops aren't strong enough, I decided to show you that your basic intercessor is already more than a match for my Ork boyz which seem to be able to appear from nowhere, cap any objective and have every kind of buff on at the exact same time, everywhere on the field of battle. As far as Intercessors being slow....they are M6 to my Ork boyz M5. You could argue that boyz have once a turn access to "Da Jump" but that is 1 unit, once a turn and only if the desired destination is 9' away from enemy units. So intercessors are technically faster than my boyz. As far as not being able to shift boyz off an objective. 200pts of Intercessors vs 200pts of boyz works out to 20 RF shots for 14ish hits and 7 wounds, 7 dead orkz. Charge into CC with 31 attacks for 20ish hits and 10 more wounds for 8 or 9 more dead boyz. Orkz are down to 10 to 11 boyz, they swing back with 30 to 33 attacks for 20 to 21ish hits and 10-11 wounds for.... 3.33 to 3.66 wounds or 1-2 dead Intercessors. So boyz hold the objective, barely, but next turn they are wiped out. So what is your complaint with how intercessors are doing? That they can't wipe out the boyz in 1 turn? that they just barely miss killing enough in 1 turn to seize an objective? They earn back their points easily vs boyz AND in 2 turns they seize objectives from a similar points value of boyz. Conversely, if boyz have to shift those intercessors from an objective they tend to fail.... a lot. Most notable about the difference is that those intercessors get to blast boyz turn 1 no matter where they are where as the boyz, even with shootas, have to be almost 50% closer to return fire.

Breton wrote:
You're just skipping the OTHER half of my point. They either need another unit skewed/dedicated towards anti-infantry like Aggressors, or they need extra shooting to make up for the lost shooting from things like transports, Anti-tank, and so on you would see in an actual TAC list. The barebones Impulsor starts out at about 1 shot per 25 points. If you want to throw good money after bad, they get to 1 shot per 13 or so points. Transports have an entirely different set of issues - losing a turn or more of opportunity from the internal unit - making them bad. That doesn't change the fact that this is ANOTHER reason they're bad, and is an easy example of the point I'm making.

So your argument is that Intercessors need a hefty buff in shooting OR they need support from OP units like aggressors or eradicators because their transport is weak. Ohh goody. Ok, well lets address this point. Ork boyz transport is a Trukk with 1 shot per 21ish points OR a battlewagon which barebones is 135pts and has NO shots you could sink a lot of points into it and give 4 big shootas for 20pts and a killkannon for 15 more but that's throwing points away because now it costs 170 pts for 12+D6 shots but they only hit on 5s compared to your terrible Impulsor which hits on 3s and who for 10pts can go from 4 S4 stormbolter shots to....4 Stormbolter shots AND 9 Ironhail Stubber (S4 -1) shots. Which hits more often? which does more damage? So do Ork boyz need a massive buff in their shooting potential or should we gain access to some kind of anti-infantry and anti-vehicle units that do 50% more dmg than other factions comparable units?

As far as support roles....you already have a plethora of support choices without including aggressors and Eradicators. Were Devestators, Centurions, Predators, whirlwinds, Vanguard, etc etc etc not enough nor good enough?

So your troop choice is better at shooting, significantly more durable and in CC can actually beat a comparable unit of boyz, but they need more buffs or better units in support because the transport they have access to is better than my Ork Trukkz or Battlewagon? Gonna need better reasoning than this.

Breton wrote:
How many SM lists do you see with 6x10 troops squads? I was just playing with this the other day. You can make (the important iconic part of) a full Old Marine 2nd Company for just under to just over 2,000 points in a Batallion. You can't make the Ultra Marines 2nd Company from the Damnos book(Named character prices, Command Squad changes, Dreads, and Dev Weapon prices) , but you can get pretty close. Cap/LT vs Sicarius/Tiggy. Skip the Command Squad, skip the Dreads, technically one was a loaner from the First Company anyway - but yeah you can get close. You can't get anywhere close with Primaris - You're at just under 2400 if you use 3x10 Intercessors and 3x10 Assault Intercessors, 20 Chute Reivers as the analogue to Assault Marines and 20 Hellblasters as the analogue to Devs. Neither of those lists are particularly TAC. The Reivers and Assault Marines are/were abysmal. Aside from the Assault Marines, nothing has any speed for things like Line Breaker or some sort of Rapid Redploy objective mechanic etc.

Likewise I can't recreate Ghazghkuuls Armegeddon Hordes under 2k pts either....how is that relavent? As far as 6x10 Troops choices for SMs? Only in fluffy games and non-competitive games. Probably has something to do with the fact that SMs have access to units that are ridiculously OP in comparison to a basic troops choice like intercessors who are as noted, significantly better than their Ork equivalents. And as we know, in tournament play, competitive players take only the best unit for a task which means that units like Intercessors who are great are left off the field of battle for the most part because why would I want to take 10 great troops when for less points I can take 4 Aggressors which kill way more infantry and can punch vehicles to death with their defacto Power Fists. (SIDE NOTE: I am always flabbergasted at how little use SM players have for their Aggressors in CC since they are almost as good as Meganobz in CC). Summary: arguing a unit is bad or needs support because another unit in your codex is way better is not an argument for buffing said unit but is in fact an argument to nerf the support unit since its significantly better than ANY other unit for similar points value.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@Karol: As far as I followed this discussion it was argued that Eradicators as well as Aggressors are a bit over the top even without chapters. So it is not argued about them "in their most optimal version" but in their base version.

Both units killing their points in one round of shooting without chapter boni (as repeatedly calculated throughout the thread) is the problem argued about, not some specific chapter interaction.

Correct Pyro, I just did the math above, but its a bit ridiculous that a SM player can take 3 units of 4 Aggressors for 540pts and completely eradicate an entire horde of boyz in 1 turn. Without buffs that is about 80 dead boyz, with even a minor buff like a Lieutenant nearby it becomes 3 full mobz of boyz dead in 1 turn of shooting, or equivalent to 720pts or over 1/3rd of my army dead. Even if you gave each mob a painboy and a KFF its still a ridiculous amount of dead boyz. (With KFF and a painboy, a unit of 4 aggressors without buffs kills almost 18 boyz a turn)

 Ordana wrote:


Blame GW for giving out rules for free. You can't charge more for a Salamander Aggressor so what other option is there then nerfing all chapter tactics into doing nothing so they are equal or nerfing the base unit?

Same gak that killed 7th edition, free rules are garbage for balance.

I don't know much about 7th, besides stories, but I agree that in 8th GW types of fixs were wierd. When they changed the doctrines instead of changing the IH rules, it backfired on armies like DA. So yes GW does fix their rules in a special way.

I don't play marines, but I understand why marine players wouldn't want to see their army fixed by GW, specialy when their dominance fell for a time, when a ton of people couldn't even use the rule set. PA gave my army "free" rules and finaly my army became fun to play with. And while I understand the plight of orc or gsc players, I also understand the fact that there is very little to non sympathy for eldar or tau, from marine players. Specialy those that weren't the IH of 8th ed.

And rules wise, yes marines have very good rules now. They are also the only normal army writen with 9th ed in mind. So of course they are the best in 9th, at least as casual games go, as in tournaments it seems to be more balanced.
I will give a lot though to see what rule set are eldar going to get, when their codex comes out.

Karol wrote:

 Ordana wrote:


Blame GW for giving out rules for free. You can't charge more for a Salamander Aggressor so what other option is there then nerfing all chapter tactics into doing nothing so they are equal or nerfing the base unit?

Same gak that killed 7th edition, free rules are garbage for balance.

I don't know much about 7th, besides stories, but I agree that in 8th GW types of fixs were wierd. When they changed the doctrines instead of changing the IH rules, it backfired on armies like DA. So yes GW does fix their rules in a special way.

I don't play marines, but I understand why marine players wouldn't want to see their army fixed by GW, specialy when their dominance fell for a time, when a ton of people couldn't even use the rule set. PA gave my army "free" rules and finaly my army became fun to play with. And while I understand the plight of orc or gsc players, I also understand the fact that there is very little to non sympathy for eldar or tau, from marine players. Specialy those that weren't the IH of 8th ed.

And rules wise, yes marines have very good rules now. They are also the only normal army writen with 9th ed in mind. So of course they are the best in 9th, at least as casual games go, as in tournaments it seems to be more balanced.
I will give a lot though to see what rule set are eldar going to get, when their codex comes out.

They were so written with 9th ed in mind they had to release a new codex for them as the joint first faction.

Karol wrote:

 Ordana wrote:


Blame GW for giving out rules for free. You can't charge more for a Salamander Aggressor so what other option is there then nerfing all chapter tactics into doing nothing so they are equal or nerfing the base unit?

Same gak that killed 7th edition, free rules are garbage for balance.

I don't know much about 7th, besides stories, but I agree that in 8th GW types of fixs were wierd. When they changed the doctrines instead of changing the IH rules, it backfired on armies like DA. So yes GW does fix their rules in a special way.

I don't play marines, but I understand why marine players wouldn't want to see their army fixed by GW, specialy when their dominance fell for a time, when a ton of people couldn't even use the rule set. PA gave my army "free" rules and finaly my army became fun to play with. And while I understand the plight of orc or gsc players, I also understand the fact that there is very little to non sympathy for eldar or tau, from marine players. Specialy those that weren't the IH of 8th ed.

And rules wise, yes marines have very good rules now. They are also the only normal army writen with 9th ed in mind. So of course they are the best in 9th, at least as casual games go, as in tournaments it seems to be more balanced.
I will give a lot though to see what rule set are eldar going to get, when their codex comes out.

Yeah, sure Space Marines 2.0 were so good because they were made for 9th, despite getting a new codex right away in 9th.
Not buying it buddy.

And this is after their 8.5 Codex wasn't playtested at all apparently.

SemperMortis wrote:

Breton wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


I've mentioned this before but I guess I'll do so again, maybe you'll respond this time. 200pts of Intercessors fires 20 shots for 14ish hits and 7ish wounds at 30' range which kill 7 ork boyz a turn. 7 orkz = 56pts, Intercessors, with just shooting, will make back their points on turn 4, and realistically before that when you add in morale. Those same 10 Intercessors are dishing out the same 14 hits vs a T7 3+ save vehicle, but instead of 7 wounds they get a bit less than 5 and at -1 it ends up doing 2.5ish damage a turn (tac doctrine over 3), not great but still a lot better than most infantry can manage. Against a Terminator elite they do 7 wounds for 2.33 dmg (tac doctrine its 3.5), so you have killed at least 1 (unless terminators get 3 wounds) terminators making back 36pts and possibly damaging another terminator. So in other words, those boring intercessors are capable of slaying hordes and elite infantry fairly well. Definitely not wiping out a squad of boyz per turn but that shouldn't even be a thing to begin with for a single unit.

First off, Did I ever Intercessors should be able to wipe out a squad of boys per turn?

I am pointing out that you do NOT need aggressors or eradicators to be as ridiculously OP as they are and that your typical Intercessor is capable of handling the role as TAC. So when you argue that you need or should have the option to include aggressors..

With intercessors. You were specifically talking about Intercessors not Aggressors which was not honest then, and trying to twist it to Aggressors isn't honest now.

those boring intercessors are capable of slaying hordes and elite infantry fairly well. Definitely not wiping out a squad of boyz per turn

If you're not going to be honest, what's the point?
Upcoming Quotes Emphasis Mine.

Correct Pyro, I just did the math above, but its a bit ridiculous that a SM player can take 3 units of 4 Aggressors for 540pts and completely eradicate an entire horde of boyz in 1 turn.

Without buffs that is about 80 dead boyz, with even a minor buff like a Lieutenant nearby it becomes 3 full mobz of boyz dead in 1 turn of shooting, or equivalent to 720pts or over 1/3rd of my army dead. Even if you gave each mob a painboy and a KFF its still a ridiculous amount of dead boyz. (With KFF and a painboy, a unit of 4 aggressors without buffs kills almost 18 boyz a turn)[/quote]

Isn't 18 60% of one mob?

And Wait, are you saying when your large mobs of boys get their buffs , the giant block of damage capable of wiping out "entire hordes of boys in one turn" suddenly wipes out.. just over half of one squad?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:

Yeah, sure Space Marines 2.0 were so good because they were made for 9th, despite getting a new codex right away in 9th.
Not buying it buddy.

I'm not sure their 2.0 codex was built for 9th but I don't think it was built for just for 8th either. I do know they're not getting a new codex because their old one doesn't work, they're getting a new codex because it's replacing the DA/BA/DW etc books, plus the new Weapon profiles. The pre-existing Codex Supplements aren't changing, most of the changes to the Codex:SM are going to be for DA/BA/etc supplements, profile changes, and maybe fixing some of the Strats that became obsolete based on 9th rule changes.

@ Breton:

Isn't 18 60% of one mob?

And Wait, are you saying when your large mobs of boys get their buffs , the giant block of damage capable of wiping out "entire hordes of boys in one turn" suddenly wipes out.. just over half of one squad?

I mean... yes, that means 4 Aggressors (180 points, right? They were 45 per Aggressor or am I mistaken?) without any boni kill 18 boyz that are under two of the best sturdiness buffs they can get. That's 152 points of boyz or 84% of their points costs. And note that all those 30 boyz have to stand within the range of the custom forcefield. I personally would say that is pretty problematic.

This notion of "just over half of one squad" that seems to imply that they are not efficient at removing this horde is a bit misleading when I think about what other Codizes have to pull up to kill 18 boyz under both buffs.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton:

Isn't 18 60% of one mob?

And Wait, are you saying when your large mobs of boys get their buffs , the giant block of damage capable of wiping out "entire hordes of boys in one turn" suddenly wipes out.. just over half of one squad?

I mean... yes, that means 4 Aggressors (180 points, right? They were 45 per Aggressor or am I mistaken?) without any boni kill 18 boyz that are under two of the best sturdiness buffs they can get. That's 152 points of boyz or 84% of their points costs. And note that all those 30 boyz have to stand within the range of the custom forcefield. I personally would say that is pretty problematic.

This notion of "just over half of one squad" that seems to imply that they are not efficient at removing this horde is a bit misleading when I think about what other Codizes have to pull up to kill 18 boyz under both buffs.

That's also only counting the aggressors guns. The grenade launchers will kill another 8 boyz, bringing the total to 25. So 180 points of aggressors kill 200 points of boyz being buffed by 183 points of characters, assuming you take the cheapest possible Big Mek in Mega Armour, which I think is the cheapest way to get a kff (I could be wrong, I don't play Orks). Yeah, that's balanced.

Edit: Whoops! That was the guns + the grenade launchers killing 17 boyz. My bad. So 180 points of aggressors only kill 17 boyz being buffed by 183 points of characters. Still ridiculous.

On a maybe relevant sidenote:
Even though it is unclear if they will drop into legends or disappear completely one unit that could be surprisingly good at removing Gravis armored dudes from the IG Codex are 3 Sentinel Powerlifters (135 points) under the influence of "Crush them" (1 CP).

With a 9'' scout move + 9'' normal move + D6'' advance + 2D6'' charge a turn 1 charge seems possible, leading to:
9 attacks, 7.5 hits, 6.25 wounds, 4.167 unsaved wounds => 2.34 killed T5 3+ models (taking into account that dD3 weapons need on average 16/9 = 1.77 unsaved wounds to kill W3)
That's 105 points of Aggressors or 94 points of Eradicators and beats even a Manticore with full payload. If they are Catachan and one somehow manages to get Straken nearby they even kill 3.12 Also each Aggressor only does 0.53 damage to them on Overwatch and each Eradicator 1.22 and powerlifters don't degrade.

This is not meant as an argument that both units were not problematic and it's also a "trick" that is easily spotted and avoided by any Marine player, but so far this seems to be the most points efficient method for IG that I found to counter Gravis armor in a vacuum.

Ice_can wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
A 6 man squad of agressors does 5 wounds with reroll all hits to custodian guard (with no -1 to hit even) and with their shoots twice activated with auto bolters.

Not that impressive for nearly a 300 point unit.

A unit of 20 Necron warriors with gauss Reapers (the str 5 ap-2 rapid fire gun) 2+ to hit and reroll 1's does. Does nearly 10 wounds to custodians.

They kill more intercessors too. 17 wounds. to 13.2.


LIKE WOW GUYS. And...I bet most of you would say warriors suck too? Am I right?

Imagine what this unit can do with a new stratagem that say....gives them +1 wound or something or get bonus -1 AP (hinted in their new codex). They could literally kill ANYTHING. But but but...marines OP!

The gak is checkers! It aint Chess!
Cheers to anyone who gets this!

Agressors are quite good but warriors are objective secured and are required slot selections.

Also side note your maths is once again skewed and misrepresenting the facts
270 not 300 points
Vrs 240 points of warriors or 5 agressors worth of points who still do 4.7 wounds to custodes

A misrepresentation is not what I did. I said "nearly" 300 points. I was also comparing them against an even cheaper unit than out performs them. If anything I was understating my case. I could has compared them against 22 warriors for the cost.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, Tactical doctrine literally doubles the damage against Custodes.

And tactical doctrine is when those 18 range guns will be used most often. Double firing aggressors in the tactical doctrine will also average 16 wounds against T7 3+ targets, meaning they can efficiently wipe out Predators, rhinos, most Eldar vehicles, and every daemon engine I can think of off the top of my head. That's excessive for a "chafe clearing" unit. They only drop off when T8 is involved.

12 wounds - if they are within 23" of a Predator and also in tactical at that very moment and are also Ultramarines or have CP to "stand still".

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, Tactical doctrine literally doubles the damage against Custodes.

And tactical doctrine is when those 18 range guns will be used most often. Double firing aggressors in the tactical doctrine will also average 16 wounds against T7 3+ targets, meaning they can efficiently wipe out Predators, rhinos, most Eldar vehicles, and every daemon engine I can think of off the top of my head. That's excessive for a "chafe clearing" unit. They only drop off when T8 is involved.

12 wounds - if they are within 23" of a Predator and also in tactical at that very moment and are also Ultramarines or have CP to "stand still".

Its 16 with reroll all hits. Really - this is just bad execution of the new toughness system. With str 4 being the primary anti infantry str. The standard vehicle should be T8 and T9 should be the heavy T level for tanks. T10 should also be a thing. Agressors are too good against things they shouldn't be good against...

For a unit like agressors or erradicators - instead of double shooting - they should reroll wounds against their preferred target. Effectively it would make them just about as effective vs their prefered targets but significantly weaker vs non preferred. Erads should be vehical or monster. Aggressors infantry or biker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
A 6 man squad of agressors does 5 wounds with reroll all hits to custodian guard (with no -1 to hit even) and with their shoots twice activated with auto bolters.

Not that impressive for nearly a 300 point unit.

A unit of 20 Necron warriors with gauss Reapers (the str 5 ap-2 rapid fire gun) 2+ to hit and reroll 1's does. Does nearly 10 wounds to custodians.

They kill more intercessors too. 17 wounds. to 13.2.


LIKE WOW GUYS. And...I bet most of you would say warriors suck too? Am I right?

Imagine what this unit can do with a new stratagem that say....gives them +1 wound or something or get bonus -1 AP (hinted in their new codex). They could literally kill ANYTHING. But but but...marines OP!

The gak is checkers! It aint Chess!
Cheers to anyone who gets this!

Agressors are quite good but warriors are objective secured and are required slot selections.

But isn't this comparison quite unbalanced? You are comparing a unit optimized to handle T3-T4 with low saves with a Necron unit whose weaponry is optimized against units with T3-T5 with very good saves.
And then you choose as target a T5, 2+, 3++, so almost the worst you could choose for the Aggressors (only thing worse would be T8, 2+).
On the other hand I would say a 270 (?) points unit optimized to kill chaff with bad saves being able to do 5 wounds to custodian guard is pretty dang awesome. I just collect IG, but I don't see anything (Edit: designed for chaff clearing, so punishers etc.) managing that for that pricetag...
But then again maybe you meant that ironic and I just missed that. In that case sorry.

It's xeno.
On one side he's comparing a basic unit, on another side he's comparing a squad of 5" movement models with 7" of enemy custodians while at full strength and effected by My Will Be Done.
Meanwhile, he didn't even include Manrione Rerolls or Sadalomandor faction bonus. It's not even worth arguing with him

This is a common build. It will be automatic and almost impossible to stop.
Veil of darkness after you MWBD and shoot with a triarch stalker. This is a standard opening for crons with sautech.

Salamanders get dick for bonus with aggressors unless they have flamers (which ends up doing less damage than bolters because its half the shots unless you dump stratagems into it and even then its about the same). I am giving the aggressors reroll all hits and double shots (which I listed). You could add in reroll 1's to wound to if you want. It's just negligible for the amount of extra math involved. Assume these agressors are ultramarines or salamanders because they are the only ones that can actually manage to shoot with aggressors before they get wiped out.

It's not arguing. I'm stating facts. You can't argue with facts.

Aggressors are really good against units no one takes (AKA trash units). And unfortunately too good against t6/7 vehcials with 3+ save because they still wound them on 5's.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, Tactical doctrine literally doubles the damage against Custodes.

And tactical doctrine is when those 18 range guns will be used most often. Double firing aggressors in the tactical doctrine will also average 16 wounds against T7 3+ targets, meaning they can efficiently wipe out Predators, rhinos, most Eldar vehicles, and every daemon engine I can think of off the top of my head. That's excessive for a "chafe clearing" unit. They only drop off when T8 is involved.

12 wounds - if they are within 23" of a Predator and also in tactical at that very moment and are also Ultramarines or have CP to "stand still".

Sorry, I did the math with rerolling all hits. You're right, it's twelve without that. But that's still a dead predator, rhino, contemptor (at least the non-relic varieties), etc. That's a bit too efficient at killing vehicles for an anti-infantry unit. And they're a bit too efficient against infantry as well. And they involve rolling WAY too many dice.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, Tactical doctrine literally doubles the damage against Custodes.

And tactical doctrine is when those 18 range guns will be used most often. Double firing aggressors in the tactical doctrine will also average 16 wounds against T7 3+ targets, meaning they can efficiently wipe out Predators, rhinos, most Eldar vehicles, and every daemon engine I can think of off the top of my head. That's excessive for a "chafe clearing" unit. They only drop off when T8 is involved.

12 wounds - if they are within 23" of a Predator and also in tactical at that very moment and are also Ultramarines or have CP to "stand still".

Sorry, I did the math with rerolling all hits. You're right, it's twelve without that. But that's still a dead predator, rhino, contemptor (at least the non-relic varieties), etc. That's a bit too efficient at killing vehicles for an anti-infantry unit. And they're a bit too efficient against infantry as well. And they involve rolling WAY too many dice.

The issue is their many dice. str 4 ap -1 (cause tactical doc) isn't great against tanks, but if you have enough shots for cheap enough it works regardless.

Decent news - no +3" to flamers or the Eradicator rifle, but then all Aggressors will be 12" anyway, so...

I'm not gonna lie, I am scared that Aggressors will get some form of Las-talon "Heavy" weapon variant, that is designed to be anti-tank Devestatorish...With some form of Rocket pods. I have zero information that this will happen, but it's the only thing we haven't seen from GW at this point, "HEAVY aggressors".

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm not gonna lie, I am scared that Aggressors will get some form of Las-talon "Heavy" weapon variant, that is designed to be anti-tank Devestatorish...With some form of Rocket pods. I have zero information that this will happen, but it's the only thing we haven't seen from GW at this point, "HEAVY aggressors".

That's what Eradicators are for.

Ordana wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, Tactical doctrine literally doubles the damage against Custodes.

And tactical doctrine is when those 18 range guns will be used most often. Double firing aggressors in the tactical doctrine will also average 16 wounds against T7 3+ targets, meaning they can efficiently wipe out Predators, rhinos, most Eldar vehicles, and every daemon engine I can think of off the top of my head. That's excessive for a "chafe clearing" unit. They only drop off when T8 is involved.

12 wounds - if they are within 23" of a Predator and also in tactical at that very moment and are also Ultramarines or have CP to "stand still".

Sorry, I did the math with rerolling all hits. You're right, it's twelve without that. But that's still a dead predator, rhino, contemptor (at least the non-relic varieties), etc. That's a bit too efficient at killing vehicles for an anti-infantry unit. And they're a bit too efficient against infantry as well. And they involve rolling WAY too many dice.

The issue is their many dice. str 4 ap -1 (cause tactical doc) isn't great against tanks, but if you have enough shots for cheap enough it works regardless.

Right, which is why the new wounding table sucks. But that isn't changing, so they need to lose double shooting. Give them preferred enemy: infantry instead.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm not gonna lie, I am scared that Aggressors will get some form of Las-talon "Heavy" weapon variant, that is designed to be anti-tank Devestatorish...With some form of Rocket pods. I have zero information that this will happen, but it's the only thing we haven't seen from GW at this point, "HEAVY aggressors".

That's what Eradicators are for.

I thought they were for invalidating any vehicle without an invul or T9 (which have all been invalidated by CA).