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.

Well, for the Leviathan and FW units, hopefully FW updates their datasheets to reflect them having Angels of Death rather quickly, otherwise they won't be able to be used until FW does.

I think this is actually futureproofed by the Angels of Death rules itself, which gives it to everything with the Astartes keyword, except Servitors. It doesn't matter if the datasheet actually has it or not, it's granted by the codex.
Still not looking forward to half-damage leviathans.

 McGibs wrote:

Well, for the Leviathan and FW units, hopefully FW updates their datasheets to reflect them having Angels of Death rather quickly, otherwise they won't be able to be used until FW does.

I think this is actually futureproofed by the Angels of Death rules itself, which gives it to everything with the Astartes keyword, except Servitors. It doesn't matter if the datasheet actually has it or not, it's granted by the codex.
Still not looking forward to half-damage leviathans.

That's actually really good to know as it means I don't have to worry about updates to FW unit entries outside point costs.

Also we should really get a new thread going.

Hopefully gw gaks the leviathan in matched play

Martel732 wrote:
Hopefully gw gaks the leviathan in matched play

Really you want GW to just squat all forgeworld stuff?
You need to find something else to even out your negativity and hate dude.

Martel732 wrote:
Hopefully gw gaks the leviathan in matched play

Me too, then the stupid cries of "omg fw pay to win" can go away.

People still post trash like that? Though that stopped years ago, when GW got more inclusive about FW. Talking about relics of a bygone age.

The Leviathan is a great unit but it's that by design. It's a key SM profile, and has actually been buffed a few times now (points drop and can take 3 HK missiles). I doubt it's going anywhere, Martel, so you'll have to learn to live with it I think.

There are some obvious combos, but what are your personal combos ? What do you think you will do ?
I wish there was a withdraw and shoot seeing as there is a withdraw and charge though :(

Not my personal style, but +1 to advance and charge rolls is really nice. +3" range has some very interesting potentials, but I'd have to stare at the whole unit list for a while as you'd want to build the entire army around it.

Overall, I'm less enthused than I hoped, I was originally assuming it'd be a tough choice between an awesome custom tactic pairing or set chapter doctrine bonuses and perks, but this list makes me think I'd rather do with a known chapter, probably sticking with my IH plan. Especially if they happen to also get some Dev doctrine that those in the know consider strong, that's just icing. That or go UM cause I like all their mobility options in tactical.

I'd have liked some custom options that upped survivability. It's great they've upped the killing power of marines, but they look very glass hammer.

Yeah you summed up my thoughts exactly !
It's almost always better to keep a famous chapter trait.

 grouchoben wrote:
The Leviathan is a great unit but it's that by design. It's a key SM profile, and has actually been buffed a few times now (points drop and can take 3 HK missiles). I doubt it's going anywhere, Martel, so you'll have to learn to live with it I think.

I don't understand why codex dreads are gak but FW is allowed to print these units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Hopefully gw gaks the leviathan in matched play

Really you want GW to just squat all forgeworld stuff?
You need to find something else to even out your negativity and hate dude.

I want FW and Indices gone, yes. FW doesn't even have an operating crew anymore from what I've read.

Martel732 wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
The Leviathan is a great unit but it's that by design. It's a key SM profile, and has actually been buffed a few times now (points drop and can take 3 HK missiles). I doubt it's going anywhere, Martel, so you'll have to learn to live with it I think.

I don't understand why codex dreads are gak but FW is allowed to print these units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Hopefully gw gaks the leviathan in matched play

Really you want GW to just squat all forgeworld stuff?
You need to find something else to even out your negativity and hate dude.

I want FW and Indices gone, yes. FW doesn't even have an operating crew anymore from what I've read.

No they have sculptors, casters, rules writer's etc.
The Main 40k rulea writer's just complained to management enough to gain control of the 40k rules for FW models.

You confusing GW internal politics for something it's not.
It's because the main rules team don't want to admit that they dont understand their own rules.
The only reason we have codex 2.0 for marines is the terrible sales of marine units causing managment to get involved.

Maybe, but i dont want to have to order resin do get a decent dread.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe, but i dont want to have to order resin do get a decent dread.

Seriously have you seen the Blood angles specific leviathan model that thing make a regular leviathan look hobo.
And a regular leviathan makes the redemptor look like the middle age beer gut version of a dread.

Also FW being the only viable dreadnaughts isn't a new thing you realise the plastic Contemptor came into being after the resin one.
Ge main doesn't understand why dreadnaughts arn't played and have zero interest in fixing them. Removing FW just leaves marines without viable dreadnaughts full stop.

Martel732 wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
The Leviathan is a great unit but it's that by design. It's a key SM profile, and has actually been buffed a few times now (points drop and can take 3 HK missiles). I doubt it's going anywhere, Martel, so you'll have to learn to live with it I think.

I don't understand why codex dreads are gak but FW is allowed to print these units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Hopefully gw gaks the leviathan in matched play

Really you want GW to just squat all forgeworld stuff?
You need to find something else to even out your negativity and hate dude.

I want FW and Indices gone, yes. FW doesn't even have an operating crew anymore from what I've read.

That sounds like a personal problem, so get over it. Even if their entries were deleted, even their regular Dreads still look better so I'd order those.

So the new codex is here, but what will it actually mean for marine troops choices? Marine infantry has been in a poor place for a long time due to generally poor offense and defense, and the fact that its easily wiped off the board by plasma, and even weapons that are typically considered to be anti horde (heavy bolters, punisher russes). But now the new chapter traits will give them a lot more defense, there's been some points changes, and increases to offensive power from the new Combat Doctrine system. Lots of people seem to be thinking that Old Marines are out and that the reign of Primaris will now be beginning, so I thought it'd be interesting to run the numbers on Intercessors vs the humble Tactical marine and see how they shake out both at killing each other, and at killing other common targets.

Let's keep in mind these changes from the new codex:
- Tactical marines are now 12 points
- All rapidfire and assault weapons can get ap-1 starting turn 2 (turn 1 its all heavy weapons) from Combat Doctrines
- Auto Bolt Rifles went up to Assault 3 (they still cost 1 pt, putting Intercessors to 18)
- Ultramarines count as having not moved when in Tactical Doctrine, thus always getting Bolter Discipline and no heavy weapon penalties to hit.

Here's some numbers comparing two plasma heavy tactical squads with an equivalent amount of intercessors. Note that there's basically no reason to take a ten man squad when you can take 2 5 man squads and get an extra weapon, and extra melee special weapon. So pay more attention to the second Column for tacs. Also note that this is showing damage, not kills. So for multiwound models, you need to divide the first column by the number of wounds the model has.



Conclusions:

1) Wow those tacs actually do a lot of damage now! Plasma hasn't changed of course, but the plasma guns are getting an extra -1 ap from Tactical Doctrine, which means they completely ignore 3+ saves. And now the Bolters actually can kill. Intercessors cost another 50% more than tacs, but once you factor in the cost of special/heavy weapons, these two unit types even out quite well.

2) The Auto Bolt Rifle intercessors can overtake the tacs at killing Guardsmen and Boyz due to their new 3rd shot. The Auto Bolt Rifle massively outperforms the Bolt Rifle now too, even being slightly better than the Bolt Rifle vs heavier targets. But you lose range, which could easily mean a full turn of shooting lost.

3) The Bolt Rifle Intercessors will do their full damage out to 30" (even when moving if Ultramarines). The Tacs need to get into rapidfire range to bring the plasma to bear. But will still do decently at 24".

4) The intercessors are basically only good against infantry, whereas the tacs can threaten literally anything.

5) If the tacs took plasma cannons instead of guns, then they'd have more range, and those would benefit from the Devastator Doctrine's -1 ap turn 1. It would trade firepower turn 2 and beyond for more firepower turn 1. Good for Objective Camper squads too.

6) The intercessors have about double wounds for the same squad price, but are also vulnerable to d2 weapons. And as models are lost, they lose firepower in a linear way. But the tacs have most of their firepower packed into the plasma users, so they can lose several models before it changes much. Overall, these units are actually going to have similar levels of durability and efficiency on the battlefield because of this (unless your opponent brings either no d2, or a huge amount of it).

7) The intercessors have an extra 50% attacks in melee in the first round, or 100% more second round. So they are far better in melee than the tacticals. But they still aren't great there unless you get to Assault Doctrine on turn 3, in which case they'll do okay, but still not likely to measure up against dedicated melee units. With melee focused Chapter Traits they'd be pretty nasty.

8) If tacs took Grav instead of Plasma you'd have similar results vs infantry but with less risk and slightly higher cost, but they wouldn't be as much of a threat to heavy armor.

9) The Tacticals will absolutely obliterate the Intercessors at close ranges, and perhaps even at 24".

Anyone have any other conclusions to draw from this? Did I make any math mistakes?

Overall, I'm thinking this means that the day of the humble Tactical Marine is far from over. You'll need a way to get them into range to deliver their plasma, but Rhinos just got a points drop, and Drop Pods can drop turn 1 again, so that might actually work out. Intercessors will have a solid role being able to threaten infantry at long range and be durable vs small arms too. We may see a meta where both these units actually have their uses!

I agree, the Tactical marine is looking a lot better. If Rhinos had the Assault Vehicle rule to match Primaris in an Impulsor I would seriously consider them. But lacking that...

The issue there is they don't carry a lot of Plasma, and you made mention of meatshields BUT if you're doing two separate 5 man squads like you suggest that's only 3 dudes. It isn't a good unit for camping an objective either. Intercessors really do come out on top for their price, especially if it's true Sternguard are only 14 with their special Bolter.

If I'm going brigade, I'd be doing ×3 Intercessors and ×3 Scouts. Don't see any value in the Tactical Squad still.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The issue there is they don't carry a lot of Plasma, and you made mention of meatshields BUT if you're doing two separate 5 man squads like you suggest that's only 3 dudes. It isn't a good unit for camping an objective either. Intercessors really do come out on top for their price, especially if it's true Sternguard are only 14 with their special Bolter.

If I'm going brigade, I'd be doing ×3 Intercessors and ×3 Scouts. Don't see any value in the Tactical Squad still.

Just go for bare bones tacticals - don't even put them in a rhino and give the sergeant a power sword/axe and storm bolter. Pretty good as ultramarines.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The issue there is they don't carry a lot of Plasma, and you made mention of meatshields BUT if you're doing two separate 5 man squads like you suggest that's only 3 dudes. It isn't a good unit for camping an objective either. Intercessors really do come out on top for their price, especially if it's true Sternguard are only 14 with their special Bolter.

If I'm going brigade, I'd be doing ×3 Intercessors and ×3 Scouts. Don't see any value in the Tactical Squad still.

Why scouts? Tacs are only a single point more for a better save and better heavy weapon options.

Scouts get to screen against enemy Deep Strikers much more effectively due to Infiltrate.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Scouts get to screen against enemy Deep Strikers much more effectively due to Infiltrate.

Bingo. Any that survive can make use of the Tactical Doctrine with their Shotguns too.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Scouts get to screen against enemy Deep Strikers much more effectively due to Infiltrate.

I'd rather use infiltrators.

Honestly I think there is a real strength to combining pick&choose CTs with a founding chapter backing them up with 2 successors. It enables you to micro-customize your list with 3 different flavorings of marines and still get doctrines.

Not really a soup, because its all marines. More of a Salad maybe?

Also, can one of you stats people do a run up of if whirlwind of rage or duelist are better? My intuition is leaning towards whirlwind being better for higher value weapons like THs, while duelist is better for high volume weapons.

bort wrote:
I'd have liked some custom options that upped survivability. It's great they've upped the killing power of marines, but they look very glass hammer.

You just summed whole 8th ed there. 8th ed has been all about making pretty much everything good at killing stuff, bad at surviving. When some of the toughest units in the game are grots and imperial guard troopers you know game isn't about stuff surviving!

New marine codex is just turning the dial to 11 even more :( Which is not what I would prefer. Even if game would be balanced it leads even more to 1st turn deciding and the models you spend time painting gets packed super fast. Paint awesome looking knight? Good job. If it's your only knight watch it die on opponents first turn...

Ah well. Easy to see the reason(£) for this design style.

Speaking in terms of Ultramarines, is there a consensus on Hellblasters vs Suppressors? With the UM rules, Suppressors count as stationary from T2 onwards. This means an easy deep strike and making full use of their Fly keyword and still hitting on 3s. However, Suppressors only come in units of 3. This can be advantage if you want to fill up those FA slots, but generally all it does is putting you at risk of going second.

Hellblasters hit harder at 15" and below and can have 5-10 models. However, they only hit harder if you overcharge, putting them at risk, and the -4 is usually wasted, seeing as -2 is the sweetspot these days. S8 is solid though.

Both have similar ppm (33 for HB and 35 for Sup).

Thoughts?

well hellblasters are gonna be a lot easier to get then supressors, and hellblasters lack the flight stand two big points in hellblasters favor IMHO

Depending of the new points cost, I may play terminators again:
With the reroll of 1's chapter tactics, tactical doctrine on, and the +1 to hit stratagem they would get quite a firepower, and even in assault they would be 50% better than before, not including the stratagem again.
I think lightning claws terminators are they real winners here with +1a and +1ap, they were lacking in AP.

I think I may go for bolter fusillade and hungry for battles, as chapter tactics: this way I get more from the shooting part of my army (tacticals, sternguards, stormraven with sponsons...) while helping my assault part (vanguards and characters).

Martel732 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Scouts get to screen against enemy Deep Strikers much more effectively due to Infiltrate.

I'd rather use infiltrators.

Good for you. The question was "why Scouts over Tacticals" though.

Assault doctrine seems meh to me purely because it is only active from turn 3 at the earliest. Could be good for a late game punch or two, but it's annoying you can't base your core strategy around it due to how late it triggers. Seems a bit arbitrary that assault heavy SM armies would be locked into bonuses to their heavy guns turn 1.

Any strategy relying on devastator doctrine is going to be at a hefty advantage as it can start turn 1 and remain just as strong all game.