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.
Insectum7 wrote: Well armed Tacticals can out damage Intercessors, esp. against heavier targets.
Can they?
5 man Tactical Squad w/ Grav Cannon vs. Intercessors, Tactical Doctrine
8 x .666 x .5 x.5 + (4 x .666 x .666 x .83 x 2) = 4.27w
5 Intercessors vs. Intercessors, Tactical Doctrine
10 x .666 x .5 x .666 = 2.2w
Fair point, but did you consider the range the Primaris Marines have? Don't forget, depending on where the Intercessors the grav-cannon is firing are, couldn't they move and reduce the shots the grav can put out? Again, still assuming no strats, no support, etc.
But, yes, I see how that grav is making a deal of difference.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Missed the point entirely then. If Devs are good because they have Heavy weapons, then why not bring the Troops "tax" choice that can also bring heavy weapons? You wind up with even more heavy weapons.
But wouldn't you still have to pay for those weapons? On a tax unit, don't you want to keep the cost low?
Tactical unit costs 80 points. Intercessor unit costs 85. So my "tax unit" costs less. In our scenario against Intercessors, the Tactical Squad almost doubles the damage output of the Intercessors. Also, because the damage output of the unit is primarily from one model, the damage output of the unit will degrade slower.
Dual Plasma costs 2 points more, but averages more damage with S8 and AP-4 in Tactical. For 91 points you can add a Combi-Plasma to the Grav-Cannon squad, which gets them to 5w vs. Intercessors.
Fair point, but their operating range is still shorter, meaning that against those Intercessors, unless they have a (expensive) transport, they're going to have to soak up at least one round of fire before they get into their comfortable range. And again, the Intercessors are getting double the Wounds, for 5 points more. The only real redeeming factor about the Tacticals is that embedded weapon, which essentially turns the entire squad into babysitters for that one gun. Which, personally, I don't like thematically, for what it insinuates, but that's a whole other issue.
When the gun is the most valuable thing about that unit, isn't it better to go find more guns instead, with more whole squads dedicated to it?
Also, I don't believe you answered how you'd feel if Intercessors got embedded plasma incinerators?
Well here's my deal, I don't mind spending points on transports if they can get me better positioning or a guaranteed alpha. At least where I play, there's usually a reasonable amount of terrain as well. So I'm comfortable putting things, even Tacs, into Rhinos or Pods if need be. With Guaranteed alpha strikes and some terrain for maneuver, I've often found that I can section off parts of an opposing army and deal enough damage to give me a good chance for the mid-late game. I'm not just trying to walk them up the board.
Which brings another more subtle point, and that is the fact that Tacs can share the transports of Devastators and Sternguard, which I also take. So that gives me more flexibility on deployment in terms of what goes where, and how I can push models around in the middle of a fight. If I used Intercessors, no shared Transports.
As for Intercessors with embedded Plasma. . . imo that would be a pretty irritating development when it comes to choosing between Intercessors and Tacticals. But then again, there's no Plasma in the kit, and with GW these days, no model no rules. Plus, who knows how the game will develop? Plasma might become less optimal than it currently is. Imo Tacticals have weathered editions well because they have lots of choices.
Klickor wrote: Tailored tacticals win vs intercessors and T8 but intercessors win against almost everything else. And since there are no tacticals being played the only bad matchups is t8 which is kind of ok to let things other than basic troops handle. Sure a list with 100 IF/IH stalker intercessors would probably own most t8 lists as well.
Vs T7 3+ (REQ)
5 Intercessors, Tactical Doctrine
10 x .666 x .333 x .666 = 1.47
5 Man Grav Cannon Tac Team, Tactical Doctrine
8 x .666 x .333 x .5 + (4 x .666 x .333 x .83 x 2) = 2.35 Tacs win
Vs T5 2+ 4++ (Custodes)
5 Intercessors,
10 x .666 x .333 x .5 = 1.1
Grav Team
8 x .666 x .333 x .333 + (4 x .666 x .5 x .5 x 2) = 1.9 Tacs win
Vs. GEQ 5 Intercessors
10 x .666 x .666 x = 4.43
Grav Team
8 x .666 x .666 x .83 + (4 x .666 x .666) = 4.71 Tacs win, and against Guard, use the Grav Cannon against the Leman Russ anyways. What, you afraid of Guardsmen?!
And keep in mind that 2 Intercessors lost from a squad is almost half their firepower. While 2 Tactical Marines lost is much less than half, as their firepower is skewed towards the heavy.
Galas wrote: Intercessors have a full movement phase of range advantage over tacticals, two if they are dark angels. Comparing tacticals and intercessors shooting at each other in a vacum is just unrealistic.
But it does illustrate a point. Deliver them and they can out-alpha Intercessors, and handily win against them. It's more of a glass-hammer approach, but I'm comfortable with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: "Few armies don't have any multiwound models or vehicles of any kind. I mix my Grav with other weapons, depending on meta."
But a lot of them don't have 3+ saves to trigger the D3 damage. Grotesques and invuln bulls come to mind. Grav is expensive AND specialized. Unfortunately. If grav cannons were much cheaper, I'd be much more inclined to use them. But I'm already giving up wound efficiency 12 pts/W vs 8.5 pts/W and then on top of it I'm paying for expensive gear.
It's fine, Tacs have 6 Heavies, 4 Specials and 4 Combi's to choose from. If the meta changes, the loadout can change.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/02/19 17:08:04
Deathwatch can imbed plasma in Intercessor squads, for cheep bodies to soak wounds like a tac squad. Of course, those “cheep” bodies are putting SIA downrange, so not just there to take hits.
If you have a grav on tacts you should add either stalkers to intercessors against units like custodes or t7 vehicles and/or add in an extra shooting phase for the intercessors due to longer range. Best intercessors right now are the stalker variants and they even get doctrines on turn 1 instead of having to wait for turn 2.
With 12" extra range and getting doctrines from turn 1 make up the difference in output and then they pay less for each wound than tacticals and have more attacks in melee.
For my BA, intercessors is the obvious choice as well. Scouts for advancing and then intercessors to stand back and hold objectives. The cheaper wounds and 6" extra range is crucial. That 6" max range and 3" RF range really helps getting shots off from standing back and holding objectives. Not sure if the rapid fire version or the assault version is the best one for my play style yet though. Getting to advance and still fire 3 shots is quite nice as well. But they sure as hell beat tacticals any day.
Klickor wrote: If you have a grav on tacts you should add either stalkers to intercessors against units like custodes or t7 vehicles and/or add in an extra shooting phase for the intercessors due to longer range. Best intercessors right now are the stalker variants and they even get doctrines on turn 1 instead of having to wait for turn 2.
With 12" extra range and getting doctrines from turn 1 make up the difference in output and then they pay less for each wound than tacticals and have more attacks in melee.
For my BA, intercessors is the obvious choice as well. Scouts for advancing and then intercessors to stand back and hold objectives. The cheaper wounds and 6" extra range is crucial. That 6" max range and 3" RF range really helps getting shots off from standing back and holding objectives. Not sure if the rapid fire version or the assault version is the best one for my play style yet though. Getting to advance and still fire 3 shots is quite nice as well. But they sure as hell beat tacticals any day.
The moment you switch to Stalkers is the moment the unit becomes less good against hordes (or my Tacs). There's a definite sacrifice being made. Also, unless I'm mistaken a 5 man team averages 1.84 wounds against REQ, which is still less than the Grav Tacs, who get 2.35.
Not saying they're a bad unit, esp. if you want to sit them in the backfield. But the Tacs still deliver more damage and more flexibility of target.
Stalkers in for example IF dont need to be that good against hordes. You can just load up on thunderfires to help with that and against GEQ in cover IF stalkers at 36" perform almost equal to other chapters 5 tacticals rapid firing.
And comparing tacts vs intercessors isnt representative at all. Since tacticals arent used but intercessors are everywhere we should probably compare both to intercessors and if we do that we find that Stalker intercessors are even closer in performance + 12" extra range and 5 extra wounds.
Klickor wrote: Stalkers in for example IF dont need to be that good against hordes. You can just load up on thunderfires to help with that and against GEQ in cover IF stalkers at 36" perform almost equal to other chapters 5 tacticals rapid firing.
And comparing tacts vs intercessors isnt representative at all. Since tacticals arent used but intercessors are everywhere we should probably compare both to intercessors and if we do that we find that Stalker intercessors are even closer in performance + 12" extra range and 5 extra wounds.
Although the Tacs still kill Intercessors faster than Stalker Intercessors do, and I haven't given them a Combi Plasma yet.
What you have is two units, similar point costs, and each unit has strengths and weaknesses. That's exactly how it should be. Tacs are shorter ranged, but deal more damage against a wider array of targets. Stalkers have longer range and better defensive capability. Choose the one that you want to use, plain and simple.
Although the Tacs still kill Intercessors faster than Stalker Intercessors do, and I haven't given them a Combi Plasma yet.
What you have is two units, similar point costs, and each unit has strengths and weaknesses. That's exactly how it should be. Tacs are shorter ranged, but deal more damage against a wider array of targets. Stalkers have longer range and better defensive capability. Choose the one that you want to use, plain and simple.
Once again your theory hammer is not going to play out on the table top. You wont have a chance to shoot at the intercessors because thats not how 40k is played...wild west walking towards each other. I dont take intercessors to kill tactical marines because reality is no one players them competitively anymore. My intercessors are busy holding objectives where possible. And if we both have Thunderfire cannons, you will learn why tacticals are useless pretty quick.
Only your last line has any relevance. Play with tacticools because you like them. No point convincing people when your arguments are fundamentally flawed.
Smirrors wrote: You wont have a chance to shoot at the intercessors because thats not how 40k is played...wild west walking towards each other.
Last I checked the wild west was your scenario, not mine:
Smirrors wrote: If we want to play the range game, the 5 man tactical squad will never get a chance to shoot at the intercessors and die in 2 turns.
Intercessors will shoot first and kill 2-3 tacticals. At best the tactical will kill 2 intercessors (if it is even in range). The remaining 3 intercessors will just as likely finish off the last 2 tacticals. That is being generous.
Last I checked the wild west was your scenario, not mine:
Correct because that is the only scenario where tactical marines will be able to be effective. 24" range on 1W bodies aint going to cut it.
You are the one talking about how much more damage tactical marines can do when reality is that is not going to be their purpose (unless you force it upon them).
Devastators I can absolutely see their usage but no reason to take tactical squads, particularly ones limited to 24" range.
Last I checked the wild west was your scenario, not mine:
Correct because that is the only scenario where tactical marines will be able to be effective. 24" range on 1W bodies aint going to cut it.
You are the one talking about how much more damage tactical marines can do when reality is that is not going to be their purpose (unless you force it upon them).
Devastators I can absolutely see their usage but no reason to take tactical squads, particularly ones limited to 24" range.
It's like you've never heard of transports, terrain, covering fire, or any other number of variables that could be used to get them within 24" of a foe. Other armies can get by with 1w bodies, we can too. Especially now that we have Doctrine and Chapter bonuses. Potentially doing double the damage means 5 Tacticals can alpha as well as 10 Intercessors. If you don't want to make use of that, then don't use them. It's fine.
Your analysis is correct for your own turn. What about the opponent's turn? I don't know about you, but I generally lose the match on my opponent's turn.
Also, five tac marines can't clear nearly the chaff of five autobolter intercessors.
". Other armies can get by with 1w bodies, we can too"
They get by with cheap wounds, not expensive wounds that get even more expensive with overpriced gear. Mortal wounds alone make me balk at this approach.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/02/20 17:59:19
Martel732 wrote: Your analysis is correct for your own turn. What about the opponent's turn? I don't know about you, but I generally lose the match on my opponent's turn.
Also, five tac marines can't clear nearly the chaff of five autobolter intercessors.
". Other armies can get by with 1w bodies, we can too"
They get by with cheap wounds, not expensive wounds that get even more expensive with overpriced gear. Mortal wounds alone make me balk at this approach.
In my experience chaff has never really been an issue, probably because I bring a hoard of marines and so just have a hoard of bolters. Autobolters still shoot less than Storm Bolters, too, which are common enough in a classic marine list. Classic or Primaris, it's easy to get a bunch of S4 shots.
The opponent gets to fight back, sure. But the weapons I fear are the weapons with a high AP, and more often than not high AP weapons come with multi-wound damage, and they're going to chew through Primaris just as fast. But a lot of the time those high AP weapons are concentrated in specific units, too. So my take on it is I want to hit first with more damage, and focus on getting rid of those high AP-output units.
As for Mortal wounds, I haven't played a list like that recently. Last time I fought against TSons though I sorta blew them off the board, and that was before the new marine books. So I have less experience with MW spam, but I'm still confident that I can solve the problem.
Also, I already have played with an "Intercessors-ish" army of Tyranid Warriors. They have 3W, 3A and a 3+ (Jorm) and basically all have Heavy Bolters with a S5 AP-1 Assault 3 24"gun. I found the unit not capable enough in the anti-armor/anti-elite department, so I started loading them up with Venom Cannons (which they get 1 out of 3 models). And they work much better for me. I just like my heavies/specials distributed around my army as it gives me more redundancy and more chances to deal with priority targets.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Martel732 wrote: " But the weapons I fear are the weapons with a high AP,"
That's the flaw in your reasoning. AP 0 kills 3+ models just fine. I do it to others and its done to me all the time. AP 0 only struggles vs 2+.
Right, well, cover is the on-table solution for that. It's why IF are really strong. (Jormungander can ignore cover too)
Martel732 wrote: "In my experience chaff has never really been an issue, probably because I bring a hoard of marines and so just have a hoard of bolters"
I"m playing BA, so chaff literally ends me. And I will necessarily have fewer models than vanilla.
Yeah I get that, we're going to have different experiences with chaff because of it. I'm only playing for advantageous firefights, not relying on the delivery of CC. Our order of operations against something like Guard is different. I shoot the tanks first and mop up the infantry second. You have to get through the infantry to get to the tanks. On the macro scale it's totally opposite.
Also, probably because I'm not relying on delivery of models to CC, I suspect I can take advantage of cover for the 2+ easier.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Tau Strike Teams eat tacticals for breakfast. Intercessors on the other hand totally obliterate them, for example.
I'm not sure what you mean by Strike Teams, but either way it's fine. As long as your army has some solution for the problem, then you're good to go.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/20 20:55:56
My 3+ armor models almost never have cover. So I can tell you exactly how fast they die to AP 0. Fast. It's telling how amazingly inefficient CC is from this conversation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/20 20:59:05
Martel732 wrote: My 3+ armor models almost never have cover. So I can tell you exactly how fast they die to AP 0. Fast. It's telling how amazingly inefficient CC is from this conversation.
Yeah, well, maybe Intercessors work out better for your situation. There's so many ways to play marines these days that it seems obvious that "optimal unit" is going to depend on a whole host of variables. Salamanders (or Master Artisans) make Lascannon Tacticals incredibly valuable right out of the gate with their re-rolls. Unsupported, the output of the Lascannon nearly doubles in average, while Intercessors gain almost nothing from that trait.
It's like you've never heard of transports, terrain, covering fire, or any other number of variables that could be used to get them within 24" of a foe. Other armies can get by with 1w bodies, we can too. Especially now that we have Doctrine and Chapter bonuses. Potentially doing double the damage means 5 Tacticals can alpha as well as 10 Intercessors. If you don't want to make use of that, then don't use them. It's fine.
Once again you are playing theory hammer. If you have to invest in transports for your tacticals, you are already losing. If you have to rely on terrain for durability, you are already losing. Its the way 8th currently is being played (perhaps not in your local area). There is virtually no way you would want to invest anything to get tacticals into 24 range, that is my practical experience. Troop units need to operate efficiently from the get go to be considered effective. Thats why units like Scouts and Intercessors are so much better for their purpose.
I think we are debating competitiveness here. You are just choosing a non-competitive unit because you like them. That is ok.
Other armies get by with 1w bodies for very particular reason - Guardsmen, Orks, Tau and Nid troops etc - dirt cheap and available in hordes. Grey Knight Strike Squads, the ability to deepstrike and get a chance to do damage and now Smite, Deathwatch teams get durability through storm shields and extra abilities and deepstrike and redeploy. Your best example would be Chaos space marines...and it doesnt work for them either.
But the weapons I fear are the weapons with a high AP, and more often than not high AP weapons come with multi-wound damage, and they're going to chew through Primaris just as fast. But a lot of the time those high AP weapons are concentrated in specific units, too. So my take on it is I want to hit first with more damage, and focus on getting rid of those high AP-output units.
There are plenty of heavy bolter and gatlings, and assault cannons in marine lists and they all are AP2 D1 for example. These will chew through marines with ease. Its same reason I stated about devastators in pods. They are good but they aren't expected to survive after they turn they arrive. Tactical marines are objectively worse since you rarely should invest in transports and they will die before they even get to shoot their points worth. There job is to survive and they typically cannot do so in such a lethal edition of 40k. By putting weapons into them, you are actually encouraging people to shoot them. And if they are in 24" range, most armies will sneeze some shots their way and they will go down too quick.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/02/21 00:43:36
You wouldnt be the first to claim it, but I do well enough.
That last comment wasn't meant to be disparaging you and how you decide to play.
But when you discuss things its going to be bias towards what you like, and in this case what you like doesn't happen to be that good.
I and many others would love to use tactical squads and look through rose coloured glasses like you are, but GW has decided they are not the core of marines anymore and their rules reflect this..
Guys, i think the facts have been hashed out. Now its only degrading into a right at all cost argument when nothing short of the almighty saying something would change minds one way or the other.
I agree with insectum they still have use, and a better player vs a worse player will still clean house with tac squads and old marines. Newboys are better, they were made that way inevitably however it doesn't put Tacs in the hole unless you're only ever playing the most bleeding edge of competitive.
I beleive insectum when he says he plays and wins vs hard lists with tacs. I favor experience over just raw numbers said in a vaccum. As well I'd say if anyone running new marines loses to him they should hand off their army, as tacs are an auto lose, so to lose to it should be the shame of shames.
I'd also say this, some players don't want the easy button and actually like the struggle.
I don't think anyone is saying intercessors aren't the stronger unit, it's a no brainer, they were made to be the no brainer choice. All anyone is saying is Tacs can win, period. Like it or not people will need to breath in a bag and calm down, the world will keep spinning yet.
I'm sure some players can't win with them however, not all players are made equal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/21 03:01:35
But when you discuss things its going to be bias towards what you like, and in this case what you like doesn't happen to be that good.
Says the guy with "mirror" is his name . You seem to be unable to even admit that Tacs have some advantages, such as flexibility and damage output.
Smirrors wrote: I and many others would love to use tactical squads and look through rose coloured glasses like you are, but GW has decided they are not the core of marines anymore and their rules reflect this..
It's pretty straight forward, but first you have to stop thinking of Troops as a "tax" unit. It's a unit, with advantages and disadvantages. I get that the advantage of Intercessors is that you plop them down in cover and just start shooting. It's an easy unit to get value out of. Tacs are a little more subtle, and take more effort. But that doesnt mean they don't have value or are necessarily less competetive. The Master Artisans trait is a prime example of this, as a Tac Lascannon nearly doubles in power vs. It's intended targets, which can free up other portions of a list to do things other than tank hunting , if they choose. A unit that's harder to use doesnt make it an inferior unit, it just might require more thought to get the value out of. As UM I often make them battle-line squads, where they hit hard up front, and then perform disruption maneuvers with assaulting because I can back them out and keep firing whenever I want. Tricky? Sure. Risky? Yup. But effective? Yes. There's nothing more satisfying than having one marine left forcing a unit to not fire next turn because he made base contact. And Alpha-ing with 80+ 2D/D3D shots plus rerolls catches lots of players totally off guard, to the point where they can have trouble recovering, even if my guys are only 1w.
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index
. You seem to be unable to even admit that Tacs have some advantages, such as flexibility and damage output.