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.

So,

I'm trying to build a casual DW list at 1750, and want to experiment with Aggressors. In one of my Battalions I have three squads of intercessors, and I can't decide if it makes more sense to have 2 Aggressors attached to each intercessor squad, or a separate squad of 6 aggressors? My thinking was having too many squads leaves me open to losing the deployment.

Is it generally better to attach or separate? Thank you for any advice.

J

With very few exceptions (like 3-min Bikes with SB/SS Sgt), DW should be Troops, Troops, Troops.
Whether Vet squads or Intercessors, it just makes the most sense to build in special models into those units, rather than having them be separated out.

Aggressors, Terminators, Vanguard Vets, Inceptors, etc are all force multipliers to their respective Troops and give far more to any list in those units typically will on their own.

And if you do end up wanting them "on their own" You can just combat squad them. Take 5 Aggressors in a 5-man Intercessor unit and split them as you need them.

-

Can confirm 5 Intercessor/5 Aggressor can be tasty as long as it can stay alive. 20 wounds of T5/3+ can get shredded pretty quickly though so you have to be careful with them.

Right so, at 5/squad the points cost becomes extremely prohibitive. I'm trying to use them to offset my flanks, and prevent charges and drop ins (Auspex scan followed by 70+ shots). They are too costly to just throw into basic squads that go mucking about all over the field. I also don't want them moving around, because dat shoot twice buff yo.

But in all honesty, if I don't attach them, they are likely going to be a priority target to long range, vehicles, or such. If I make them a squad option, they are losing their strength in the movement. Tough call.

I could just drop them all together and go for more frag cannons, but then I become that guy. They really need to tone that shizz down.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Right so, at 5/squad the points cost becomes extremely prohibitive. I'm trying to use them to offset my flanks, and prevent charges and drop ins (Auspex scan followed by 70+ shots). They are too costly to just throw into basic squads that go mucking about all over the field. I also don't want them moving around, because dat shoot twice buff yo.

But in all honesty, if I don't attach them, they are likely going to be a priority target to long range, vehicles, or such. If I make them a squad option, they are losing their strength in the movement. Tough call.

I could just drop them all together and go for more frag cannons, but then I become that guy. They really need to tone that shizz down.

Frag cannons are pretty much the casual friendly option unless your meta is all hordes. Way too expensive, no cost effective method to get them into range of something worth shooting, and they take away a storm shield from the rest of the squad. My eight frag cannons haven't seen a 40k game in months (kill team is a different story).

The Aggressors aren't being added to the Intercessors. The Intercessors are being added to your Aggressors so your 190 points of Aggressors doubles its wounds for 90 points and gets a few extra shots for good measure.

The first part of your assessment is correct though, unattached they will die to long range firepower.

Shoot twice is also a bit of a trap. There are not a lot of targets that your 30 + 5D6 str 4 shots (likely with rerolls to hit and wound and possibly +1 to wound strat) aren't already going to take care of. Going to 60+6D6 is often overkill unless you found an Ork player who somehow left three units of Boyz within 18" of the obvious death blossom.

The bigger problem is whether you run them as 10 wounds or 20 wounds, T5/3+ still gets shot off the table ridiculously fast compared to the Storm Shields and Storm Bolters vet squads with a couple Terminators. Especially considering the 37 SIA shots from the Vet squad are cheaper than the 5 intercessor/5 aggressor option.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So,

I'm trying to build a casual DW list at 1750, and want to experiment with Aggressors. In one of my Battalions I have three squads of intercessors, and I can't decide if it makes more sense to have 2 Aggressors attached to each intercessor squad, or a separate squad of 6 aggressors? My thinking was having too many squads leaves me open to losing the deployment.

Is it generally better to attach or separate? Thank you for any advice.

J

Do your local group still play with CA2017 scenarios? 2018 version the losing the deployment is not a worry anymore. And often tournaments adopt new deployment rule anyway.

tneva82 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So,

I'm trying to build a casual DW list at 1750, and want to experiment with Aggressors. In one of my Battalions I have three squads of intercessors, and I can't decide if it makes more sense to have 2 Aggressors attached to each intercessor squad, or a separate squad of 6 aggressors? My thinking was having too many squads leaves me open to losing the deployment.

Is it generally better to attach or separate? Thank you for any advice.

J

Do your local group still play with CA2017 scenarios? 2018 version the losing the deployment is not a worry anymore. And often tournaments adopt new deployment rule anyway.

No, we play mainly from the 2018 book. But that being said, going second is still a massive disadvantage, no matter how you slice it. DW mono-dex armies have cost me first turn a surprising amount. Even against "Horde" armies like Cultist spam CSMs, and Guard.

As others have said, adding intercessors to aggressor squads is the way to go. A 10-man squad with 4 aggressors, an inceptor and 5 intercessors has majority toughness 5. It can fall back and shoot and has immense dakka. You have plenty of firepower to deal with most threats, you’re tough and you can fight reasonably well in cc.

Alternatively, you can field squads with 4 hellblasters, a plasma inceptor and 5 intercessors. That’s a good way to keep hellblasters alive, at least for a bit. This unit is good for deep striking in if your opponent has a lot of firepower.

“That guy” with deathwatch fields 10-man veteran squads who all have storm bolters and storm shields (typically with a bike, vanguard and at least one terminator). Primaris deathwatch are pretty reasonable in comparison. I haven’t seen the heavy weapons fielded lately at all.

The problem for aggressors is that a much cheaper veteran with storm bolter and storm shield has great dakka too. It makes it hard to justify taking them when you’ve kind of got a better way of doing the same thing.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

No, we play mainly from the 2018 book. But that being said, going second is still a massive disadvantage, no matter how you slice it. DW mono-dex armies have cost me first turn a surprising amount. Even against "Horde" armies like Cultist spam CSMs, and Guard.

Well yes but for that one unit or two unit doesn't matter.

Frag cannons have a potential role, but seem too expensive for the niche.
<8” Frag cannons win hands down, but what opponent leaves those alive that close?
<12” Frags are slightly better vs multiwound targets than equiv points in sb vets but at a huge loss of durability.
12+” the storm bolters are better.

So, given DW can use whatever AT help they can get, I guess it comes down to whether you can get your cannons within 12” of big targets often enough to be worth it? Given tourney players go none or pay crazy points for a cyclone instead, the frequent answer is no.