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.

Breton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Breton wrote:


You realize you quote tweeted me saying exactly that? They're not trash? Then tried to imply I said they were trash? Oh wait, of course you did. Because you snipped the entire rest of my argument that explained exactly why they should have kept Scoot And Shoot.

I wanted to say that they're are still very very good, close to be an auto take, which isn't what you said or at least it isn't what I though you said. I don't think they have been overcorrected at all, in fact I'd definitely nerf them even more as their stats and damage output are still extremely high for that price.

5 TWC are 250-275 points for a full CC unit. 5 Meganobz are 200 points for a full CC unit, etc... Aggressors IMHO should be less powerful or be +10-15ppm each.

Brought to you by the same guy who wants to make a Gravis-capable Impulsor with worse guns for twice the price.


Now your 5TWC cav are 225 Base. What upgrades are we giving them to get to 25-275? Plasma Pistols, Frost Swords, Power Axes, or Fists?


Hey wait, at 275 are they TH/SS TWC?


Are we going to count the Mount attacks, or are we hoping to only compare the rider to the Aggressor? Are we planning to just dismiss them as irrelevant when someone brings them up because they don't fit our narrative?

5 Aggressors are 225 and move 5 instead of the TWC 10. Nor do they get an extra 3 mount attacks.

So are Aggressors now considered to be the fair measure of performance for their points?

If so I have a long list of xeno units needing 5-10PPM points reductions.

Ice_can wrote:

So are Aggressors now considered to be the fair measure of performance for their points?

If so I have a long list of xeno units needing 5-10PPM points reductions.

Hard to say, I don't even have the book yet. GW basically shook the snow globe so hard we can't see anything yet, and the plastic snow won't sink until at least Saturday if not longer. But I would have preferred they kept the Scoot and Shoot to make people think about whether they want Inceptors or Aggressors. Ultimately I'd like to see us all agonize over choices that don't have a wrong answer. And I don't think they did that here. As I said it depends on how everything lands, but so far it sounds like they just swapped flavor of the month from Aggressors to Inceptors. You get the same number of better shots for slightly cheaper on a unit that probably can do some FLY shenanigans.

If they had 5-6 shots each, like they should, they'd be fine with Scoot and Shoot.

225 points for that amount of wounds, shots and punch in combat is still quite undercosted.

In the TWC example I made I was considering shields of course because 5 points added to 45 is nothing, and no one would play them without. Not hammers or fists, because it's not their best loadout, but rather claws, swords or even free chainswords. At 275 (shield+claw/sword for everyone) or 250 (shield+chainsword) points they surely have better speed, durability, and way more attacks in combat (with hammers or fists they'd be 300-315 though) than aggressors but they're still one dimensional, a full CC unit.

Aggressors are very resilient for their points, they unleash a crazy amount of firepower and they are no jokes in combat. Very few units in the game have all these qualities for that amount of points.

I actually can't really think about a unit in the entire game than can be fairly compared to them without being outperformed.

Inceptors are also overpowered.

 Blackie wrote:
If they had 5-6 shots each, like they should, they'd be fine with Scoot and Shoot.

225 points for that amount of wounds, shots and punch in combat is still quite undercosted.

In the TWC example I made I was considering shields of course because 5 points added to 45 is nothing, and no one would play them without. Not hammers or fists, because it's not their best loadout, but rather claws, swords or even free chainswords. At 275 (shield+claw/sword for everyone) or 250 (shield+chainsword) points they surely have better speed, durability, and way more attacks in combat (with hammers or fists they'd be 300-315 though) than aggressors but they're still one dimensional, a full CC unit.

You get 4 Aggressors (38 shots with Auto+Grenade) per 4 SB/PF + 1AC/PF Teleporting Terminators (22 shots) Terminators also get Teleport Shenanigans and an invuln. At 200 points you'll get about 5 Inceptors doing 30 shots and jumping plus the mortal wound thing. You'll get just under 4 and a half Aggressors those 38 shots.

When you point out TWC are a one dimensional full CC unit, are you saying they're costed differently? Their cost doesn't count? Fighting in the fighting edition somehow isn't worth the points cost?

Anyway, they're what 45 ppm with stormshield? same price? And on the charge they get what... 25 S4 -1 D1 attacks, and another 18 S5 -1 D1 attacks? 33 Attacks? All -1 D1? About a third at S5? And they have a 2+ 4++, bolt pistols, and twice the movement rate? Wait, those Inceptors only get 30 shots with the same movement rate, and they don't have 2+ 4++.


vs T4 3+
Well lets see, 25 attacks, 16.75 hits, 8.35 wounds, 4.1875 damage 18 attacks, 12 hits, 8 wounds, 4 damage 8 total damage.

38 shots, 25 hits, 12 wounds, 4 Damage.

That can't be right. How can those Thunderwolves put out more damage than Aggressors? I know, maybe it's just the 3+ armor save, how do they do against T4 6+?

8.35 wounds, 8.35 damage. 8 wounds, 8 damage. 16 total damage.

12 wounds - 10 damage? Wait a minute!

Aggressors are very resilient for their points, they unleash a crazy amount of firepower and they are no jokes in combat. Very few units in the game have all these qualities for that amount of points.

I actually can't really think about a unit in the entire game than can be fairly compared to them without being outperformed.

Inceptors are also overpowered.

Color me shocked to see you to claim yet another Marine unit is overpowered. I'm speechless. This really came out of left field.

6 inceptors vs T4 3+
36 shots, 24 hits, 18 wounds, 9 damage.

How much damage did your TWC do again? 8 damage? Admittedly 6 Inceptors are slightly cheaper than 6 TWC.


Maybe it's the Durability. You've mentioned that in passing a couple times.

4 Devs with Grav Cannon + Amp. That's a typical MEQ/TEQ weapon.

16 shots, 10.72 hits, (Everyone is T5) 5.36 wounds -3 to save. Your 3+ becomes a 2+ -3 goes back to a 5+ so you're on 4++. Their 3+ becomes a 6+. Your TWC take 5.36 damage (Save half, double the rest ignore lost wounds as it's universal we're all 3W here) The Primaris take 5.36 wounds save 1/6th and take 4.5x2 9 Damage.

Something's fishy here. The things you're complaining about, damage output and durability have both come out in favor of your TWC not those Aggressors. The Inceptors got to do what 10-15% more damage point for point, but they also ate almost 200% of the wounds catastrophically losing the durability comparison.

Are your TWC broken? They're TWICE as durable as Aggresors AND put out more damage.

Have you considered comparing to a Xenos unit, or even a Chaos one?

Not a Marine unit?

Breton wrote:


Anyway, they're what 45 ppm with stormshield? same price?

50 with a shield actually (45+5).

Breton wrote:

Are your TWC broken? They're TWICE as durable as Aggresors AND put out more damage.

Except they don't. Shooting is pointing and rolling for damage. Fighting is getting very close to the enemy, rolling for charges and then rolling for causing damage. Typically a melee focused unit will find some screeners in its way that need to be dealt with, meaning that another unit has to do part of the job for the melee specialists or the melee specialists can't attack their juicy target. That's why fighting is not even remotely as good as shooting.

Aggressors just point and fire, like any other shooting oriented unit, and at the same time can deal with a fight. You can put the on some objective and they can still do most of their job shooting while being perfectly able to defend that objective from chargers. TWC can't just sit somewhere like them as they have no shooting.

How much damage will cause those aggressors overall, in a full game? 2x or 3x than the TWC is my guess. Assuming no one will fire at those two units, aggressors will fire 3-5 turns and maybe fight at some points, TWC will fight 1-2 turns. Of course if they suffer casualties their damage output drops correspondingly. Now your numbers should reflect that. If you play 10 games and keep record about what the two units achieved you can see what I mean.

Again there's no unit in the game that is as durable, cheap, effective in shooting and melee as aggressors. Not even among other SM stuff, let alone from different factions. If all factions can get them they'd be considered the best unit by most of them, but of course for a SM player they're just ok, fine or even trash!, dead to me!!, useless!!!

 Blackie wrote:

Breton wrote:


Anyway, they're what 45 ppm with stormshield? same price?

50 with a shield actually (45+5).

Breton wrote:

Are your TWC broken? They're TWICE as durable as Aggresors AND put out more damage.

Except they don't. Shooting is pointing and rolling for damage. Fighting is getting very close to the enemy, rolling for charges and then rolling for causing damage. Typically a melee focused unit will find some screeners in its way that need to be dealt with, meaning that another unit has to do part of the job for the melee specialists or the melee specialists can't attack their juicy target. That's why fighting is not even remotely as good as shooting.

Aggressors just point and fire, like any other shooting oriented unit, and at the same time can deal with a fight. You can put the on some objective and they can still do most of their job shooting while being perfectly able to defend that objective from chargers. TWC can't just sit somewhere like them as they have no shooting.

How much damage will cause those aggressors overall, in a full game? 2x or 3x than the TWC is my guess. Assuming no one will fire at those two units, aggressors will fire 3-5 turns and maybe fight at some points, TWC will fight 1-2 turns. Of course if they suffer casualties their damage output drops correspondingly. Now your numbers should reflect that. If you play 10 games and keep record about what the two units achieved you can see what I mean.

Again there's no unit in the game that is as durable, cheap, effective in shooting and melee as aggressors. Not even among other SM stuff, let alone from different factions. If all factions can get them they'd be considered the best unit by most of them, but of course for a SM player they're just ok, fine or even trash!, dead to me!!, useless!!!

Who could have predicted your unit that has twice the durability, and more damage output wouldn't be broken when compared to those OP Aggressors.

Oh wait, I could have.

Fighting in the fighting edition somehow isn't worth the points cost?

Completely unexpected to see you say your stuff is fine, and other people's stuff is broken even when your stuff out performs it in every area you mention.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Have you considered comparing to a Xenos unit, or even a Chaos one?

Not a Marine unit?

That would not fit the narrative that the poster is obsessed with so no.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Have you considered comparing to a Xenos unit, or even a Chaos one?

Not a Marine unit?

Who are you asking? Emphasis below is mine.

Blackie wrote:
If they had 5-6 shots each, like they should, they'd be fine with Scoot and Shoot.

225 points for that amount of wounds, shots and punch in combat is still quite undercosted.

In the TWC example I made I

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:


That would not fit the narrative that the poster is obsessed with so no.

The narrative who is obsessed with? Oh wait, honesty isn't necessary if you can poison the well, right? It was your "Team's" narrative, not mine.

Blackie wrote:
If they had 5-6 shots each, like they should, they'd be fine with Scoot and Shoot.

225 points for that amount of wounds, shots and punch in combat is still quite undercosted.

In the TWC example I made I

If we can dial it down a notch or too it'd be best.

No need to be quite so aggressive folks.

Ta.

I think aggressors are now terrible for their points. No way worth it any longer when there are units that are much better at shooting or melee. It is a weird slow hybrid unit that I rarely expect to see on the gaming table now.

broxus wrote:
I think aggressors are now terrible for their points. No way worth it any longer when there are units that are much better at shooting or melee. It is a weird slow hybrid unit that I rarely expect to see on the gaming table now.

They are quite fine actually. They hit a lot of the sweet spots of this edition.

If it wasn't for the fact that they are slow and short ranged, they would be quite OP.

broxus wrote:
I think aggressors are now terrible for their points. No way worth it any longer when there are units that are much better at shooting or melee. It is a weird slow hybrid unit that I rarely expect to see on the gaming table now.

They're a shooting unit that can get more than half their points back shooting at a good target. And that's without buffs.
They're a melee unit that can get more than half their points back attacking a good target. And that's without buffs.
They're a highly durable unit that can take large amounts of firepower, and have enough threat that they kinda have to be taken down. Again, without any buffs.

Name a unit from another Codex that's better, point for point, at shooting or melee while being similar levels of durable. Or something that's so much better at doing damage that their durability is irrelevant.

The rebalanced Aggressors are probably trash in 8th ITC format where standing back and killing everything from your deployment zone was a viable tactic.

But since the table is smaller and much of 9th is about brawling in the middle they are still a very good unit. Perhaps not the best in any 1 role but they are very versatile. They lost some ranged output but instead picked up some defensive buffs. Cheaper transhuman, new gravis +save stratagem and easy access to both FNP and invul save without having to be IH.

Just have to use them a bit differently if you played UM or Salamanders since you cant abuse double shooting anymore. But other chapters were already using them without relying on double shoot.

 JNAProductions wrote:

broxus wrote:
I think aggressors are now terrible for their points. No way worth it any longer when there are units that are much better at shooting or melee. It is a weird slow hybrid unit that I rarely expect to see on the gaming table now.

They're a shooting unit that can get more than half their points back shooting at a good target. And that's without buffs.
They're a melee unit that can get more than half their points back attacking a good target. And that's without buffs.
They're a highly durable unit that can take large amounts of firepower, and have enough threat that they kinda have to be taken down. Again, without any buffs.

Name a unit from another Codex that's better, point for point, at shooting or melee while being similar levels of durable. Or something that's so much better at doing damage that their durability is irrelevant.

To be fair I can think of quite a few units that fall in that category in other codici. Sisters for sure at least.

Can you list which ones?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Can you list which ones?

Retributor multi melta sisters have an higher than 100% return when firing at T7 3+ targets, they can also do that from reserve since they have no penalty for moving and shooting. That's without using cherubs or getting in melta range, or they get close to 200% efficency on some targets.

Bloody rose seraphim clear 127% of their value in orks from deepstrike and slightly less than 100% in guards.

Bloody rose repentia clear 200% of their value in intercessors in melee, and that's not their best target.

Just to be clear, this doesn't say anything about aggressors. I was just pointing out that the escape door that you left in that comparison was too easily taken

To get back on topic, I noticed that standard Dreads have the Multimelta on their weapon list now. The only current Dread kit with a Multimelta is the Space Wolf Venerable Dread, that seems like a slightly weird thing to have made it through. Especially since the Multimelta is so much cheaper than the twin Lascannons.

Spoletta wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Can you list which ones?

Retributor multi melta sisters have an higher than 100% return when firing at T7 3+ targets, they can also do that from reserve since they have no penalty for moving and shooting. That's without using cherubs or getting in melta range, or they get close to 200% efficency on some targets.

Bloody rose seraphim clear 127% of their value in orks from deepstrike and slightly less than 100% in guards.

Bloody rose repentia clear 200% of their value in intercessors in melee, and that's not their best target.

Just to be clear, this doesn't say anything about aggressors. I was just pointing out that the escape door that you left in that comparison was too easily taken

I'm not familiar with AS so please correct what I am missing.

5 BR Seraphim cost 75pts they get 10 shots for 6.6 hits, 3.3 wounds at -1 AP because of BR special rules So they kill 24-32pts of boyz. So nowhere near their cost. nowhere near as durable as Gravis models at T3 3+ and 1 wound.

Repentia cost 15ppm, get 3 attacks on the charge hitting on 4s rerolling for 2ish hits. S6 = wounding on 3s so 1.33 wounds at -3 so 6+ save = 1.11 dead Primaris Marines. So yeah they do earn back their points pretty easily, but only in CC and they are T3 7+ save with a 5+ FNP and 1 wound so nowhere near as durable as Gravis Aggressors.

The Newman wrote:
To get back on topic, I noticed that standard Dreads have the Multimelta on their weapon list now. The only current Dread kit with a Multimelta is the Space Wolf Venerable Dread, that seems like a slightly weird thing to have made it through. Especially since the Multimelta is so much cheaper than the twin Lascannons.

Did Dreads lose their multi Melta arm for a while? I hadn’t noticed that, but they’d had it so long I would have just assumed they kept it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:


Repentia cost 15ppm, get 3 attacks on the charge hitting on 4s rerolling for 2ish hits. S6 = wounding on 3s so 1.33 wounds at -3 so 6+ save = 1.11 dead Primaris Marines. So yeah they do earn back their points pretty easily, but only in CC and they are T3 7+ save with a 5+ FNP and 1 wound so nowhere near as durable as Gravis Aggressors.

Poor Spoletta. Follow the “rules” of the question exactly -
a unit from a different codex,
that either matches durability and damage, or vastly exceeds damage
In shooting or close combat

Only to be told they don’t count.

Who could have predicted this? Being right or accurate doesn’t matter. Nerfing marines is what matters.

It was in the last Codex. The MM didn't go anywhere.

broxus wrote:
I think aggressors are now terrible for their points. No way worth it any longer when there are units that are much better at shooting or melee. It is a weird slow hybrid unit that I rarely expect to see on the gaming table now.

one of the best anti-horde units in the game, capable of tearing apart tanks and heavy infantry with ease, point for point better than most melee options entire factions have. Yeah, I can see why you think they suck.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It was in the last Codex. The MM didn't go anywhere.

That’s what I thought, but it’s not unheard of for your brain to fill in what you expect to see so I thought I’d ask.

Breton wrote:
That’s what I thought, but it’s not unheard of for your brain to fill in what you expect to see so I thought I’d ask.

It's a weird double-legacy option. It was originally there when the Blood Angels Dreadnought was released in 2nd Ed, and then again with the Battle for McDonald's starter box in 4th Edition. For whatever reason it's never been part of the plastic Dread kit.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
That’s what I thought, but it’s not unheard of for your brain to fill in what you expect to see so I thought I’d ask.

It's a weird double-legacy option. It was originally there when the Blood Angels Dreadnought was released in 2nd Ed, and then again with the Battle for McDonald's starter box in 4th Edition. For whatever reason it's never been part of the plastic Dread kit.

actually the MM dread was in ABR, the 5th edition starter

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It was in the last Codex. The MM didn't go anywhere.

I invite you to go look at the 2.0 codex, the Multimelta is not on the Dreadnought Weapon list. Legends, sure, but not in the Codex.

The Newman wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It was in the last Codex. The MM didn't go anywhere.

I invite you to go look at the 2.0 codex, the Multimelta is not on the Dreadnought Weapon list. Legends, sure, but not in the Codex.

I'm looking at it now, the multi melta is indeed on the dreadnought heavy weapons list for codex space marines 8.5

its almost like there are too many options to keep track of..

Breton wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


Repentia cost 15ppm, get 3 attacks on the charge hitting on 4s rerolling for 2ish hits. S6 = wounding on 3s so 1.33 wounds at -3 so 6+ save = 1.11 dead Primaris Marines. So yeah they do earn back their points pretty easily, but only in CC and they are T3 7+ save with a 5+ FNP and 1 wound so nowhere near as durable as Gravis Aggressors.

Poor Spoletta. Follow the “rules” of the question exactly -
a unit from a different codex,
that either matches durability and damage, or vastly exceeds damage
In shooting or close combat

Only to be told they don’t count.

Who could have predicted this? Being right or accurate doesn’t matter. Nerfing marines is what matters.

If only we had some kind of evidence of what the original question was...ohh wait, here it is.

 JNAProductions wrote:
They're a shooting unit that can get more than half their points back shooting at a good target. And that's without buffs.
They're a melee unit that can get more than half their points back attacking a good target. And that's without buffs.
They're a highly durable unit that can take large amounts of firepower, and have enough threat that they kinda have to be taken down. Again, without any buffs.

Name a unit from another Codex that's better, point for point, at shooting or melee while being similar levels of durable. Or something that's so much better at doing damage that their durability is irrelevant.

So are repentia better at shooting? no.
Are repentia better at melee? meh, definitely not when you add in the second part "Durability"
Are repentia more durable? no
so that leaves being so good at damage that their durability is irrelevant. Are they? No

Spoletta even went ahead and gave them the buff of a faction Bloody Rose. So lets take that away.

You are left with a T3 5+FNP model that has 2 attacks at S6 -3AP 2D that rerolls hits on the charge but hits on 4s. So you can take 3 of them per aggressor. T3 Vs T5, so not as tough, 3+ save Vs 5+ FNP So not as good of a save, No shooting vs 6+D6 S4 shots at 18' range, and finally, in CC, 6 attacks at S6 Vs 4 Attacks at S8

So they are nowhere near as durable, they literally have no shooting and in CC where they excel, they are marginally better....of course, since they are T3 and have no real save, its going to be hell trying to get them into CC. I mean...I would possibly try an overwatch against them with my ork boyz just because they are so fragile I could probably whittle a few down. A mob of shoota boyz kills about 4.4 of them in overwatch

So, please explain to me how they meet your own defined criteria of

that either matches durability and damage, or vastly exceeds damage
In shooting or close combat

Or do you think 6 attacks at S6 "Vastly exceeds damage" of 4 S8 attacks, both hitting on 4s, both -3AP and 1 does D2 where the other does D3.

Its almost as if SM aggressors are a good unit...