Tactica Agressors: Load outs and strategy

[Prot]

Well after my last game I don't know if I'd ever use them again... maybe one more time. 

 

They got wiped by two Spawn in CC. The minus 1 to hit with the fists is pretty bad for an assault type unit, and the bolters are just more junk to throw at the wall. There's so much Damage 2+ in the game I really don't see any Primaris advantage in the game except with Moral but the Primaris advantage really only comes in against very low end firepower.

 

I played conservatively and lined up the assault to be sure, but they failed pretty hard and just don't have the volume in CC to make a difference. I would say they are actually a mid ranged, semi mobile, shooty unit that can assault if it has to.

 

My Inceptors die constantly in the turn they come in.... But they hit slightly harder. No matter how I back up the Inceptors, no matter what the come in with (Termies, Cataphractii, Reivers, Marneus) they always die on drop in. But I can usually count on them doing something first.

 

So since day one I've wanted to pull the Inceptors out of the army sine it's just mediocre damage (and the cost was higher), but I think if I look at pulling out Inceptors or Aggressors, I think these guys would go first. 

 

The one thing I can say is in a Primaris based army full of low end firepower (most primaris is chaff removal) these guys are far better off with Bolt shots over flamers. I realized they're a little slow and the space marine army plays better as an aura block. Eventually stuff just starts getting in its own way. So the flamers would have been almost useless in my last game.

[Race Bannon]

Maybe play a few more.

 

Yet, I've been reconsidering their purchase to favor Assault Cents based on this thread.

[Prot]

Maybe play a few more.

 

Yet, I've been reconsidering their purchase to favor Assault Cents based on this thread.

 

I might but it's really hard to see them doing anything meaning full in a game. They simply don't have the tools..... are you saying you prefer assault cents? Or prefer Agressors?

 

I have used Assault Cents with Flamers and they are far superior to Agressors hands down. They do more damage, they are more survivable, but they cost more. 

 

Agressors firing on all cylinders do something my army already has plenty of.... anti chaff weaponry. And the CC is just too weak. 4+ to hit... Cents hit on a 3+. Cents are better in every way. 

 

 

Over all I'm finding Primaris units to be fairly weak. The unit that holds its own is the Hellblasters again. But they have to do a LOT of heavy lifting. The reason I mention this is 10 wounds of Hellblasters, is only 35 points more than 6 wounds of Aggressors. 

 

Conversely I can get a 4th Agressor in there (means I have to buy another box) and get more 18" bolters with no AP, and mediocre CC ability.

 

I may try a few more games... I usually do but I just feel right now that these are a pretty bad option. But maybe I'm soured on Primaris... I'm finding most Primaris are pretty bad. (Redemptors included)

[Race Bannon]

I see what you mean. On paper, in a vacuum, Aggressors are almost half of what the Assault Centurions ... Are? For almost double the points (certainly PL), you'll get a consistently stronger punch (literally) with improved survivability. Maybe the unit deserves it's own thread at this point.

[Lemondish]

Well after my last game I don't know if I'd ever use them again... maybe one more time.

 

They got wiped by two Spawn in CC. The minus 1 to hit with the fists is pretty bad for an assault type unit, and the bolters are just more junk to throw at the wall. There's so much Damage 2+ in the game I really don't see any Primaris advantage in the game except with Moral but the Primaris advantage really only comes in against very low end firepower.

 

I played conservatively and lined up the assault to be sure, but they failed pretty hard and just don't have the volume in CC to make a difference. I would say they are actually a mid ranged, semi mobile, shooty unit that can assault if it has to.

 

My Inceptors die constantly in the turn they come in.... But they hit slightly harder. No matter how I back up the Inceptors, no matter what the come in with (Termies, Cataphractii, Reivers, Marneus) they always die on drop in. But I can usually count on them doing something first.

 

So since day one I've wanted to pull the Inceptors out of the army sine it's just mediocre damage (and the cost was higher), but I think if I look at pulling out Inceptors or Aggressors, I think these guys would go first.

 

The one thing I can say is in a Primaris based army full of low end firepower (most primaris is chaff removal) these guys are far better off with Bolt shots over flamers. I realized they're a little slow and the space marine army plays better as an aura block. Eventually stuff just starts getting in its own way. So the flamers would have been almost useless in my last game.

My meta seems to be different. I never see much 2 damage weaponry.

[Stoic Raptor]

 

You can advance and still fire anything without the -1 to hit because they're Aggressors. 

 

Thanks - was at work, didn't have the data sheet and so I did not recall that Aggressors have that special rule.  Even in its absence, Flamers of course take no penalty to hit under any circumstances.

[Frater Cornelius]

@ Prot - Interesting. I think the other way. Inceptors would only make it into my army once I think Aggressors are worth it. I am undecided and thus I have not played a game with Inceptors since the second one this edition.

 

As for the Aggressors... they exist in a purgatory, for me. Not good enough to be an auto-include but not bad or boring enough to drop. Mind you, I have yet to use them in a competitive game. Well, that ia not true. I used them twice. Against Razorback spam they did well, as they weren't the main target next to the Dread and Repulsor. Against Nids they did also well at range. But here is the thing. They weren't irreplaceable. And now that I am forcing myself past my phobia of including regular Marines in my lists, I do not have the roof for them in my shooty lists. Having said that, I am still determined to try them more. There will be a way Oo

 

In the worth case you can use their models to represent Centurions. Save effect if you ask me :D

[Mileposter]

I just played against an opponent who was using 2 squads of Aggressors and backing each up with a lieutenant. At first it seemed impressive - her positioning was good, her first engagement was good, she did a lot of damage by boxing me in between them.

 

... And then I fired back. They crumpled. I had expected standard marine defenses, so it wasn't a total surprise, but it almost hurt to watch that kind of firepower die so easily.

 

And I can recant a little of my previous post now with the experience. I had previously stated that if they are always targeted the rest of the list should be stored up - but with as much firepower they do carry, its too easy to know we can knock them off the board before they use it.

 

Count me firmly in the "Centurion Is Better Option" camp at this point. What you lose in cost you gain in sustainability.

[Frater Cornelius]

At least they are similarly sized, so Primaris-only-ish players like myself can sill use them with alternate rules.

[Blindhamster]

Aggressors could do with a third wound or an invulnerable save. My experience with them was Similar. They advanced behind my allies spartan, naturally the Spartan was the bigger target.

 

They opened fire and wiped out an enemy tau unit. Then were wiped out in my opponents following then when a riptide and ghostkeel unloaded into them.

Edited August 12, 2017 by Blindhamster

[Lemondish]

I just played against an opponent who was using 2 squads of Aggressors and backing each up with a lieutenant. At first it seemed impressive - her positioning was good, her first engagement was good, she did a lot of damage by boxing me in between them.

 

... And then I fired back. They crumpled. I had expected standard marine defenses, so it wasn't a total surprise, but it almost hurt to watch that kind of firepower die so easily.

 

And I can recant a little of my previous post now with the experience. I had previously stated that if they are always targeted the rest of the list should be stored up - but with as much firepower they do carry, its too easy to know we can knock them off the board before they use it.

 

Count me firmly in the "Centurion Is Better Option" camp at this point. What you lose in cost you gain in sustainability.

Hmm, seems to be par for the course for Primaris at this point. I wonder if they'll be left intentionally neutered until the idea of the models replacing vanilla marines starts to not sound so scary. I guess the alternative (the new units being clearly better) would have been untenable for many, so that's a plus in a weird way. Just bums me out as I returned to 8th for the fun of the game and fell in love with Primaris (I actually really despise normal Marine models with their squat legs and stumpy arms).

 

Also wondering how quickly they'll start adjusting units for balance and whether it'll involve stat changes instead of just points tweaks.

 

Will still play with Aggressors, though I wonder if they'd benefit from sticking 4 in a Repulsor with a Gravis Captain.

[Frater Cornelius]

Looking at the comparison between Assault Cents and Aggressors. One Cent with 2 Flamers and Hurricanes costs 85, 2 dakka Aggressors cost 86, so pretty much the same. 4W T5 3+ across two models and 3W T5 2+ is roughly equal. The Centurion has the edge against no-AP weapons, but the Aggressors can benefit from cover and achieve the same results. Against a LC the Aggressors have an edge due excess damage not spilling over.

 

In terms of ranged output, at 8" they have the same amount of shots with the same profile, but the Centurion ignores cover. However, Aggressors have 18" and they can run and shoot with full effect, thus have a far better threat range.

 

In melee, Aggressors have a slight edge. 4A at 4+ with -3 and S8 beats 2A at 3+ with -4 S10 against T4, T6 and T7, which are more common than T5 and T8, especially since those are models which you do not want to engage (TWC and Knights come to mind).

 

Centurions have an advantage in terms of transport options, as 3 of them and a character fit into a regular Raider and more than that into a Crusader and Redeemer, whereas a maximum of 5 Aggressors fit into a Repulsor.

 

So, they are roughly equal. So why is it that people seem to like Assault Centurions and dislike Aggressors? I need to test them more Oo

Dev Cents are not a fair conparison as they do different things as a Dev Cents easily beasts 100ppm and they are a heavy dakka platform.

[Freman Bloodglaive]

Probably Ironclad Dreadnoughts could be considered a competitor too. I would always take the hurricane bolters, chainfist, and heavy flamer, which makes them a tad more expensive than squad of Agressors, but they're also a bit more durable.

[Kallas]

Looking at the comparison between Assault Cents and Aggressors. One Cent with 2 Flamers and Hurricanes costs 85, 2 dakka Aggressors cost 86, so pretty much the same. 4W T5 3+ across two models and 3W T5 2+ is roughly equal.

The Codex dropped the cost of ACs by 10pts, so it's 75 for a 2x Flamer/Hurricane Bolter Cent vs 43 for an Aggressor. That's a rough ratio of 3 ACs:5 Aggressor.

 

This is specifically about Flamestorm Aggressors, mind, as the Cents bring a heap more firepower, extra save and an extra wound each. Frag/Boltstorm Aggressors are different, as they compete with Cents for firepower at different ranges (>18" Cents; 18-12" Aggressors; <12" Cents) and the Aggressors have more mobility (5" vs 4" and can advance without the -1 penalty, whereas Cents can't advance and fire their Hurricanes at all.)

 

The Centurion has the edge against no-AP weapons, but the Aggressors can benefit from cover and achieve the same results.

 

Against a LC the Aggressors have an edge due excess damage not spilling over.

2+ -> 3+ is a pretty big deal, and once AP starts being a factor Cents become a lot more survivable. Also, while Cents don't get a benefit from cover against AP0, against anything with an AP value they pull ahead again.

 

An Autocannon, for example, has little to no chance of actually killing a Centurion but only needs to slip one unsaved hit past an Aggressor and they're down. Assuming no cover the chance that a single, BS3+ Autocannon causes an unsaved hit:

Aggressor -> 43%

Centurion -> 29%

 

Obviously that's not a particular interesting scenario, but a single Autocannon threatens Aggressors significantly but Centurions can shrug them off substantially more easily.

 

Let's take a look at Lascannons. They're wounding both on 3+, AP-3 drops Aggressors to a 6+ and Centurions to a 5+. D6D is an 84% chance to kill an Aggressor and a 66% change to kill a Centurion.

 

Here's four, BS3+ Lascannons firing at a unit in the open:

Aggressors -> 1.84 kills on average.

Centurions -> 1.15 kills on average.

 

So while heavier hitting weapons like Lascannons hurt Centurions a lot, they're actually better off, pound for pound, than the Aggressors. If cover is factored in then it's 1.15:0.87 kills, so a Centurion isn't even clearly killed!

 

In terms of ranged output, at 8" they have the same amount of shots with the same profile, but the Centurion ignores cover. However, Aggressors have 18" and they can run and shoot with full effect, thus have a far better threat range.

Well, that's ignoring the Hurricane Bolters. If we use the 3:5 ratio I mentioned earlier:

 

24-18.1": Centurions, 18; F/B and FS Aggressors, 0

18-12.1": Centurions, 18; F/B Aggressors, 30+5d6

12-8.1": Centurions, 36; F/B Aggressors, 30+5d6

<8": Centurions, 36+6d6 (42-72); FS Aggressors, 10d6

(10-60); F/B Aggressors, 30+5d6 (35-60)

 

Centurions have the least firepower in the 18-8.1" bracket. They have better long range, however, way more firepower up close and they also ignore cover.

 

Again, FS Aggressors are pretty much just worse while F/B Aggressors are at least somewhat better (mobility and a 10" bracket of better firepower) but Assault Centurions bring a lot of firepower for their cost.

 

In melee, Aggressors have a slight edge. 4A at 4+ with -3 and S8 beats 2A at 3+ with -4 S10 against T4, T6 and T7, which are more common than T5 and T8, especially since those are models which you do not want to engage (TWC and Knights come to mind).

I mean, I sort of agree, but that -1 to hit is pretty painful, as it's a 25% decrease in accuracy.

 

Vs T4 (say Orks):

Aggressors: 11 attacks; 5.5 hits; 4.6 wounds/kills

Centurions: 7 attacks; 4.6 hits; 3.8 wounds/kills

 

So Aggressors come out on top against relatively light infantry. Which is perfectly reasonable! Centurions definitely come out on top vs Vehicles, however, as the additional AP and flat 3D vs d3D makes a big difference.

 

Vs a Rhino (T7, Sv3+):

Aggressors: 11 attacks; 5.5 hits; 3.63 wounds; 3 unsaved, roughly 6 damage caused.

Centurions: 7 attacks; 4.6 hits; 3 wounds/9 damage.

 

Vs a Land Raider (T8, Sv2+):

Aggressors: 2.75 wounds; 1.8 unsaved; 3.6 damage.

Centurions: 3 wounds; 2.5 unsaved; 7.5 damage.

 

So yeah. Aggressors are better off vs lighter targets, Centurions vs heavier things like vehicles/buildings (which makes sense

[Race Bannon]

It's morning for me, but Kallas has the post of the day. I don't mat hammer myself, but the work above is certainly appreciated. To put other words, the Agressors are not a bad unit, per se, yet are maximized within a pocket. Overall, it may boil down to player preference for the army.

[Frater Cornelius]

The above indicates that if you prefer to hang back, then B/F Aggressors are not a bad choice for some mobile dakka and counter assault. If you want to advance, Cents have the edge.

[Kallas]

The above indicates that if you prefer to hang back, then B/F Aggressors are not a bad choice for some mobile dakka and counter assault. If you want to advance, Cents have the edge.

That seems like a reasonable summation

[Frater Cornelius]

Indeed. I suppose another advantage for the B/F guys is that you can actually fit 3 of those in sub-1000 games, with only 129pts. Flanking is a solid idea. They can avoid the main firepower, all while various tougher customers do the mid-field. I am looking at you, Guilliman and Dread :D

[Lemondish]

It's morning for me, but Kallas has the post of the day. I don't mat hammer myself, but the work above is certainly appreciated. To put other words, the Agressors are not a bad unit, per se, yet are maximized within a pocket. Overall, it may boil down to player preference for the army.

Or preference for the models. If Cents didn't look like silly inflatable fatsuit marines...

[Race Bannon]

 

It's morning for me, but Kallas has the post of the day. I don't mat hammer myself, but the work above is certainly appreciated. To put other words, the Agressors are not a bad unit, per se, yet are maximized within a pocket. Overall, it may boil down to player preference for the army.

Or preference for the models. If Cents didn't look like silly inflatable fatsuit marines...

Huh, didn't ever think of them like that, but ... Yeah :lol:

[defl0]

Thus far, I actually find Aggressors VERY powerful. 

 

But I think it very much depends how you run them and what chapter tactic you use. I could see flamer aggressors being a great choice for ultra marines for example. 

 

I play Raven Guard and using the Strike from the Shadows stratagem lets me deploy them in bolter guantlet range and double tap my models turn one. If you go first, you get an alpha strike of ~ 108 s4 shots which can absolutely decimate a lot of squads. For the record that's about 2.5 points per S4 shot. You won't find that efficiency on any other unit in the codex. 

 

Plus, units iwth higher rates of fire get more out of force multipliers. Shirke and a lieutenant can really crank up the out put as well. 

 

For Raven Guard, this means I can shred bubble wrap units, which opens up the way for units like van guard vets to charge valuable targets. 

 

If you go second you have to be more careful with them, but Raven Guard do have some protections from shooting. 

 

I think they are pretty much a MUST FIELD unit for Raven Guard. I'm not sure how else you would be able to deal with chaff like brims or conscripts, short of taking conscripts yourself.

 

My real question is deciding how many to field... 

[Frater Cornelius]

Agreed on RG. Those 114 shots on average are solid, when you field 6. I disagree on Flamer UM though, as most UM lists are shooty and you rarely want a comparatively slow unit like this to close to gap and die before it does anothing. Edited August 14, 2017 by Frater Cornelius

[Mileposter]

Thus far, I actually find Aggressors VERY powerful. 

 

But I think it very much depends how you run them and what chapter tactic you use. I could see flamer aggressors being a great choice for ultra marines for example. 

 

I play Raven Guard and using the Strike from the Shadows stratagem lets me deploy them in bolter guantlet range and double tap my models turn one. If you go first, you get an alpha strike of ~ 108 s4 shots which can absolutely decimate a lot of squads. For the record that's about 2.5 points per S4 shot. You won't find that efficiency on any other unit in the codex. 

 

Plus, units iwth higher rates of fire get more out of force multipliers. Shirke and a lieutenant can really crank up the out put as well. 

 

For Raven Guard, this means I can shred bubble wrap units, which opens up the way for units like van guard vets to charge valuable targets. 

 

If you go second you have to be more careful with them, but Raven Guard do have some protections from shooting. 

 

I think they are pretty much a MUST FIELD unit for Raven Guard. I'm not sure how else you would be able to deal with chaff like brims or conscripts, short of taking conscripts yourself.

 

My real question is deciding how many to field... 

 

I agree with this by and large - I don't believe that we've really questioned the damage output of the Aggressors, rather expressed a disappointment with the 'Glass Cannon' feel of them. RG can certainly make sure they get their licks in, which helps justify the points, but I think for several of those who've spoken out (judging from tone and context) the lack of sustainability in the Aggressors makes them not sit quite right. I agree that if you're treating them like an alpha-alpha-die unit, then they perform as expected. And it doesn't hurt that if you plan on that, they can eat up some incoming fire instead of other units.

 

... Also I can't stop thinking of the Flamer Aggressors as StarCraft Firebats. >.>;

[Stoic Raptor]

I wonder if the aura from an Ancient would help in that case.  Sure, it wouldn't keep them from dying per se, but getting an extra Shoot action on the way out could be very nice and might discourage an opponent from picking a fight.

[Frater Cornelius]

I wonder if the aura from an Ancient would help in that case.  Sure, it wouldn't keep them from dying per se, but getting an extra Shoot action on the way out could be very nice and might discourage an opponent from picking a fight.

 

Seen it. Someone tried it against Harlies. Those 3+ actions (he has the relic banner) were only ones they did during the game :/