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.

Seems more likely to me they just have a terrible website than they decided to change how the rules work. They also mentioned as recently as the chaos book previews that negative modifiers make plasma kill you on 1s and 2s, so it's safer to assume it does that it does not imo.

Edit: the link im thinking of is this: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/02/legion-focus-night-lords-aug-2gw-homepage-post-2/

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Traceoftoxin wrote:

bort wrote:

 Traceoftoxin wrote:

bort wrote:
...

The money from scouts is on the mortal wounds, so if they've got any sort of rerolls that helps fish for that. Seems like your StfS could do a good job controlling the enemy's movement, and gives you a ton of flexibility in deployment. My biggest concern is the fragility of devs, though with the -1 to hit and all those up front targets, theoretically they should be alright, I think. I've used bolter and shotgun squads for scouts, I'm not really seeing much difference. The shotguns put a few more wounds when you manage to infiltrate and get right on top of stuff, and the bolters get more targets to choose. Neither is killing its weight in points and the scouts generally just work to keep gak off my lines. Might find the sniper scouts would be better used as screening units, though the sniper rule can end up really paying off, I think. Hard to know.

I doubt the sniper rule is going to pay off with only 5 shots, I'm not threatening anything that isn't already near dead, but they were talked up in the RG thread and I didn't have a burning need for those 20pts. I could reshuffle some wargear and get another Hellblaster or Tarantula maybe. Oh, or drop a Hellblaster to get 5 more sniper rifles, but then they aren't as sacrificial bubble wrap now that they're armed.

I regularly play against someone who uses 5 pathfinders, and they put out about a mortal wound a turn on chars. Sometimes none, sometimes two. Just having them does make the opponent change their tactics though.

I'm not gonna shift my tactics because I might get 2 mortal wounds. I might if I get 4 though.

Sniper Scouts do good, but only in redundancy.

Just having the ability to pick out characters makes people change how they position them. Even though I know 5 pathfinders should never kill a bike captain, I've taken 3 mortal wounds from them in one round. I do my best to minimize their ability to get shots off. That's not saying they're great, or that they're going to kill a character or completely change someone's gameplan, but if you have snipers with LOS down an avenue of approach, your opponent may consider placing their character there. Games are not played with unlimited time, people are forced to make decisions under pressure and sometimes they overestimate or underestimate the danger of situations. I'm not sure it's worth the 20 points, but it is a factor to keep in mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:
Seems more likely to me they just have a terrible website than they decided to change how the rules work. They also mentioned as recently as the chaos book previews that negative modifiers make plasma kill you on 1s and 2s, so it's safer to assume it does that it does not imo.

Edit: the link im thinking of is this: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/02/legion-focus-night-lords-aug-2gw-homepage-post-2/

Considering there is no written rule saying that's how it works, and GW regularly misplays their own game, I don't think there's a solid argument for that to be RAW. RAI, I agree, but RAW all you have is an article written by someone on the web team.

 Traceoftoxin wrote:

Mandragola wrote:

I'm putting a list together for a tournament myself. I'd be interested in comments. My guys are crimson fists. It's 2k, with just a single battalion so 6CPs.

I tried it out last night against GKs in the relic. I won heavily but was helped a lot by seizing the initiative. I realised that I've got nothing that deep strikes, which could be an issue. I'm now thinking about swapping my aggressors for 5 cataphractii with fists, storm bolters and maybe a grenade harness. I could trim a bit off the repulsor to save the points. To be honest I think that would probably be the right call.

Primaris Captain (Warlord)
Plasma Pistol
Power Fist (Upgraded to Fist of Vengeance relic)
Warlord Trait: +1A on charge and reroll charges

Primaris Librarian
Force Sword
Smite
Null Zone
Might of Heroes

5 Intercessors
Auxiliary Grenade Launcher

5 Intercessors
Auxiliary Grenade Launcher

5 Intercessors
Auxiliary Grenade Launcher

3 Assault Centurions
Three Hurricane Bolters
Four Flamers
Two Melta Guns
Omniscope

5 Aggressors
Auto Boltstorm Gauntlets
Fragstorm Grenade Launchers

5 Hellblasters
Plasma Incinerators

Storm Raven Gunship
Twin Plasma Cannon
Twin Multi-melta
Two Stormstrike Missile Launchers
Two Hurricane Bolters

Xiphon Interceptor
Two Twin Lascannon
Xiphon Missile Battery

Repulsor
Las Talon
Twin Lascannon
Onslaught Gatling Cannon
Three Storm Bolters
Two Fragstorm Grenade Launchers
Two Krakstorm Grenade Launchers
Ironhail Heavy Stubber

What are you putting in each transport? Have you had any issues with having 2 big transports with lots of stuff in them? The xiphon seems like a very strong unit, how has its performance been vs ground targets?

Why plas cannon on SR over TAC? I'm pretty sure the TAC averages more wounds against almost every target, though I could be wrong without checking the math. Assuming the MM is for a reliable AT on a mobile platform?

The centurions go in the storm raven and the repulsor takes different stuff in different games. The usual set up is to have the hellblasters and characters in it.

Against the GKs I actually ended up deploying nobody in the repulsor, which was a mistake. I wanted to be ready to use auspex scan with the hellblasters but had forgotten you have -1 to hit when using the stratagem, which is not ideal with plasma! The captain was on foot to buff them and the librarian was there to DTW - but then in the end I stole initiative and they were all stranded out of position. In retrospect they would have been much better off in the repulsor. Of course, stealing initiative did mean that I won the game, so it wasn't all bad!

I do have the potential option of putting the aggressors in the repulsor too. Not sure if I'll ever do this, but It might occasionally be worth it if I need to zerg forwards.

So far so good with the Xiphon. It is perfectly happy to shoot at ground targets. It has no penalty for firing heavy weapons on the move (for no reason that I can see - hardly any other flyer gets this). So it hits things that fly on a 2+ and things that don't on a 3+. That's good enough. To be honest it's an embarrassingly good vehicle that makes the stormhawk look like total trash in comparison. It's like a predator that flies and has a bunch of extra special rules and a whole additional gun, for only 20 points more than a predator.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bort wrote:
Taking the RG tactics thread discussion in to account and assuming ITC deployment rules, what do you think of this 2000pt RG list?:

Battalion + Spearhead Detachments (7 CP)

Shrike
Captain - storm bolter, power sword
Lieutenant - storm of fire, storm bolter, power sword

Company Ancient - standard of the Emperor Ascendant, storm bolter
Vanguard Veteran Squad (5) - 6 plasma pistols, 2 storm shields, 1 thunder hammer, 1 chain sword
Vanguard Veteran Squad (5) - 6 plasma pistols, 2 storm shields, 1 thunder hammer, 1 chain sword
Aggressor Squad (3) - 3 boltstorm gauntlets

Scout Squad (5) - 5 shotguns
Scout Squad (5) - 1 storm bolter, 4 bolters
Scout Squad (5) - 5 sniper rifles

Devastator Squad (5) - 4 lascannons, 1 storm bolter, cherub
Devastator Squad (5) - 4 lascannons, 1 storm bolter, cherub
Hellblaster Squad (7) - 7 plasma incinerators

Razorback - TL assault cannon, storm bolter, HK missile
Razorback - TL assault cannon, storm bolter, HK missile
Razorback - TL assault cannon, storm bolter, HK missile
Razorback - TL assault cannon, storm bolter, HK missile

Total: 2000/2000

The Hellblasters and Aggressors can SftS forwards with Shrike and the VVs and the rest form a firebase with the reroll auras.

I'm still not sold on the Scout armament, 20pts in rifles is a lot when I'm avging 1 wound from the unit at best, but I realized I do own 5 painted sniper models and half my bolter/shotguns are unassembled, so maybe I'll give it a try?...For those who saw my prior list revision, I did swap the 5 grav Devs for 7 Hellblasters. I still think the firepower is mostly a wash, but I do like 14W instead of 5W. If I kept the Devs, I thought I'd add 2 HB Tarantulas with the spare 60ish points. That'd give some super cheap DS protection without having to hold Scouts back.

I actually think you're taking the wrong approach to a ravenguard list here. The good thing about ravenguard is that it's really difficult to shoot their infantry dead. It's not really an army that makes sense with razorbacks, with close-range firepower (all those plasma pistols) or with chaff infantry like scouts. The units that benefit most from RG CTs are intercessors, hellblasters and dakka aggressors.

Razorbacks are really good of course. But there are other chapters that use them at least as well. If you're going to drive up in a razorback, then jump out and shoot, being ravenguard does nothing for you. Salamanders would benefit from their reroll; ultramarines have a stratagem to reroll 1s - plus Guilliman of course - who has awesome synergy with razorbacks.

A friend of mine is building a RG army for a tournament. I don't think there's a single model in his list that opponents won't have -1 to hit against with long-ranged shooting. He's got quite a lot of primaris infantry (I think 15 intercessors, 10 assault hellblasters and 5 aggressors), a captain and librarian, a couple of storm talons, two fighty contemptors and one quad-las mortis contemptor.

Yeah, I have thought about that. Originally the Razorbacks were for deployment count too, now primarily for shooting. Im not planning to drive them up much. But it would have been better for sure if there was a Dread with similar costs and 2 AC arms so they could also get -1.

Wont the assault Hellblasters and Aggressors have the same issue though?

I've been bringing 2 dreads with autocannons and 2 razorbacks with assault cannons and it works pretty well. Sometimes you actually prefer the 2 damage and the chapter tactics are nice.

bort wrote:
Yeah, I have thought about that. Originally the Razorbacks were for deployment count too, now primarily for shooting. Im not planning to drive them up much. But it would have been better for sure if there was a Dread with similar costs and 2 AC arms so they could also get -1.

Wont the assault Hellblasters and Aggressors have the same issue though?

I'm not sure what issue you mean. Is it that they'll end up within 12" so their CT doesn't work? Possibly - but at least you aren't trying to make that happen - as you are with things like plasma pistols and shotguns.

RG hellblasters work because, while they do attract a lot of hate, they are really difficult to kill at range, especially in cover. The assault ones in particular are able to move around and keep their distance while spraying really formidable firepower.

Aggressors are a totally different thing. You can use sfts on them to deploy within 18", then start double-tapping with them from turn 1. Nobody can really live with that but, if you deploy them well, they can be really problematic to get rid of.

So these are two units that really make use of the RG CTs and stratagem. And meanwhile intercessors are a complete no-brainer as troops for ravenguard. Shifting RG intercessors from cover is depressingly hard work.

...Oops, I was thinking assault hellblasters only had 18" range. That does make more sense now. I could def see those over VVs.

I agree RG Intercessors are much harder to shift. But, I also doubt they'll be shot at much if youve got hellblasters at the same range. Same for the Scouts, if theyre shot at Im either happy or being tabled. I want at least 1, maybe 2, for the scout deployment but turning the 3rd in to an intercessor squad has appeal.

I can't see throwing points away on Intercessors unless you're trying to go for a brigade and have enough Scouts to block DS before you've hit your troop requirement. Even then I think I'd lean towards just more Scouts or Tacs for the option to deploy in Razorbacks and drastically reduce your number of drops to increase your chances of going first.

I agree with Bort, if Ints are being shot at you're being tabled. If Ints are being charged, they're just as dead as Scouts hit by T1 chargers (Alpha Legion/Raven Guard Berserkers/Vanguard, Warptimed Magnus/Morty, Genestealers, ect), but they don't protect against deep strike shooting. All while costing the most, which is probably their most grievous offense.

I can see Ints being the ones that can pull through those close matches to clutch victory after both armies are spent turn 6 or 7, but it seems that competitive games almost never end that way. It's usually a crushing victory for either side, which is not the kind of fight Ints need to be successful.

As for Bort's list, personally I'm not a fan of the Vanguard Bomb. I've personally used 50 Conscripts to entirely seal of my 2000 point armies from assault plenty of times (I actually just tabled a poor Khorne player without losing anything that wasn't a conscript, he wanted to test against tournament level lists), it's very easy to shut out assault units (I know they're mostly more plasma in this case). If you still want to pull a bomb, I think drop the VVs and Aggressors, add in more Hellblasters (15" threat range is huge, especially after SFTS), swap Shrike for a cheaper jump captain for the Hellblasters, spend the CP to Chapter Master your gunline captain (I think the aura is better used here), and throw the extra points into your gunline. This would also swap your Elite detachment for a Heavy Support one.

If you feel the need for a Countercharge unit, a Contemptor Dread or two may be worth looking at.

I'm wishy-washy on the Dev+Banner combo, it obviously works for a lot of people, but personally I can see issues with LoS and trying to keep everybody in 3 different bubbles. Terrain in your play area is the biggest decider here I think.

Also as it stands you're one Razorback away from being able to completely deploy inside of transports to reduce your drops to their lowest, something to consider when spending extra points if you make the above cuts.

Yeah I've found the Intercessors to be pretty useless. Scouts are much better if you want to block stuff, and tacs, bad as they are, are better at hiding in rhinos and killing things. They will just be ignored until there isn't anything better to shoot at, and then easily killed.

Hmm, thanks. The VVs are definitely the most worrisome part for me, a threat range of only 12" isnt so good when they cant move first. I first put those in since it seemed I needed a hefty enough SftS/DS contingent, VVs seemed popular on here, and I felt my list could use a flying unit (okay, I know, Storm Ravens :p) and they did well in 2 games, but I also didnt run in to good drop protection.

While situational and expensive, you have to admit that if youre going first, being able to SftS the VVs in then jump over the bubble wrap to blast/charge a real target turn 1 is pretty cool.

And yeah, Shrike is there more for the charge reroll, without VVs my gunline guy would be the chapter master...Although, if I were bombing enough Hellblasters forwards, the CM could still be good upfront.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Perth also nailed both why a unit of Intercessors had some appeal for me, but why I didnt bother originally. Assuming 1 scout unit (the sniper ones) were sitting in my deployment zone to cover my flank anyways, swapping ineffective sniping for intecessors who could double tap with -1ap and then move up late game seems a decent trade. But thats still 25pts more for the very rare case a single troop unit would decide a game in turn 5+ vs just going cheap troops and more guns.

jcd386 wrote:
Yeah I've found the Intercessors to be pretty useless. Scouts are much better if you want to block stuff, and tacs, bad as they are, are better at hiding in rhinos and killing things. They will just be ignored until there isn't anything better to shoot at, and then easily killed.

The Tactical Marines NEED that Rhino to camp an objective though. That's more expensive than Intercessors. They're also definitely not very killy.

I'm not saying that intercessors are going to slaughter loads of things - but they are more dangerous than sniper scouts. 101 points for 5 guys is only 11 points more than the snipers in exchange for double the wounds and better armour.

Honestly, try them. I guarantee that you'll like them.

I'm not too concerned about bubble wrap against deep strikers. In my own list I set up flyers as my bubble wrap. It means deploying quite deep but that's ok. My storm raven, repulsor and xiphon are pretty hard to shoot dead and virtually impossible to charge for people deep striking. Then my counter-punch is very heavy.

The way i see it is this:

1. The main reason i actually want troops at all is for more CP. Objective secured is decent, but it's not good enough to spend points on since it will only matter in really close drawn out games where a random marine gets stuck in vs something that's not troops. In most of my lists, i automatically spend 3 CP on a chapter master, since re-rolls to hit is so good, so i find having less than 8 CP is somewhat annoying since i will probably need to use some rerolls and whatnot.
2. The less points I spend on troops, the more other stuff i can buy.
3. I need something to protect my shooty units from deepstrike and first turn assaults.
4. People don't usually target stuff if it isn't dangerous unless it is in their way.

55 point boltgun scouts get me all of these things for a great price. Yes, they do die fairly easily, but they aren't very threatening and they are cheap, so i see them being shot at or assaulted as a good thing, since it means none of my other stuff is being shot at.

Tactical squads only help with 1 and 2, but do pack a punch with plasma. They are also very durable inside of a transport, where they can stay until i need to use them to protect a tank. Also, I don't see the transport as a tax, since i usually have 2+ razrobacks in my army anyway. They are likely to die once they get out, shoot, and perhaps charge a unit that was threatening my vehicles, but they typically slow them down enough for it to be worth it.

intercessors don't really help with any of these things. They cost more than scouts or double plasma tacs, do less damage than plasma tacs, and have to foot-slog (because you'd never put them in a repulser), meaning they are very slow. They are more durable than tacs vs some weapons (anything with 1 damage), and generally more durable than scouts vs everything. The durability thing would be cool to me if they actually did any damage, but since they don't, really, i just don't see why anyone would shoot at them anyway, unless it was important enough for them to fire 2 damage weapons (like if they were holding an important objective).

Razorbacks are garbage as transports. Use them as battle tanks and they make sense.

That's truly why Tactical Marines are garbage. Scouts and Intercessors don't need the transport options. Throwing your Razorback into the fray with garbage Tactical Marines during a couple Plasma shots? That's not any good. They don't camp well either.
Intercessors need maybe the same initial investment as camping Tactical Marines but do the camping far better, and don't fool you into thinking they can go up the field at all.

You usually have to move the razorbacks once to get them in range, whether they have anything in them or not. Then they just sit there being a battle tank, moving as needed. Having a tac squad in them doesn't change any of this. If an enemy tries to get close to the razorback, however, having a tac squad inside to slow them down isn't terrible. It's not great, but it's still better than having an intercessor squad sitting around.

I'm not disagreeing with you saying tacs are garbage, though i'm not sure you understand how they would be used. I just think intercessors are even worse.

I'm genuinely curious to know whether people who hate intercessors have actually used them much. I have, and I think they are very good.

I don't like to spend any points on units that do nothing. They are a pure tax. Any tactical marine who doesn't have a special weapon is a tax. A tactical squad with plasma and combi plasma costs almost what an intercessor squad does.

It is simply wrong too say that intercessors don't kill things. They are happy to fight just about any other troops in the game, point for point. Their shooting works and they can fight pretty capably in cc - again totally outclassing most other troops.

It's true that you get more drops if your troops are outside of transports. To get around this I use a repulsor with my hellblasters and characters inside, and a storm raven with assault centurions and the option of carrying any non-primaris characters and/or a dreadnought. I've got 7 drops at 2k (3 intercessor units, the repulsor, raven, xiphon and 5 aggressors). That isn't many.

I kind of see the point of scouts to screen deep strikers. To be honest though, I don't particularly worry about it myself. A combination of auspex scan and flyers that I can deploy along my front line means they get pushed back anyway. Mass deep striking isn't even all that common, and the scouts are little more than a liability against someone zerging in with orks or Nids.

jcd386 wrote:
You usually have to move the razorbacks once to get them in range, whether they have anything in them or not. Then they just sit there being a battle tank, moving as needed. Having a tac squad in them doesn't change any of this. If an enemy tries to get close to the razorback, however, having a tac squad inside to slow them down isn't terrible. It's not great, but it's still better than having an intercessor squad sitting around.

I'm not disagreeing with you saying tacs are garbage, though i'm not sure you understand how they would be used. I just think intercessors are even worse.

One of the arguments people in favor of Tactical Marines use is that they can go into a transport, do something, and get back in. It's a super lousy argument I know, but some people think that way. Not needing a transport at all makes Scouts the better choice than Tactical Marines for basically anything.

For Intercessors though, consider that it's 100 points for 5 Marines with a Lascannon and 101 points for Intercessors with a Grenade Launcher. While that Lascannon is an okay weapon, it's only one Lascannon and Tactical Squads can't spam them for efficiency. They also have literally half the wounds.
Intercessors show themselves to be what Tactical Marines should be. Yeah they have less weapon options, but when Sternguard, Bikers, and Devastators do weapon spam better, do Intercessors need those options? The answer is a resounding nope. They just need to camp and pop a few shots.

I'm not arguing for tac marines, because i see scouts as the clearly superior and only troop choice worth taking unless the whole theme of your army is 2 wound infantry (which i don't think is that good either), I'm just saying i would take them over intercessors pretty much every time, and don't see how people think 2 wounds and no special weapons is somehow better.

jcd386 wrote:
I'm not arguing for tac marines, because i see scouts as the clearly superior and only troop choice worth taking unless the whole theme of your army is 2 wound infantry (which i don't think is that good either), I'm just saying i would take them over intercessors pretty much every time, and don't see how people think 2 wounds and no special weapons is somehow better.

I think two wounds, two attacks, a better gun, better armour and a 1-point grenade launcher is better.

There are two main ways to run scouts. The barebones ones are only really useful as blockers, and are very cheap. The sniper ones are pretty expensive in that role, but do get sniper guns. Unfortunately, those guns have a negligible effect against lots of armies.

I'd never take sniper scouts when intercessors exist. If you give them cloaks they are only 11 points less than the intercessors. I choose not to have 55 point sacrificial units as well because they aren't even relevant in games against opponents who don't deep strike.

Camo Cloaks should never be bought, period. Superbly overcosted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:
I'm not arguing for tac marines, because i see scouts as the clearly superior and only troop choice worth taking unless the whole theme of your army is 2 wound infantry (which i don't think is that good either), I'm just saying i would take them over intercessors pretty much every time, and don't see how people think 2 wounds and no special weapons is somehow better.

It's because they don't need special weapons. Tactical Marines fool the new player into thinking that, because they have all these upgrades available, they can be kitted out to do anything somewhat. This is a mistake, because they really can't be. Sternguard, Veterans, Bikers, and Devastators are doing your weapon saturation so much better for the points, that this role can never be filled well by them, which means they're basically relegated to camping an objevtive, where 5 extra wounds and better range is much more valuable than a single Lascannon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also last note: for those that have Mathhammered morale, what's the max number of Sternguard you'd take to make sure they don't fall to morale, but you get a good number up the board with Lias? I tried 8 man squads with 2 Grav Cannons but I want more feedback on this.

I think a big misconception about those of us that are against Intercessors is that we're using our other troops primarily to hold objectives also. I've found this not to be the case.

When placing objectives I try to place them so my gunline will be able to hold at least two, with the intent to table my opponent usually anyway, it's rare that a game would come down the wire for board control. If I can't take my two objectives, my gunline is already dead and I've lost. I don't use Scouts to "hold" an objective, they may grab one if it's open and have no opposition, but my "holding" is done by a pile of Dreadnoughts and Razorbacks, also usually Conscripts.

I just don't see the need for a "holding" unit when that's what my gunline is already doing. I have to have three troops, I might as well get something the rest of my list is lacking.

 Perth wrote:
I think a big misconception about those of us that are against Intercessors is that we're using our other troops primarily to hold objectives also. I've found this not to be the case.

When placing objectives I try to place them so my gunline will be able to hold at least two, with the intent to table my opponent usually anyway, it's rare that a game would come down the wire for board control. If I can't take my two objectives, my gunline is already dead and I've lost. I don't use Scouts to "hold" an objective, they may grab one if it's open and have no opposition, but my "holding" is done by a pile of Dreadnoughts and Razorbacks, also usually Conscripts.

I just don't see the need for a "holding" unit when that's what my gunline is already doing. I have to have three troops, I might as well get something the rest of my list is lacking.

Well no, not really. I'm not under any illusion that bolter scouts can hold objectives. I agree it's not really all that necessary, as so many games end in a tabling.

I like intercessors because they can fight a bit, as opposed to not at all. I'd rather pay 100 points for a unit that's worth 100 points than 55 points for a unit that's worth nothing.

Mandragola wrote:

 Perth wrote:
I think a big misconception about those of us that are against Intercessors is that we're using our other troops primarily to hold objectives also. I've found this not to be the case.

When placing objectives I try to place them so my gunline will be able to hold at least two, with the intent to table my opponent usually anyway, it's rare that a game would come down the wire for board control. If I can't take my two objectives, my gunline is already dead and I've lost. I don't use Scouts to "hold" an objective, they may grab one if it's open and have no opposition, but my "holding" is done by a pile of Dreadnoughts and Razorbacks, also usually Conscripts.

I just don't see the need for a "holding" unit when that's what my gunline is already doing. I have to have three troops, I might as well get something the rest of my list is lacking.

Well no, not really. I'm not under any illusion that bolter scouts can hold objectives. I agree it's not really all that necessary, as so many games end in a tabling.

I like intercessors because they can fight a bit, as opposed to not at all. I'd rather pay 100 points for a unit that's worth 100 points than 55 points for a unit that's worth nothing.

Bolter Scouts are super garbage. Go for literally any other loadout.

 Perth wrote:
I think a big misconception about those of us that are against Intercessors is that we're using our other troops primarily to hold objectives also. I've found this not to be the case.

When placing objectives I try to place them so my gunline will be able to hold at least two, with the intent to table my opponent usually anyway, it's rare that a game would come down the wire for board control. If I can't take my two objectives, my gunline is already dead and I've lost. I don't use Scouts to "hold" an objective, they may grab one if it's open and have no opposition, but my "holding" is done by a pile of Dreadnoughts and Razorbacks, also usually Conscripts.

I just don't see the need for a "holding" unit when that's what my gunline is already doing. I have to have three troops, I might as well get something the rest of my list is lacking.

This, pretty much exactly.

To me, intercessors just don't do anything and seem like dead weight in a decent list. If i need CP, I want the 3 cheapest troops i can get, and scouts (with bolters or shotguns, whatever floats your boat) do that, with the AMAZING added benefit of also protecting your army from deepstrike. If this isn't needed, I just won't take any troops, or i will take tacs, (since as bad as they are, I still think they are better than intercessors because they can actually do damage to things with special and heavy weapons, which, despite only having 2 in a squad, are made effective by the existence of rerolls), or some other army's troop option (I've mostly ignored this option since this is a SM thread, but it's a very real option).

If you want to talk about damage, scouts actually do more damage per point in shooting than intercessors do against against guardsmen and marines, which seem the most likely targets for these units. So if damage is your goal, you are better off taking 6x5 scouts than you are 3x5 intercessors. Scouts do have less range, but get to deploy closer.

Intercessors are more durable than scouts, but I would argue that this durability is a non issue, since both units are mostly a waste to shoot at. Scouts at least are likely to be in the way, and thus force shots to go into them, while intercessors are not. Unless the unit is on an objective that the other player must take, intercessors' durability is not going to be something they benefit from, and then then the durability of having 2 wounds is meaningless against a large number of weapons in the game that do 2 damage.

Against bolters, intercessors in cover are slightly more than twice as resistant per point than scouts in cover.
Against assault cannons, scouts are about 60% as resistant per point as intercessors.
Against auto-cannons, plasma, grav, etc the scouts are more durable per point.

So, i would argue that in the very rare cases that you are counting on the durability of the intercessors (ie the enemy has to kill them or lose the game, because they are on an objective or something), their durability is not nearly as real as you'd think it is, since the majority of guns people use to delete things that are important will kill them just as easily as they would a tac squad. In any other case, no one is going to shoot at them anyway because they do very little damage and are unlikely to be in the way of things like scouts or tacs (being much more mobile) could be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also feel like it's worth noting that if you don't have cover (either you aren't in it, or the enemy can ignore it) scouts are even more durable.

VS bolters they go from 45% as resistant per point in cover, to 61% out of it
VS assault cannons they go from 62% in to 69% out.
VS auto cannon they go from 124% in to 135% out.
VS Plasma (overcharging) they go from 144% in to 150% out.

2 Special Weapons are absolutely not made usable just because there's a reroll. I don't get this talk about damage coming from Tactical Marines one bit.

But you want to talk about damage coming from intercessors? I guess that's what I'm not understanding.

Again i will reitterate that i don't find tacs to be a good unit. I just think they are significantly more useful than intercessors in most styles of SM lists, particularly ones with vehicles. I actually think they function so differently from one another that they aren't actually worth comparing, but people keep doing it, perhaps because they compete for the same troops spot.

That being said, 4 plasma shots, or 2 plasma and 4 grav (even hitting on 4s if they moved) can reliably damage most units in the game in a significant way. Rerolls increase this ability in a noticable way, is why i mention them.

I tend to think it comes down mostly to deployment options, right?

Take your bolter scouts for 55. Let's first for simplicity assume those 55 points are useless beyond a formation tax. Now look at the tacticals. 2 plasma guns for 93 doesn't sound good at all, but if you instead look at it as 55pts are already gone either way and you're just buying 2 plasma guns for +38pts, well, that doesn't seem too bad a deal. I'd say buying 2 plasmas to go with 3 ablative wounds is fairly comparable to buying 1 hellblaster.

The problem for tacticals being that 55pts of bolter scouts gets you deployment options you can't get elsewhere while that 38pts of plasma can be purchased via a hellblaster.

...Oops, fat fingered submit before adding a sentence on intercessors.
Again, I think they're hampered by deployment options, but aren't as directly comparable to scouts for the troop tax role. You're obviously paying a lot more than a bolter upgrade is worth, so you have to give them something else to do. But what that is?...

jcd386 wrote:
But you want to talk about damage coming from intercessors? I guess that's what I'm not understanding.

Again i will reitterate that i don't find tacs to be a good unit. I just think they are significantly more useful than intercessors in most styles of SM lists, particularly ones with vehicles. I actually think they function so differently from one another that they aren't actually worth comparing, but people keep doing it, perhaps because they compete for the same troops spot.

That being said, 4 plasma shots, or 2 plasma and 4 grav (even hitting on 4s if they moved) can reliably damage most units in the game in a significant way. Rerolls increase this ability in a noticable way, is why i mention them.

I don't think I said their damage is any good (it's mild, though they're definitely doing melee better for the points that's for sure), but the better durability, range options, and low profile makes them so much better. A Tactical Squad can be removed on a whim if the opponent wants them gone. It takes more than that for Intercessors.

Also think about the tax for those weapons. With Tactical Marines you barely get anything out of your extra bodies. With other units this is not the case.

That's why I rank Scouts > Intercessors, and Tactical Marines aren't even worth mentioning.

When people, myself included, are talking about Tac damage, it's only in comparison to Scouts and Intercessors. It's small, but an advantage.

Personally I'd rank our troops as Scouts >>>> Tacs > Ints, only for the option of Tacs to deploy in a Razorback and at least not increase your number of drops, other wise I'd consider them equally useful depending on your list.

But anyway, we've discussed this to death I think, we aren't doing any new readers any favors, so let's change the topic, a bit anyway.


When taking Scout squads, should Combi and/or Heavy weapons ever be added to the squad, considering how low priority they generally are?

Do you consider Sniper Rifles to be worth taking? We all know Camo is out.

What is your preference on Shotguns or Knives over Bolters?

With Sniper squads, I sometimes take the ML, because its range mostly because the range matches. It isn't necessity though.

I typically stick with Shotguns and a Combi-Plasma for two reasons:
1. Any of them surviving after screening from a Deep Strike attack will be in range to get the S5 off, which is good for anything that is T4 and T5.
2. If I deploy them for capturing an objective, they can advance and fire. Isn't much of a bonus, but it's there.

CCW isn't bad at all, and I'd say equal with the Shotgun. However, I like how Shotguns look more. That said, nothing wrong with either.

Bolters are garbage though and you should never use them.