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:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Even the TAC style of list isn't a generalist list, it's just tailored to a specific tournament meta and includes tools to defeat or bypass common threats.

TAC doesn't necessarily preclude multi-role units, however.

Why did you use two posts to reply to my single post?

A list filled with generalist units, is paying points for capabilities that a unit won't use. There's a reason why you wouldn't buy a 10 man marine unit a lascannon, flamer, power sword, meltabombs, and combi plasma the unit just doesn't do anything well enough to justify taking it at that point.

A tournament winning TAC list will take units that each do a specific thing and if you ask the person why they took each unit they'll tell you what it does, what threats it was taken to counter, and how effective it was at actually dealing with said threats. They won't bring a bunch of units that are sort of okay at everything and win by shooting the choppy stuff and chopping the shooty stuff with it.

Why not just use units that can shot both the melee and shoting units of other armies in to oblivion. Then you don't risk that, if something wrong happens or someone has a skew build, your army is still working at 100% capacity. It is the core of why IH are so good, and why other armies that were good in the past.

Good armies often don't care what they opponent do, just like in boxing or wrestling, if your bigger with a longer reach, you just dominate and fight every fight more or less the same way, generating win after win. Why would anyone want to chang ethat?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Even the TAC style of list isn't a generalist list, it's just tailored to a specific tournament meta and includes tools to defeat or bypass common threats.

TAC doesn't necessarily preclude multi-role units, however.

Why did you use two posts to reply to my single post?

A list filled with generalist units, is paying points for capabilities that a unit won't use. There's a reason why you wouldn't buy a 10 man marine unit a lascannon, flamer, power sword, meltabombs, and combi plasma the unit just doesn't do anything well enough to justify taking it at that point.

A tournament winning TAC list will take units that each do a specific thing and if you ask the person why they took each unit they'll tell you what it does, what threats it was taken to counter, and how effective it was at actually dealing with said threats. They won't bring a bunch of units that are sort of okay at everything and win by shooting the choppy stuff and chopping the shooty stuff with it.

You know what's a pretty great strategy for Orks?
When you're playing an Ork da jump list, you generally want a mix of shoota AND choppas boyz, usually 1 to 2 in a group of 30. This allows you to do some decent shooting damage once they've dropped in, then any ork boyz lost in overwatch are taken off the shoota boyz so you're not "wasting" the actions, making it more effective than "take all choppa boyz and hope you don't lose any on the way in".

Like any unit, generalist work better when you've actually made a strategy around their use, rather than making absurd examples.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Even the TAC style of list isn't a generalist list, it's just tailored to a specific tournament meta and includes tools to defeat or bypass common threats.

TAC doesn't necessarily preclude multi-role units, however.

Why did you use two posts to reply to my single post?

A list filled with generalist units, is paying points for capabilities that a unit won't use. There's a reason why you wouldn't buy a 10 man marine unit a lascannon, flamer, power sword, meltabombs, and combi plasma the unit just doesn't do anything well enough to justify taking it at that point.

I disagree, the responsibility is just on you to make sure they get to use those abilities, so you play around that. A unit that shoots and assaults can often net more damage than a unit that just shoots, or just assaults. As the player you're the one deciding on how the unit is used.

Straying from Marines because it's a hot issue. I have an army of Tyranid Warriors, sometimes I field over 60 of them. They're fearless and have 3A and 3W each. I give most a Deathspitter (basically an Assault Heavy Bolter), 1 in 3 models often carries both a Venom Cannon and Boneswords. I pump them with Primes and Jorm, giving them a BS3+, a WS2+ and a save of 3+. The Boneswords give +1 Attack. Each squad of nine has 18 Heavy Bolter shots and 6 S8 AP2 D3D shots. Each Squad has 18 S4 Attacks and 12 S4 AP-2 Attacks in CC. As units, they all shoot reasonably well, and they assault reasonably well, and I expect them to do both in a game. It's not a tourney level list, but it finds solid success even against some pretty nasty lists. They are a solid generalist unit.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
You know what's a pretty great strategy for Orks?
When you're playing an Ork da jump list, you generally want a mix of shoota AND choppas boyz, usually 1 to 2 in a group of 30. This allows you to do some decent shooting damage once they've dropped in, then any ork boyz lost in overwatch are taken off the shoota boyz so you're not "wasting" the actions, making it more effective than "take all choppa boyz and hope you don't lose any on the way in".

Like any unit, generalist work better when you've actually made a strategy around their use, rather than making absurd examples.

Show me that working against a properly made list where your jump isn't countered by auspex scan and shot off the board before it can do anything and I might take you seriously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I disagree, the responsibility is just on you to make sure they get to use those abilities, so you play around that. A unit that shoots and assaults can often net more damage than a unit that just shoots, or just assaults. As the player you're the one deciding on how the unit is used.

Straying from Marines because it's a hot issue. I have an army of Tyranid Warriors, sometimes I field over 60 of them. They're fearless and have 3A and 3W each. I give most a Deathspitter (basically an Assault Heavy Bolter), 1 in 3 models often carries both a Venom Cannon and Boneswords. I pump them with Primes and Jorm, giving them a BS3+, a WS2+ and a save of 3+. The Boneswords give +1 Attack. Each squad of nine has 18 Heavy Bolter shots and 6 S8 AP2 D3D shots. Each Squad has 18 S4 Attacks and 12 S4 AP-2 Attacks in CC. As units, they all shoot reasonably well, and they assault reasonably well, and I expect them to do both in a game. It's not a tourney level list, but it finds solid success even against some pretty nasty lists. They are a solid generalist unit.

It's unsurprising that the two examples of 'good' generalist units Boys and Da Jump and Warriors come from armies that literally have zero tournament presence because they suck.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

It's unsurprising that the two examples of 'good' generalist units Boys and Da Jump and Warriors come from armies that literally have zero tournament presence because they suck.

But if they were pointed slightly less they'd be steamrolling. Claiming they suck doesn't help your theory because a small adjustment changes everything.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

It's unsurprising that the two examples of 'good' generalist units Boys and Da Jump and Warriors come from armies that literally have zero tournament presence because they suck.

But if they were pointed slightly less they'd be steamrolling. Claiming they suck doesn't help your theory because a small adjustment changes everything.

When was the last time a list full of generalist units was the meta defining list?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

It's unsurprising that the two examples of 'good' generalist units Boys and Da Jump and Warriors come from armies that literally have zero tournament presence because they suck.

But if they were pointed slightly less they'd be steamrolling. Claiming they suck doesn't help your theory because a small adjustment changes everything.

When was the last time a list full of generalist units was the meta defining list?

I don't know as I don't generally follow the tournament circuit. But it doesn't matter, the point stands.

Arguably Intercessors are generalist, with their WS3+ and 2A, and I bet they're in a lot of tourney lists currently. For a while, people were infuriated by Catachan Guardsmen with their S4. Those are generalists.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't know as I don't generally follow the tournament circuit. But it doesn't matter, the point stands.

Arguably Intercessors are generalist, with their WS3+ and 2A, and I bet they're in a lot of tourney lists currently. For a while, people were infuriated by Catachan Guardsmen with their S4. Those are generalists.

So, you have no idea what's actually viable then... I can safely ignore you from here on out.

One last word for the road though.

Intercessors are not generalist units, they're troop choices that happen to actually have a role as a primary source of anti chaff shooting. Their melee profile could literally read WS6+ and 1A and people would still take them.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't know as I don't generally follow the tournament circuit. But it doesn't matter, the point stands.

Arguably Intercessors are generalist, with their WS3+ and 2A, and I bet they're in a lot of tourney lists currently. For a while, people were infuriated by Catachan Guardsmen with their S4. Those are generalists.

So, you have no idea what's actually viable then... I can safely ignore you from here on out.

One last word for the road though.

Intercessors are not generalist units, they're troop choices that happen to actually have a role as a primary source of anti chaff shooting. Their melee profile could literally read WS6+ and 1A and people would still take them.

The competitive circuit is a small fraction of the player base, if anything appeasing the casual gamer is more important. A generalist list should be the better way to play since you can adapt to more opponents and missions, it should lose to some skew lists who in turn are then unable to compete in other areas of the game or lose to other skew lists.

Although an intercessor is a literal generalist unit, it fights capably in melee, is fairly durable and shoots reasonably well. The why people take them doesn't change that fact.

Going back to the matter of AP, I think one of the issues with this are Invulnerable Saves, as their current usage tends to skew weapon performances.

That is to say, when you have big, armoured Knights boasting 5+ or 4+ Invulnerable Saves, it means that the weapons that pay for the full AP-5 actually end up being less effective than weapons with less AP. I know it's not the only issue but I do think weapon diversity would be improved by GW showing a lot more restraint when handing out Invulnerable Saves - especially on heavily-armoured vehicles/monsters.

Incidentally, I think one of the game's problem with bloat is the perpetual one-upmanship of offence and defence:
- Most models have armour saves for protection.
- But many weapons have AP to counter that protection.
- But many models have invulnerable saves, which are unaffected by AP.
- But some weapons and psychic powers cause Mortal Wounds, which ignore both armour and Invulnerable saves.
- But some models have FNP, which allows saves against all wounds - even Mortal ones.
etc.

I look forward to Marines eventually getting Extremely-Mortal-Wounds, which ignore armour saves and invulnerable saves, aren't affected by FNP and kill wounded models instantly.

Mortal wounds are good, they counter the defensive bloat and death stars/boeings.

Invuls and AP are both too prevalent, and need to be both scaled down.

Dudeface wrote:
The competitive circuit is a small fraction of the player base, if anything appeasing the casual gamer is more important. A generalist list should be the better way to play since you can adapt to more opponents and missions, it should lose to some skew lists who in turn are then unable to compete in other areas of the game or lose to other skew lists.

Although an intercessor is a literal generalist unit, it fights capably in melee, is fairly durable and shoots reasonably well. The why people take them doesn't change that fact.

The NFL is a small percentage of all football players, guess what the rules of football are built around... The same goes for literally every other game that has a competitive scene.

Shoulds and coulds are all well and good but show me a meta where a list focused around generalist units has ever actually been viable. The fact of the matter is that any moderately tuned list running competitive and semi-competitive units list will eat a generalists lunch 9 times out of 10. The reason being that a generalist will never have the initiative to use your their units strengths. The listed examples of Jumping Orks and Tyranid Warriors are both countered by cheap screening units eating their alpha strike and then the meat of the army blowing them off the table. You literally don't need to do anything special to counter them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
Going back to the matter of AP, I think one of the issues with this are Invulnerable Saves, as their current usage tends to skew weapon performances.

That is to say, when you have big, armoured Knights boasting 5+ or 4+ Invulnerable Saves, it means that the weapons that pay for the full AP-5 actually end up being less effective than weapons with less AP. I know it's not the only issue but I do think weapon diversity would be improved by GW showing a lot more restraint when handing out Invulnerable Saves - especially on heavily-armoured vehicles/monsters.

Incidentally, I think one of the game's problem with bloat is the perpetual one-upmanship of offence and defence:
- Most models have armour saves for protection.
- But many weapons have AP to counter that protection.
- But many models have invulnerable saves, which are unaffected by AP.
- But some weapons and psychic powers cause Mortal Wounds, which ignore both armour and Invulnerable saves.
- But some models have FNP, which allows saves against all wounds - even Mortal ones.
etc.

I look forward to Marines eventually getting Extremely-Mortal-Wounds, which ignore armour saves and invulnerable saves, aren't affected by FNP and kill wounded models instantly.

It's almost as if fake war on a tabletop has the same cycles of offence-vs-defence that real-life militaries face. It's actually interesting to see a game that models one of the more interesting facets of real-world military buildups.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The competitive circuit is a small fraction of the player base, if anything appeasing the casual gamer is more important. A generalist list should be the better way to play since you can adapt to more opponents and missions, it should lose to some skew lists who in turn are then unable to compete in other areas of the game or lose to other skew lists.

Although an intercessor is a literal generalist unit, it fights capably in melee, is fairly durable and shoots reasonably well. The why people take them doesn't change that fact.

The NFL is a small percentage of all football players, guess what the rules of football are built around... The same goes for literally every other game that has a competitive scene.

Shoulds and coulds are all well and good but show me a meta where a list focused around generalist units has ever actually been viable. The fact of the matter is that any moderately tuned list running competitive and semi-competitive units list will eat a generalists lunch 9 times out of 10. The reason being that a generalist will never have the initiative to use your their units strengths. The listed examples of Jumping Orks and Tyranid Warriors are both countered by cheap screening units eating their alpha strike and then the meat of the army blowing them off the table. You literally don't need to do anything special to counter them.

You need to bring cheap screens/chaff, which you're assuming all lists have, which makes that part of a generalist approach no?

Pretty sure (american) football was a community developed and played game which eventually evolved a rules governing body, rather than a miniatures game having rules written then a minority of players taking incredibly seriously.

Marines have always been the jack of all trades and master of none with a good solid stat line and great armor.

Now they are the living breathing Mary Sues of the galaxy, heck I play marines and I've watched them rise to such a state. It was one of the reason I used to love playing them as they felt easy to pick up, hard to dominate with. Now, less so.

Canadian 5th wrote:Intercessors are not generalist units

Not sure I'd agree with that. Resilient, good melee presence (3 attacks in the first round of combat?? Nice), solid shooting at good range that can threaten a range of enemies (S4 allows them to shoot at tanks with the same kind of efficiency as S5 and S6 weapons, so heavy bolters and krak grenades), and their AP can drastically reduce the effectiveness of even heavy armoured units.

They can threaten just about anything, at both range and combat, through solid firepower, or weight of attacks, not including their bevy of doctrines, tactics, and stratagems.

they're troop choices that happen to actually have a role as a primary source of anti chaff shooting.

Since when were stalker bolters meant for anti-chaff? If you're using 1 shot AP-2 D2 attacks on chaff, I have to question your target priority.

Their melee profile could literally read WS6+ and 1A and people would still take them.

Yes, they would, for their shooting potential, but given their substantially better melee profile, they're also a great choice for a counter-charge unit that can hold their own against even dedicated assault units. A lack of AP hurts, but when each guy is putting out 3 hits at good WS and S, you can definitely threaten things.

More than anything else, they're VERSATILE, and not 'versatile' like Tacticals were (so little difference in power compared to baseline chaff like guardsmen) - they can engage a variety of enemies at range, can dish out a god number of hits in melee, and are tanky enough to take on meaningful threats. In my opinion, an Intercessor is a very good feeling of what a Space Marine "should" feel like. I'd like for more special weapons than just the AGL, but it's not a bad support weapon, and it still feels Marine-y to me.

You are wrong on many points.

1) Tyranid warriors are one of the mainstay of competitive nids right now, and nids are also decently represented in the competitive setting. You see them snatching second and third places here and there, which for the numbers of players of that faction is quite remarkable. (we are talking unit balance here, so i'm using non ITC results)

2) Intercessors are definitely a generalist unit. If they didn't have that melee profile they wouldn't be half as good. Reason why, a lot of lists actually purchase melee upgrades for the sergeant.

3) There are many examples of generalists units being good, even at top level play. Examples are: Disco lords (buffer, shooter, assaulter), Hyve Tyrants (buffer, psy, shooter, assaulter), assault centurions (shooters assaulters), hemlock (debuffer, psy, shooter), talon masters with heavenfall blade (buffer, shooter, assaulter) , shield captains (buffer, shooter, assaulter)... And this is only in the current meta. If i had to list all the generalist units which have been good in some period of 8th, the list would be endless.

Saying that generalist units are bad, means being an armchair mathammerer with no experience about real play.

Spoletta wrote:


Saying that generalist units are bad, means being an armchair mathammerer with no experience about real play.

That sums up the tread: intercessors are too good in terms of damage output and resilience to be a generalist unit.

Honestly, they could have just said that instead of primaris we had an upgrade for veterans / elite chapter specific units (a new type of armor / weapon) and called it a day.

The issue is that they want to replace the entire SM marine line over time, and to encourage us they need to make them better. That is creating obvious balance issues.

Dudeface wrote:
You need to bring cheap screens/chaff, which you're assuming all lists have, which makes that part of a generalist approach no?

Pretty sure (american) football was a community developed and played game which eventually evolved a rules governing body, rather than a miniatures game having rules written then a minority of players taking incredibly seriously.

We're not taking about a TAC style of list building which should have answers to common threats we're talking about generalist units that can shoot the choppy stuff and chop the shooty stuff. There's a massive difference.

Also, also sports started out as pure recreation and as they gained popularity they eventually had rules devised to facilitate organized play using standardized rules. They then developed into the multibillion-dollar leagues we see today.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Not sure I'd agree with that. Resilient, good melee presence (3 attacks in the first round of combat?? Nice), solid shooting at good range that can threaten a range of enemies (S4 allows them to shoot at tanks with the same kind of efficiency as S5 and S6 weapons, so heavy bolters and krak grenades), and their AP can drastically reduce the effectiveness of even heavy armoured units.

They can threaten just about anything, at both range and combat, through solid firepower, or weight of attacks, not including their bevy of doctrines, tactics, and stratagems.

A) They're point for point less resilient than the humble tactical marine owing to their weakness against D2 weapons.

B) A 5-man squad, which is the only way they get run on most tables, isn't a melee threat against anything that isn't already the next best thing to dead already. 16 S4 AP0 attacks on the charge simply don't generate enough wounds to clear hordes or get past 3+ armour saves.

C) They shouldn't shoot at vehicles because they're bad at it.

Since when were stalker bolters meant for anti-chaff? If you're using 1 shot AP-2 D2 attacks on chaff, I have to question your target priority.

Here's a tournament-winning list, tell me what unit he'd be better off shooting at chaff?

Yes, they would, for their shooting potential, but given their substantially better melee profile, they're also a great choice for a counter-charge unit that can hold their own against even dedicated assault units. A lack of AP hurts, but when each guy is putting out 3 hits at good WS and S, you can definitely threaten things.

No, they can't hold their own against dedicated assault units.

A full-strength unit of barebones Intercessors against a pair of Deathwing Knights doesn't go well for the Intercessors.

Intercessors Charge the Deathwing Knights:

Intercessors: 16 attacks, 10.67 hits, 5.33 wounds, 0.83 failed saves, 0 to 1 dead Knights

Deathwing Knights: 4 attacks, 2.67 hits, 2.22 wounds, ~1.48 failed saves, 1 to 2 dead Intercessors

Deathwing Knights Charge the Intercessor:

Deathwing Knights: 6 attacks, 4 hits, 3.33 wounds, 2.22 failed saves, 2 to 3 dead Intercessors

Intercessors: 7 attacks, 4.66 hits, 2.33 wounds, 0.39 failed saves, 0 to 1 dead Knights

In neither scenario do the Intercessors win in combat without extreme luck. Your assessment of their role and survivability show that you have no clue how units should be used.

You try to keep the topic as general as possible. You provide a dozen different examples around the same theme. You ask general questions, and what do you get?

"Well, things would have looked different if you'd used the tyranid cost instead of the completely current and fully game-legal GSC cost for Genestealers in your one example, and this thread is really only about intercessors..."

No, man, we can also talk about how marines now have this unique turn 1 deep strike infiltrate mechanic, while other factions built around infiltration have to deep strike turn 2 like everyone else. How they can just make a dreadnought with 2 heavy flamers show up 9" away from your stuff, move, shoot you, and then charge you. Or how they can just have a bunch of "no deep strike within 12" aura bubbles to feth over any army that relies on regular *plebian* deep strike.

Oh, or how about this - what faction in 40k has the ability to move a hovering vehicle 14" and dismount their soldiers? Is it the speedy eldar? The reckless orks or GSC? Oh no, it's fancy new space marines. Every other faction that can do that has to spend CP, and usually buy into a specialist detachment with more CP.

It's exactly like what Eldar and Tau felt like in previous editions. Oh, you've got special rules? We've got extra EXTRA special rules, because we're just that much snowflakier than you.

Intercessors are not good because they can outpunch punchy stuff, there are units who have 400% return against intercessors, with minimal support.

They are good because they can punch stuff who just wants to put them in melee, like hormagaunts.

Spoletta wrote:
1) Tyranid warriors are one of the mainstay of competitive nids right now, and nids are also decently represented in the competitive setting. You see them snatching second and third places here and there, which for the numbers of players of that faction is quite remarkable. (we are talking unit balance here, so i'm using non ITC results)

Why are you eliminating ITC results? That smacks of sour grapes about how well Nids fair at the most competitive tournaments.

2) Intercessors are definitely a generalist unit. If they didn't have that melee profile they wouldn't be half as good. Reason why, a lot of lists actually purchase melee upgrades for the sergeant.

Define a lot of lists.

3) There are many examples of generalists units being good, even at top level play. Examples are: Disco lords (buffer, shooter, assaulter), Hyve Tyrants (buffer, psy, shooter, assaulter), assault centurions (shooters assaulters), hemlock (debuffer, psy, shooter), talon masters with heavenfall blade (buffer, shooter, assaulter) , shield captains (buffer, shooter, assaulter)... And this is only in the current meta. If i had to list all the generalist units which have been good in some period of 8th, the list would be endless.

Most of those units aren't generalists unless you skew the definition so much that almost any unit can be considered a generalist. By your standards having an aura buff and a being decent at assault makes you a generalist...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Intercessors are not good because they can outpunch punchy stuff, there are units who have 400% return against intercessors, with minimal support.

They are good because they can punch stuff who just wants to put them in melee, like hormagaunts.

Are a bad assault unit from a bottom tier codex what we're using as our standards now? I swear the people whining in this thread must be the fluffiest of the fluff bunnies if the best examples we can get are all from terrible codices .

Intercessors are one of the most run troops units in the game, and by a fair margin. Part of that is the shear popularity of Space Marines, but they also feature frequently in high performing lists every month. It's quite funny to read other threads on here (not much on this one) about how Space Marines are fine as is, and are about even in power with my Necrons. Makes you think.

I agree with Canadian 5th here. You guys are grossly overestimating Intercessors melee capabilities. They can put out a good amount of S4 AP0 attacks but other than that are a terrible melee unit. They don't have AP, they are slow (if you can't get into melee then your melee stats are pretty pointless), die horribly to lots of melee threats (striking scorpions do horrible against them but shinning spears do rather well for instance), etc.

Also the only melee weapon on my sergeant that I have found to be worth it for instance is the chain sword, because it is free.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
I agree with Canadian 5th here. You guys are grossly overestimating Intercessors melee capabilities. They can put out a good amount of S4 AP0 attacks but other than that are a terrible melee unit. They don't have AP, they are slow (if you can't get into melee then your melee stats are pretty pointless), die horribly to lots of melee threats (striking scorpions do horrible against them but shinning spears do rather well for instance), etc.

Also the only melee weapon on my sergeant that I have found to be worth it for instance is the chain sword, because it is free.

I've seen some ITC batreps where the sergeant in a single squad took a Thunderhammer or Fist but I suspect those were simply used as a means to spend the final few points in the list.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Not sure I'd agree with that. Resilient, good melee presence (3 attacks in the first round of combat?? Nice), solid shooting at good range that can threaten a range of enemies (S4 allows them to shoot at tanks with the same kind of efficiency as S5 and S6 weapons, so heavy bolters and krak grenades), and their AP can drastically reduce the effectiveness of even heavy armoured units.

They can threaten just about anything, at both range and combat, through solid firepower, or weight of attacks, not including their bevy of doctrines, tactics, and stratagems.

A) They're point for point less resilient than the humble tactical marine owing to their weakness against D2 weapons.

And the humble Tactical Marine is generally a wet noodle, barring their one special/heavy weapon.

D2 isn't more common than D1 weaponry, broadly speaking. So that still requires a higher investment to specifically get that D2 equipment.

B) A 5-man squad, which is the only way they get run on most tables, isn't a melee threat against anything that isn't already the next best thing to dead already. 16 S4 AP0 attacks on the charge simply don't generate enough wounds to clear hordes or get past 3+ armour saves.

Disagreed with that. The embedded weapon on the Sergeant (so 4 attacks) isn't far off the same kind of damage HQ choices are putting out, and the sheer weight of attacks is enough to make most enemies think twice.
It's not about clearing hordes, or piercing armour - it's presenting a threat, and being able to make a pretty decent dent before they go down.

As Spoletta points out, it's not about being able to beat dedicated CC units tailor built to crack tough nuts. It's about being able to fend off an attack from something that does want to get them in melee, and not have to punch their way out 1 hit at a time.

C) They shouldn't shoot at vehicles because they're bad at it.

But they *can*, and they're much better at it than most units (bolter Tacticals, guardsmen, fleshborers, etc). That, to me, speaks for them being generalists. They don't need to be *good* at doing everything, just capable of doing it.

Since when were stalker bolters meant for anti-chaff? If you're using 1 shot AP-2 D2 attacks on chaff, I have to question your target priority.

Here's a tournament-winning list, tell me what unit he'd be better off shooting at chaff?

Spoiler:

Adeptus Astartes Brigade
Iron Hams: Master Artisans, Stealthy, Iron Hands Successor

HQ
Captain, Thunderhammer, Storm shield, Jump Pack
Librarian
Techmarine, Warlord

Troops
5 Intercessors w/Stalker Bolt Rifles
5 Intercessors w/Stalker Bolt Rifles
5 Intercessors w/Stalker Bolt Rifles
5 Intercessors w/Stalker Bolt Rifles
5 Intercessors w/Stalker Bolt Rifles
5 Scouts w/Bolters

Elites
Dreadnought w/Lascannons, Fist/Stormbolter
Relic Contemptor Dread w/Lascannons, Fist/Stormbolter, Typhoon missiles
Company Champion

Fast Attack
Landspeeder w/Heavy Bolter, Typhoon missiles
Suppressors
Suppressors

Heavy Support
5 devastators w/4 grav cannons, cherub
Thunderfire Cannon
Eliminators x3
Eliminators x3
Eliminators x3

Dedicated Transport
Terrax Drill w/Volkite

Land Speeder, Scouts, TFC, Eliminators with frag rounds, but honestly, I wouldn't have been taking Stalker Bolters on half of those - I'd have been taking bolt rifles instead, specifically FOR chaff duty. I don't see Heavy 1 rounds being as effective.

More likely, this tourney player took Stalkers because they didn't expect much in the way of chaff that his guys couldn't take out, and wanted the stalkers to take out Primaris Marines and suchlike.

Yes, they would, for their shooting potential, but given their substantially better melee profile, they're also a great choice for a counter-charge unit that can hold their own against even dedicated assault units. A lack of AP hurts, but when each guy is putting out 3 hits at good WS and S, you can definitely threaten things.

No, they can't hold their own against dedicated assault units.

They can put a fair amount of Wounds in. After all, isn't that the logic behind Vanguard Veterans?
And all on a Troops choice, without any major upgrades?

A full-strength unit of barebones Intercessors against a pair of Deathwing Knights doesn't go well for the Intercessors.

Why barebones? You wouldn't compare naked Tacticals, so why naked Intercessors? Also, full strength Intercessors are 10 men. I know what you meant, but use the correct terminology please.

Intercessors Charge the Deathwing Knights:

Intercessors: 16 attacks, 10.67 hits, 5.33 wounds, 0.83 failed saves, 0 to 1 dead Knights

Deathwing Knights: 4 attacks, 2.67 hits, 2.22 wounds, ~1.48 failed saves, 1 to 2 dead Intercessors

That's still halved the amount of Deathwing Knights. Not bad for a troops choice, eh?

In neither scenario do the Intercessors win in combat without extreme luck. Your assessment of their role and survivability show that you have no clue how units should be used.

It's not about winning - coming from the person claiming "you have no clue how units should be used", I'm surprised you missed that.
It's about being able to make some kind of impact in return, to actually pose more an 0% of a threat. Even without a Sergeant boasting a special weapon (which there's no reason not to take), they took out half of the Deathwing Knights presented. A generalist unit taking on a dedicated CC unit, and doing that kind of impact is exactly what I want from them - not winning, but hurting.

Spoletta wrote:Intercessors are not good because they can outpunch punchy stuff, there are units who have 400% return against intercessors, with minimal support.

They are good because they can punch stuff who just wants to put them in melee, like hormagaunts.

Exactly - it's not about being able to beat everything. It's about being able to threaten everything, with minimal investment. Bolt rifles of all stripes can face a wide range of enemies at favourable odds. Their wealth of attacks, and access to embedded special melee weapons, makes them a threat against much tougher potential foes.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
I agree with Canadian 5th here. You guys are grossly overestimating Intercessors melee capabilities. They can put out a good amount of S4 AP0 attacks but other than that are a terrible melee unit.

A terrible dedicated melee unit, maybe. But they're not a melee unit. They're a generalist Troops unit, with a focus on shooting, that can put out a very good amount of attacks. That's why I rate them.

They don't have AP

Quantity has a quality...

they are slow (if you can't get into melee then your melee stats are pretty pointless)

You use them for counter-charging, not advancing.

die horribly to lots of melee threats (striking scorpions do horrible against them but shinning spears do rather well for instance), etc.

I'm not saying they don't die. I'm saying they go down swinging.

Also the only melee weapon on my sergeant that I have found to be worth it for instance is the chain sword, because it is free.

The power sword and power fist work wonders for me. Just the added threat of the AP is enough to swing encounters with much more optimised melee attackers.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Even the TAC style of list isn't a generalist list, it's just tailored to a specific tournament meta and includes tools to defeat or bypass common threats.

TAC doesn't necessarily preclude multi-role units, however.

Why did you use two posts to reply to my single post?

A list filled with generalist units, is paying points for capabilities that a unit won't use. There's a reason why you wouldn't buy a 10 man marine unit a lascannon, flamer, power sword, meltabombs, and combi plasma the unit just doesn't do anything well enough to justify taking it at that point.

I disagree, the responsibility is just on you to make sure they get to use those abilities, so you play around that. A unit that shoots and assaults can often net more damage than a unit that just shoots, or just assaults. As the player you're the one deciding on how the unit is used.

Straying from Marines because it's a hot issue. I have an army of Tyranid Warriors, sometimes I field over 60 of them. They're fearless and have 3A and 3W each. I give most a Deathspitter (basically an Assault Heavy Bolter), 1 in 3 models often carries both a Venom Cannon and Boneswords. I pump them with Primes and Jorm, giving them a BS3+, a WS2+ and a save of 3+. The Boneswords give +1 Attack. Each squad of nine has 18 Heavy Bolter shots and 6 S8 AP2 D3D shots. Each Squad has 18 S4 Attacks and 12 S4 AP-2 Attacks in CC. As units, they all shoot reasonably well, and they assault reasonably well, and I expect them to do both in a game. It's not a tourney level list, but it finds solid success even against some pretty nasty lists. They are a solid generalist unit.

40K has always rewarded specialization. Always. You can't really play around that.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And the humble Tactical Marine is generally a wet noodle, barring their one special/heavy weapon.

I wasn't talking about the firepower difference between the two units. I was talking about their ability to take hits...

Disagreed with that. The embedded weapon on the Sergeant (so 4 attacks) isn't far off the same kind of damage HQ choices are putting out, and the sheer weight of attacks is enough to make most enemies think twice.

They don't make anything that would be willing to charge them think twice and anything they'd be happy to charge will just be glad that literally anything else didn't charge them instead.

It's not about clearing hordes, or piercing armour - it's presenting a threat, and being able to make a pretty decent dent before they go down.

Even against GEQ a 5-man unit of Intercessors puts out between 4 and 5 unsaved wounds. That's not a threat worth worrying about.

But they *can*, and they're much better at it than most units (bolter Tacticals, guardsmen, fleshborers, etc). That, to me, speaks for them being generalists. They don't need to be *good* at doing everything, just capable of doing it.

Any unit *can* shoot at and damage a vehicle. For nearly same cost a Tactical squad with a missile launcher and combi-grav/combi-plasma is actually better against most vehicles and yet still wouldn't be considered a good anti-vehicle unit.

Land Speeder, Scouts, TFC, Eliminators with frag rounds, but honestly, I wouldn't have been taking Stalker Bolters on half of those - I'd have been taking bolt rifles instead, specifically FOR chaff duty. I don't see Heavy 1 rounds being as effective.

More likely, this tourney player took Stalkers because they didn't expect much in the way of chaff that his guys couldn't take out, and wanted the stalkers to take out Primaris Marines and suchlike.

I'll give you the speeders and scouts, but I suspect that the TFC was probably better off firing termor shells at something that actually mattered, ditto for the Eliminators having better targets as well.

They can put a fair amount of Wounds in. After all, isn't that the logic behind Vanguard Veterans?

And all on a Troops choice, without any major upgrades?

They literally don't generate enough wounds to threaten anything worth threatening. There are very few things they wouldn't be better off shooting.

Why barebones? You wouldn't compare naked Tacticals, so why naked Intercessors? Also, full strength Intercessors are 10 men. I know what you meant, but use the correct terminology please.

Nobody takes Intercessors with any upgrades aside from the Stalker Bolt Rifle and even fewer people than that run them as 10-man units.

Intercessors Charge the Deathwing Knights:

Intercessors: 16 attacks, 10.67 hits, 5.33 wounds, 0.83 failed saves, 0 to 1 wounded Knights

Deathwing Knights: 4 attacks, 2.67 hits, 2.22 wounds, ~1.48 failed saves, 1 to 2 dead Intercessors

That's still halved the amount of Deathwing Knights. Not bad for a troops choice, eh?

As was mentioned, being a generalist isn't about being as good as a specialist unit at what they do, it's about being able to do it well enough that you can change your unit tactics depending on the opponent. If you had a unit that was as good at everything as a dedicated unit, you could certainly call it a generalist, but unless it was expensive as gak, it'd be incredibly OP.

Regardless of what Canadian 5th says, I'd trade Intercessors for any of the my troops in a heartbeat. Comparing them to Immortals it's obvious to see the difference. How about it, man? Trade your Intercessors for the best unit in my Codex? Doesn't sound like you like them too much.