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.

 Argive wrote:
Its almost as if SM aggressors are a good unit...

The mental gymnastics some of these Marine defenders go through to try and make their units seem worse than they are is amazing. He literally compared them to an unarmored suicide squad that requires a transport to survive past turn 1 and who even then dies to SHOOTA BOYZ in overwatch. And I even screwed up the math. Shoota boyz actually get 13.3 hits not 10, I forgot DDD. So they are actually killing just about 6 in over watch, and the biggest squad size is 9, so 2/3rds dead by ORK overwatch if they try to charge. Tau would just laugh themselves to death at the idea of these things charging, and SMs? I can only imagine they get some kind of buff to shooting that makes killing most of them with 3 overwatching aggressors relatively easy.

SemperMortis wrote:

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.

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

But that doesn't count, because we're hating on Marines here, not damage or balance or anything.

The Newman wrote:
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.

No, it's absolutely there.

SemperMortis wrote:

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.

I even underlined to which point I was answering, which was the "So powerful they don't need durability".

Also, I was counting hand flamers on the seraphim and a CP which then kill 13,2 boyz.
And the repentia have -4P, so those are 1,33 intercessors down.

But most importantly, didn't you understand from my post that I was half jocking when I answered? Why is this been made into some kind of big deal

Breton wrote:

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

But that doesn't count, because we're hating on Marines here, not damage or balance or anything.

So to be clear here, you think a 15pt repentia model is as good as an aggressor? I want to be clear here because you dodge points and move goal posts like crazy.

Spoletta wrote:


I even underlined to which point I was answering, which was the "So powerful they don't need durability".

Also, I was counting hand flamers on the seraphim and a CP which then kill 13,2 boyz.
And the repentia have -4P, so those are 1,33 intercessors down.

But most importantly, didn't you understand from my post that I was half jocking when I answered? Why is this been made into some kind of big deal

I appreciate the info, like I said, I don't play against SOB often so I had no idea. I'm relying on Battle Scribe to tell me about these units and they don't show as having access to hand flamers in there, so how much are the hand flamer equipped seraphim? And repentia would only be -4 AP with BR correct?

So, based on your knowledge of the faction, are any of those units as good as Aggressors without buffs? IE no extra weapons no strats, no bonuses or faction buffs? I'm guessing they aren't

SemperMortis wrote:

Breton wrote:

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

But that doesn't count, because we're hating on Marines here, not damage or balance or anything.

So to be clear here, you think a 15pt repentia model is as good as an aggressor? I want to be clear here because you dodge points and move goal posts like crazy.

I think you're moving those goalposts all your own to tell a half truth by making it 1 15 point model instead of:

 JNAProductions wrote:
point for point,

I think Spoletta said out they do 200% of their points in damage against a less than optimal target.

I think even when they had double shots and Scoot And Shoot 6 aggressors weren't killing 66-67 boys.

9.5 (average Shots) x 6 (aggressors x 2 (attacks per shot) = 114 * .67 = 76.38. Uh oh, we're already in trouble. * 0.5 = 38.19 *.84 = 32. Uh oh, that's only 94% of their points. not even 100% of their points let alone 200%.

Do you want to move the goalposts again and toss in Captains and Lieutenants? Do you think adding 2/3 of 1/3 of all misses and half of all glances/duds/whatever you want to call hits that don't wound will double their output?

Maybe you want to send Aggressors against a less than optimal opponent too. 114 shots, 76 hits, 38 wounds, 12 damage against T4 3+ Intercessors (Same unit) That's 6 Intercessors. Uh oh. That's only 44% of their points.

Well its your choice. Where WOULD you like to move the goalposts this time?

SemperMortis wrote:

Breton wrote:

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

But that doesn't count, because we're hating on Marines here, not damage or balance or anything.

So to be clear here, you think a 15pt repentia model is as good as an aggressor? I want to be clear here because you dodge points and move goal posts like crazy.

Spoletta wrote:


I even underlined to which point I was answering, which was the "So powerful they don't need durability".

Also, I was counting hand flamers on the seraphim and a CP which then kill 13,2 boyz.
And the repentia have -4P, so those are 1,33 intercessors down.

But most importantly, didn't you understand from my post that I was half jocking when I answered? Why is this been made into some kind of big deal

I appreciate the info, like I said, I don't play against SOB often so I had no idea. I'm relying on Battle Scribe to tell me about these units and they don't show as having access to hand flamers in there, so how much are the hand flamer equipped seraphim? And repentia would only be -4 AP with BR correct?

So, based on your knowledge of the faction, are any of those units as good as Aggressors without buffs? IE no extra weapons no strats, no bonuses or faction buffs? I'm guessing they aren't

Again, I wasn't trying to compare them to aggressors! I even wrote that in the first answer!

I was just joking that your definition "Hurts so much that durability doesn't count" was too easily met!

By the way, Seraphim with hand flamers are 83 points.

SemperMortis wrote:
they don't show as having access to hand flamers in there,

Try the Seraphim with Special Weapons


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:


Again, I wasn't trying to compare them to aggressors! I even wrote that in the first answer!

I know. That's what makes it even funnier. They keep coming up with these "tests" and rules for these tests, then complain when someone passes their test. One of them tried to compare to TWC. And the TWC did too well, so people who compared the TWC as requested were "obsessed" for doing exactly as asked. You do exactly as asked, and... there's all sorts of reasons it doesn't count.

I was just joking that your definition "Hurts so much that durability doesn't count" was too easily met!

By the way, Seraphim with hand flamers are 83 points.

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.

Comments like this are the reason why I love SM players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

All these units are real glasscannons though, and all one dimensional: either melee or shooting.

 Blackie 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.

Comments like this are the reason why I love SM players.

All these units are real glasscannons though, and all one dimensional: either melee or shooting.

Comments like this are the reason why I love SM Haters.

Emphasis mine:

 JNAProductions wrote:


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.

both units were imo Not good enough at either to replace the point of durability though.

Not Online!!! wrote:
both units were imo Not good enough at either to replace the point of durability though.

More than double the damage point for point sounds like it is.

For what it's worth I'm a Marine player, I still think they are good and while I know that their output has been nerfed, it feels better to use them now.

Double shooting was penalising in two ways:
- It was not fun to go through all the dice rolls
- It felt bad when you wanted/needed to move

They remain a threat to most infantry units in shooting and melee and serve as my anti-horde backbone.

(Playing Blood Angels)

Breton wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
both units were imo Not good enough at either to replace the point of durability though.

More than double the damage point for point sounds like it is.

Melee units can't deal any damage if they're dead before they get there. That's the problem with mathammer, you compare everything in a vacuum.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Breton wrote:

Melee units can't deal any damage if they're dead before they get there. That's the problem with mathammer, you compare everything in a vacuum.

I didn't make the test, I just laughed when someone else passed it. By the same token Aggressor units can't double fire if they're dead before they shoot. Oops.

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Breton wrote:

Melee units can't deal any damage if they're dead before they get there. That's the problem with mathammer, you compare everything in a vacuum.

I didn't make the test, I just laughed when someone else passed it. By the same token Aggressor units can't double fire if they're dead before they shoot. Oops.

non argument is non argument, the chance that you shoot is comparatively a lot higher then the chance that you get in melee unmolested.

While obviously true, 9th has seen a rise in 1st turn charges on our local tables. It is less likely than being in range for the gun, but not nearly as how it was in previous editions.

a_typical_hero wrote:
While obviously true, 9th has seen a rise in 1st turn charges on our local tables. It is less likely than being in range for the gun, but not nearly as how it was in previous editions.

honestly the smaller tables are imo a mistake IF gw insists on maintaining super heavies and transports.. but alas

The fact that overwatch was more or less curbed did certainly help melee, but it still remains that movement shenaigan melee units that have deepsstrike or other tricks are far outperforming regular melee infantry which still doesn't see play really.

a_typical_hero wrote:
While obviously true, 9th has seen a rise in 1st turn charges on our local tables. It is less likely than being in range for the gun, but not nearly as how it was in previous editions.

Do you mean the player going first, or the player going 2nd? I think the player going second can often do a turn 1 charge if player 1 moves into the mid-board, rather than camping at the back, as was more prevalent in 8th.

I think aggressors remain very good, although they might be a bit more chapter dependent than before. I don't see how you can look at say a white scars aggressor and think that's a bad unit. There might be better options - but that's surely testament to the strength of the Marine Codex, and the fact that for at least the foreseeable future, its still setting the meta.

Not Online!!! wrote:


non argument is non argument, the chance that you shoot is comparatively a lot higher then the chance that you get in melee unmolested.

The stuff that doesn't fit my narrative doesn't matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
While obviously true, 9th has seen a rise in 1st turn charges on our local tables. It is less likely than being in range for the gun, but not nearly as how it was in previous editions.

Do you mean the player going first, or the player going 2nd? I think the player going second can often do a turn 1 charge if player 1 moves into the mid-board, rather than camping at the back, as was more prevalent in 8th.

I was already wondering if Infiltrating on Objectives was the wrong play. You put Infiltrators on a 12 inch centerline objective and it's 50/50 even Ork Boys or Termies are charging you Turn 1. Its better than 50/50 for a 6"+ mover like Assault Intercessors etc.

I think aggressors remain very good, although they might be a bit more chapter dependent than before. I don't see how you can look at say a white scars aggressor and think that's a bad unit. There might be better options - but that's surely testament to the strength of the Marine Codex, and the fact that for at least the foreseeable future, its still setting the meta.

Well I start by looking at it and saying it's not a Bike. Then I say it's White Scars. Nah, Aggressors are good. I don't know if it's setting the Meta though after this shakes out and people re-evaluate. It's certainly part of the Meta, but I don't know that it's going to set it. Too many players got too many new "toys" to play with for a new Flavor of the Month to NOT appear. Someone's going to find a new pony to teach a trick to. 6 Tac Squads in Pods. Relic Terminators with Reapers and CCW. 3 Bunkers shooting everything that moves if the terrain allows it. Those Firestrike Turrets pasting a bunch of Gravis/bikes/lightvehicles/etc. Heck the very fact that it will be new and people won't have a counter in their list is reason enough for a lot of the players to find the new trick.

Not Online!!! wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
While obviously true, 9th has seen a rise in 1st turn charges on our local tables. It is less likely than being in range for the gun, but not nearly as how it was in previous editions.

honestly the smaller tables are imo a mistake IF gw insists on maintaining super heavies and transports.. but alas

The fact that overwatch was more or less curbed did certainly help melee, but it still remains that movement shenaigan melee units that have deepsstrike or other tricks are far outperforming regular melee infantry which still doesn't see play really.

Not really, in almost all of my games so far getting a unit into melee from deep strike was much harder than in 8th precisely because of the smaller tables.
From a gut feeling, right now fast moving melee units or a melee units in a transports are better than deep striking melee units, who are only slightly better than units moving at regular speed (6-7" or 5" with advance&charge).

Deep strikers are great tools for getting to places where few or no units are, which is fairly important for scoring VP, but they won't be able to help you take midfield or break into a protected backfield.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
While obviously true, 9th has seen a rise in 1st turn charges on our local tables. It is less likely than being in range for the gun, but not nearly as how it was in previous editions.

honestly the smaller tables are imo a mistake IF gw insists on maintaining super heavies and transports.. but alas

The fact that overwatch was more or less curbed did certainly help melee, but it still remains that movement shenaigan melee units that have deepsstrike or other tricks are far outperforming regular melee infantry which still doesn't see play really.

Not really, in almost all of my games so far getting a unit into melee from deep strike was much harder than in 8th precisely because of the smaller tables.
From a gut feeling, right now fast moving melee units or a melee units in a transports are better than deep striking melee units, who are only slightly better than units moving at regular speed (6-7" or 5" with advance&charge).

Deep strikers are great tools for getting to places where few or no units are, which is fairly important for scoring VP, but they won't be able to help you take midfield or break into a protected backfield.

Like i said i dislike the smaller boards.
Fast moveing melee is still> then transported melee, and i think for exemple regular CSM berzerkers will still be used most often in conjunction with AL if only to achieve the movement necessary for them. That's the crux really, i doubt you'd see footsloggers without backup perform close to their price.

Most of those issues are caused by the large boards though - too many good spots to deep strike, too much space for shooting units to avoid combat and too much advantage for fast moving units.

Our group gave both kinds of tables multiple tries and regular footslogging melee units being much more viable on the smaller tables was one of the main reasons we are now playing almost all our games on 44x60. A DA player I face regularly has DW terminators just walking into melee because they are more likely to get into a fight than when he deep strikes them, our WE player has had the first wins with his armies since 8th edition because you can no longer back away from his objective secured zerkers unless you give up primaries completely, slanesh daemons have become insanely powerful and I have no problems getting my deathshroud terminators, MANz or dreads into combat without deep striking them.
Footsloggers are doing just fine.

WE have a 9" movement stratagem as well by the way, the main reason why you see AL all the time is -1 to hit and the ability to use slanesh units and thus endless cacophony.

It's also worth noting that the detachment changes have rendered most lords of war unplayable or at least really bad choices.

Breton wrote:

The stuff that doesn't fit my narrative doesn't matter.

The most honest thing you have ever said in this thread.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Breton wrote:

The stuff that doesn't fit my narrative doesn't matter.

The most honest thing you have ever said in this thread.

Don't I know it, you guys do love to dismiss anything that doesn't fit your narrative.

 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.

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.

Melee damage should scale with unit speed like range weapons do based on range per cost.
Much like a MM and melta gun have different points costs when they used to have the exact same profile - except one was half the range so they had a different cost. CC stats are not as valuable on slow moving platforms units with 5" move literally never make it into cc with faster cc units unless they get charged (which they will likely get wiped) or the opponent misplays.

Like...they aren't durable. Do you consider a Praetorian durable? They are 12.5 points per T5 wound. Aggressors are 15 points per T5 wound.
The praetorians are also faster. Have reanimation protocols which is pretty close to having a 5+ FNP. I still wouldn't consider them Durable ether. Always pretty worried they are gonna get blown up without doing anything.

If you consider them durable It's likely do the the fact you are shooting them with AP-0. I'd recommend removing every weapon with AP-0 from your list that you aren't required to take. These weapons are garbage. Oh BTW. Look what aggressors have!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
For what it's worth I'm a Marine player, I still think they are good and while I know that their output has been nerfed, it feels better to use them now.

Double shooting was penalising in two ways:
- It was not fun to go through all the dice rolls
- It felt bad when you wanted/needed to move

They remain a threat to most infantry units in shooting and melee and serve as my anti-horde backbone.

(Playing Blood Angels)

Please tell me why you'd take one over a bike? Like ever?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Really wish that we could focus on the obvious unfairness of certain aspects of the codex.

Like Core being handed out like Candy.
Compared to the Necrons it is an absolute joke.
Dreads are core? Devestators? HellBlasters? Heck it's easier to list the non core units for marines.

Crons have 5 Core units.
-Immortals
-Warriors
-Lychgaurd
-Deathmarks
-Tomblades (WTF toomblades are core but not Destroyers?)

Scarabs aren't core...
Flayed ones aren't core...
Not surprisingly - Monoliths aren't core but it's pretty strange considering how CORE Monoliths are in practice.

I also see no obvious points paid for core ability...In fact in the marine codex...most core units are better per point than non core. It is as expected it would be a random willy nilly decision.

I would really hope that in the future when you people decide to whine about things - you learn to wine in the right way..

Don't say "Nerf X "- Say "I want my own X". Now we have this literally random mechanic making the game less fun in general and OFC - marines got the better end of it.

OMG why did dreads get -1 damage? Redemptor dread is literally going to face roll own everything now. d3+3 damage fist too. LOL. 1 shots a custodies Term or bike and wounds them on 2's. In return they have to roll a 5/6 to not deal 1 damage against for most their units against it.

Man redemptor needed a buff...but like...T8 woulda been fine.

 Xenomancers wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
For what it's worth I'm a Marine player, I still think they are good and while I know that their output has been nerfed, it feels better to use them now.

Double shooting was penalising in two ways:
- It was not fun to go through all the dice rolls
- It felt bad when you wanted/needed to move

They remain a threat to most infantry units in shooting and melee and serve as my anti-horde backbone.

(Playing Blood Angels)

Please tell me why you'd take one over a bike? Like ever?

- I like the aesthetics of the unit
- I'm going Primaris only (Outrider weren't a thing until recently)
- They are an excellent roadblock unit that does need focused firepower to remove
- They are dangerous if left alone
- Can shoot and melee reasonably well

I won't give you a site long post explaining mathematically why Aggressors are precisely 2.3% more effective for their cost than unit B that I could take instead. I'm just going by my own game experience with my local meta and my personal likings. But even on an objectively based review of them, they remain a good unit.

You are too quick to label something as trash or broken in my opinion. That's my impression of you from past threads. And maybe your local meta has not adapted well to 9th edition, yet. You said you'd like the games to be more focused on blowing the opponent off the table than playing to the objectives. This approach to the game could skew your perceived strengths of units.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
For what it's worth I'm a Marine player, I still think they are good and while I know that their output has been nerfed, it feels better to use them now.

Double shooting was penalising in two ways:
- It was not fun to go through all the dice rolls
- It felt bad when you wanted/needed to move

They remain a threat to most infantry units in shooting and melee and serve as my anti-horde backbone.

(Playing Blood Angels)

Please tell me why you'd take one over a bike? Like ever?

- I like the aesthetics of the unit
- I'm going Primaris only (Outrider weren't a thing until recently)
- They are an excellent roadblock unit that does need focused firepower to remove
- They are dangerous if left alone
- Can shoot and melee reasonably well

I won't give you a site long post explaining mathematically why Aggressors are precisely 2.3% more effective for their cost than unit B that I could take instead. I'm just going by my own game experience with my local meta and my personal likings. But even on an objectively based review of them, they remain a good unit.

You are too quick to label something as trash or broken in my opinion. That's my impression of you from past threads. And maybe your local meta has not adapted well to 9th edition, yet. You said you'd like the games to be more focused on blowing the opponent off the table than playing to the objectives. This approach to the game could skew your perceived strengths of units.

No I mean. You basically get the same firepower out of space marine bikes...at longer range...while moving 3x the speed and yo still have decent close combat ability with chainswords (which is better than melee ability you can't use cause you are too slow). Aggressors aren't any more durable per point than a tactical marine so they are just as much of a roadblock as literally any unit in the army.

Aggressors do look pretty cool but they don't have a roll in the army. They would be great in an eldar army that needs a unit like that. In a marine army where literally every unit has good anti infantry ability and a 3+ save it it is redundant. They certainly aren't the worst unit in the game but given the army they are in without double shoot they are a sub par option that doesn't even outperform the units with much better threat range.

 Xenomancers wrote:

No I mean. You basically get the same firepower out of space marine bikes...at longer range...while moving 3x the speed and yo still have decent close combat ability with chainswords (which is better than melee ability you can't use cause you are too slow). Aggressors aren't any more durable per point than a tactical marine so they are just as much of a roadblock as literally any unit in the army.

Aggressors do look pretty cool but they don't have a roll in the army. They would be great in an eldar army that needs a unit like that. In a marine army where literally every unit has good anti infantry ability and a 3+ save it it is redundant. They certainly aren't the worst unit in the game but given the army they are in without double shoot they are a sub par option that doesn't even outperform the units with much better threat range.

I'd do it based on synergy.

If they're on their lonesome or with Sammael, I'd take Bikes and Speeders

To partner with Calgar, Guilliman, or a Gravis Captain, I'd take Aggresors and Erads

To partner with Shrike I'd take Inceptors and Vanguard Vets.

I may even be taking Victrix with Guilliman/Calgar now. The absolute target defense they provide layered with Look Out Sir! is intruiging if possibly overkill.

Breton wrote:

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

Blood Rose Repentia are 1' faster than Aggressors, people here have been saying they are too slow to get into melee so they suck. BR Repentia are functionally USELESS until they get into CC and have 1 T3 wound with only a 5+ FNP to save them from getting killed. To put that in perspective, 3 Aggressors who you say suck, are hosing down 8 to 9 of them a turn at 18' range with no buffs. So 120 to 135pts dead in 1 turn of shooting...or about 100% return on investment. BR repentia get 3 attacks at 15pts which hit on 4s rerolling on the first round of combat thats 2.25 hits, S6 Vs T4 = 1.5 wounds and -4 AP (BR bonus) means 1.5 dead Intercessors. So 30pts of dead Intercessors. Exactly 200% return on investment. So than the question becomes, does the trade off in durability = return on possible damage in CC? and the answer is a resounding no. Good Luck getting 135pts (9 repentia) across the board, they will require a Rhino to do anything besides die turn 1, so tack on 78pts to their price, and pray to god the enemy isn't capable of popping a T7 Rhino, because if they do you just lost your 200pt distraction carnifex with minimal effort on the part of the enemy.

Breton wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
So to be clear here, you think a 15pt repentia model is as good as an aggressor? I want to be clear here because you dodge points and move goal posts like crazy.

I think you're moving those goalposts all your own to tell a half truth by making it 1 15 point model instead of:

 JNAProductions wrote:
point for point,

Point for point. it takes 3 bolter hits to guarantee 1 dead repentia. 3 hits = 2 wounds vs 5+ FNP = 1.33 dead Repentia. To kill 3 repentia (45pts) it takes a bit less than 7 bolter hits.
Aggressor. it takes 27 Bolter hits. 27 hits = 9 Wounds, vs 3+ save = 3 wounds. So Aggressors are more than 400% more durable vs small arms fire.

Shooting Phase. Point for point. Repentia get 0 shooting. So they aren't worth points in the shooting phase.
Aggressors for 45pts get 9.5 shots on average, against hordes its a solid 12. BS 3+ = 6 to 8 hits on average (depending on unit size) and S4 = 3-4 wounds against T4 troops. Against repentia as previously mentioned, 1 Aggressor is killing 3 a turn.

CC Phase. Point for Point. 3 BR Repentia kill 4.5 Intercessors. probably their most efficient target to attack
Aggressors with no buffs kill about 1.4 Intercessors, which isn't their most efficient target to attack.

So Aggressors are 400% more durable than Repentia, they shine in the shooting phase and in CC the Repentia finally win something, being 3x more effective at killing intercessors than Aggressors...of course, that is including the buff of a faction where as the Aggressors received ZERO buffs.

So are Repentia, point for point, as good as aggressors?

Breton wrote:
I think Spoletta said out they do 200% of their points in damage against a less than optimal target.

I think even when they had double shots and Scoot And Shoot 6 aggressors weren't killing 66-67 boys.

9.5 (average Shots) x 6 (aggressors x 2 (attacks per shot) = 114 * .67 = 76.38. Uh oh, we're already in trouble. * 0.5 = 38.19 *.84 = 32. Uh oh, that's only 94% of their points. not even 100% of their points let alone 200%.

Do you want to move the goalposts again and toss in Captains and Lieutenants? Do you think adding 2/3 of 1/3 of all misses and half of all glances/duds/whatever you want to call hits that don't wound will double their output?

Maybe you want to send Aggressors against a less than optimal opponent too. 114 shots, 76 hits, 38 wounds, 12 damage against T4 3+ Intercessors (Same unit) That's 6 Intercessors. Uh oh. That's only 44% of their points.

Well its your choice. Where WOULD you like to move the goalposts this time?

So first off, Seraphim, they can take a minimum of 5 with 2 special weapons for 83pts, with those wonderful new buffs to flamers that 4D6 shots at S3 + 6 shots at S4 BS3. 4D6 = 14 hits, about 4-5 wounds and with BR 4-5 dead orkz. Again, requiring a buff (BR). If the boyz mob is 11+ its 24 shots for 8 wounds and 8 dead Orkz, the 6 pistols get 4 hits and 2 wounds for another 2 dead ork boyz

I don't know what strat he was referencing because again I don't play SoB, but since we are measuring units without buffs and I already gave them a buff in BR i'm not going to worry about it. So thats 83pts of SoB killing 10 orkz or 80pts, requires the SoB to be within 12' of the orkz which means next turn they are effectively dead. As far as "optimal" the only more optimal target for them in my entire codex would be Grotz, but I can promise you, I will never be taking mobz bigger than 10 of grotz if i ever take them again at 5ppm.

But again the comparison was to aggressors originally. So lets give the Serpahim SoB the BR buff and the aggressors nothing.

Shooting: Sisters of Battle pull a slight victor, however, closer range, more dead orkz but likely dead the next turn vs. longer range, less kills but likely safe the following turn from charges. So in reality its a suicide squad.

SoB: 10 dead boyz 80pts almost a 100% return on investment. 12' range though.
Aggressors: 2 aggressors are 90pts, they kill 6.66 boyz at 18' range or just shy of 60% return on investment.

CC: Aggressors win by 300% margin.

SoB: 6 attacks, 4 hits, 1.33 wounds for 1.16 dead Ork boyz. less than 10% return.
Aggressors: 8 attacks, 4 hits, 3.33 dead Boyz. just under 30% return.

Durability: Aggressors win hands down, about twice as durable.

SoB: 5 T3 wounds with 3+ requires about 23-24 bolter hits to kill.
Aggressors: 6 T5 Wounds 3+ requires 54 bolter hits to kill


So now the question again, are Seraphim better than Aggressors point for point?


Can't tell if you enjoy lying with your numbers or if you just plain forgot again. If you are killing 32 boyz with 6 aggressors double shooting than they would get 12 shots each not 9.5 because of the blast rules. So those 6 aggressors would get 144 shots, Those seraphim require buffs (weapon upgrades AND order bonus (BR) as well as a strat to get that 200% return) the aggressors used to get enough damage to kill 40 boyz a turn which is 320pts or an 118% return on investment in 1 shooting phase NO BUFFS REQUIRED. Now you have to settle for 6 of them only getting 160pts dead in 1 shooting phase, poor guy only gets a 60% return in 1 shooting phase without any buffs.

If you want to add in the buff the BR got, a chapter bonus, then your numbers likewise go up. Even with the nerf, if those aggressors are IF they are getting 72 shots for 25 wounds, Crimson fists would get 72 shots for....72 hits, 36 wounds and 30 dead boyz. Both score more kills if its in the Tactical turn. So your 270pt unit is now killing 240pts of boyz in a single shooting phase or 288pts if its tactical doctrine turn. Add in the other bonuses the SoB were given like strats and I am sure you can boost those numbers even higher.

Little fun math for you as well, CF or IF Aggressors in tac doctrine are doing 23.75 dmg to Intercessors which is 11-12 dead Intercessors or 220-240pts

294pts of BR Seraphim would get 4 dmg with bolt weapons and 3.5 dmg with flamers. Or just about enough to kill 4 to 5 Intercessors or 80 to 100pts. Still damn good return, but nowhere near as good as Aggressors.

So against their best match up, with buffs, with CP, yeah BR SoB units can be good, but are always a fraction of the durability of Aggressors and are nowhere near as good in the other phase as Aggressors.

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Breton wrote:

Melee units can't deal any damage if they're dead before they get there. That's the problem with mathammer, you compare everything in a vacuum.

I didn't make the test, I just laughed when someone else passed it. By the same token Aggressor units can't double fire if they're dead before they shoot. Oops.

No, what you did was move the goal posts, put up biased 1vs1 comparisons and left out buffs or numbers that you didn't want reflecting in the fact that the unit people are complaining about is significantly better than basically any comparable unit in another faction. What was hilarious was the goal posts moving from a unit being as good with no buffs to you trying to defend the for fun comparison spoletta made where he gave them 3 separate buffs, Order buff, upgraded weapons and a CP strat. As of right now, nobody has provided an example of any unit from a non-space marine faction that is comparable to either eradicators or aggressors. The closest was Spoletta jokingly putting foward his SoB units and handing out buffs like crazy, and even then you had to ignore the durability difference and either melee or shooting to even come close to the damage/durability of Aggressors.

We can keep playing with what ifs and what abouts. But lets stick to some basic questions. Do you think Aggressors are good? Do you think BR SoB units mentioned are as good OVERALL as Aggressors? Do you think they excel so much in their 1 area that it makes up for being significantly worse in the other two?