Uses of Intercessors?

[Harrowmaster]

I'm not expecting much, tbh I wasn't entirely sure what to expect from them or how best to utilise them.

 

I'm thinking I might use two 5 man squads to start, one with stalkers and the other with regular bolt rifles.

[Lord Blackwood]

The several times I have used them , there were remarkably frightening things advancing ahead of them drawing  enemy fire like crazy.  

They sat on  backfield objectives in cover and just took potshots at stuff, though this was before the grenade launcher or the stalker options , I  do like that they can hold well  due to having 2 wounds.

[Prot]

I've used them very vanilla since inception and I don't see changing that except one thing.... a 10 man Intercessor squad with a grenade launcher and power sword is a slight increase that totals 5 points if I remember correctly. I think that's good value and a good advancing unit that can really do well with Scions of Guilliman in my case.

[Death Dealer 101]

I started doing a comparison of the different intercessors bolt weapons and realised that the 2 points more for the Stalker is a bit steep. Whats everyone elses thoughts

[Frater Cornelius]

-2 on the Stalker is quite solid. However, I follow the boys over toys way of list-building when it comes to Primaris and more often than not I keep them basic.

[Death Dealer 101]

The marginal increase in damage by the stalker at ranges greater than 15" I feel is balanced by the bolt rifles marginal increase in damage in rapid fire range and the ability to move and shoot without penalty. Thus I feel 2 extra points for 6" more range is over costed

[Prot]

Am I the only one putting a power sword on the sarge? I think it adds some great depth to the unit on a 2 wound model in a way that would never have worked in 7 th ( challenges).

 

I only do this with my 10 man squads because they take better advantage of Scions of Guilliman.

[Blindhamster]

I can't otherwise I would! I agree 3 power sword attacks on a 2 wound model is pretty solid. Even in challenges of 7th it would have been a fairly good loadout honestly.

[Gothical]

Am I the only one putting a power sword on the sarge? I think it adds some great depth to the unit on a 2 wound model in a way that would never have worked in 7 th ( challenges).

 

I only do this with my 10 man squads because they take better advantage of Scions of Guilliman.

 

For me it depends. On my 5-man units I will only give the Sergeant a Sword if I have points left over at the end, because with the Ultramarines Chapter Tactic I find retreating a 5-man unit with Auto Rifles or Stalker Rifles usually more useful than staying and fighting. I always take one on a 10-man unit because the squad itself has a decent level of melee output (same as Assault Marines) and durability (W2) so sticking around is certainly a viable tactic - and the Power Sword can tip the balance of a combat thanks to the good AP. Scions of Guilliman is a great shout-out there.

[Gerhard]

Since this thread is about Intercessors, I figured I'd ask the question here. 

 

Currently I'm considering expanding the ranged capabilities of my Black Templar army. As such I have access to Crusader Squads which can take a variety of ranged weaponry per 5 man squad, providing me the option to take a three bolters, 1 combi-weapon and 1 heavy ranged weapon per squad. However, I am somewhat reluctant to make heavy investments in non-Primaris marines at this point due to the speed at which GW is releasing new goodies. 

 

I'm curious what you all feel about the comparison between Intercessors and Crusader Squads, and whether the added flexibility of say 2x an AP-3 attack would be an overall better investment than an extra wound per Marine, and -1 AP on all attacks in the squad. Leaving the extra melee attack out of the equation here as they might go into melee, but not as frequently as they will be shooting. In this particular comparison there is no need to look at troop-count and such as my melee crusader squads already provide me what I need for a Batallion Detachment. It's purely about the better 'bang for buck'. 

 

My general meta consists of Necron, Orc, Chaos and (very rarely) Space Marines. 

[Sloeberjong]

I don't have much experience with them, but they did fine against general infantry. So against Orks you should do ok, their bolt rifles make short work of them. I use the standard bolt rifles, they have range 30 and from 15 they shoot twice, so the firepower against infantry is ok. The AP-1 is a cherry on top and kills just a bit more since primaris are short of decent AP weapons on a lot (except hellblasters, but still just 2 damage max). The auxiliary grenadelauncher is a nice bonus to have. It's not all powerful, but it'll do somewhat the same job as a special weapon on tacticals. It's still a grenade though, so you can only use 1 per squad per turn.

 

I used 5 man squads with agl and they did fine holding the line and objectives. They need support though because they'll die against AP weapons, even in cover and with 2 wounds. On the other hand I've noticed they don't get targeted all that much. The enemy usually has other priorities (for my army 2 Redemptors, a predator, aggressors). 

 

In short, against Orks they should be ok, I would give the sergeant a power sword. Against necrons or chaos it kind of depends. I guess Chaos is comparable to Space Marines unless they use Turned IG units. Necrons are tough, but then the AP-1 does help. 

 

All in all, I like them. Just don't expect wonders. Not much different from tacticals I guess...

[Gerhard]

Thanks for the 'hands on' review. The last comment you made in regards to expecting wonders, is also true for the Crusader Squads with a bit more versatility I think. It's a nice Squad but it's not the answer to all prayers. 

 

The idea of fielding Intercessors would be as Back-Line / Objective holding support while the rest of my army focuses on dealing with the enemy. For that I'm using melee-oriented Crusader Squads, Reivers, Vanguard Squads, and a range of Mechanized Support. Based on what you're describing, and the role you've had them fill, it matches the intended use I had in mind for them. 

 

Thanks. Curious to hear more opinions on the comparison. I'm really wondering how bad the lack of AP will really be when paired with my other units who have quite a bit of -AP. 

[defl0]

My thoughts:

 

Assault 2 s4 just isn't good enough for the points.

 

Rapid fire 1 s4 -1 is pretty flexible. Especially for certain legions. I play Raven Guard, so it gives me the choice of deploying for 1 shot or 2.

 

Stalker bolt rifles with the s4 -2 is a more solid stat line, but in built for hunting infantry and it just doesn't have the volume it need to be effective. But as objective campers that might not matter.

 

Personally I would rather have sniper Scouts...

[Lemondish]

My thoughts:

 

Assault 2 s4 just isn't good enough for the points.

 

Rapid fire 1 s4 -1 is pretty flexible. Especially for certain legions. I play Raven Guard, so it gives me the choice of deploying for 1 shot or 2.

 

Stalker bolt rifles with the s4 -2 is a more solid stat line, but in built for hunting infantry and it just doesn't have the volume it need to be effective. But as objective campers that might not matter.

 

Personally I would rather have sniper Scouts...

 

Respectfully disagree :P

 

I feel the auto bolters are actually a bit more points efficient than the standard bolt rifle were one to average out the difference between double tap and ranges above that. There's also no discounting the ability to advance and shoot (even if its the opposite direction). While Raven Guard can get bolt rifles into rapid fire range much faster than other foot sloggers, you've managed to ensure a single round of rapid fire double tap at the cost of your defensive CT - 3 inches usually isn't much of a buffer. Auto bolters on the other hand give you significant room to kite that the standard bolt rifle doesn't quite allow. I think that mobility and greater consistent threat range while staying harder to hit makes the auto bolters more efficient at the cost of -1 AP.

 

I'm personally looking to keep the bolt rifles as a defensive immobile option while using the auto bolters as a more mobile aggressive role. And that's only because I won't have enough autos available to make them all fit that role.

[Stoic Raptor]

I tend to agree with Lemondish.  A lot of it does depend on how you plan to use them.  I'm selecting the auto-bolters whenever possible because I want to make use of the ability to fire while advancing, regardless if it's forward or in retrograde - and to be able to get off two shots no matter how far away that puts me.  Combined with the Ultramarine CT, this should allow me to close rapidly without sacrificing offensive firepower, to make withdrawal under fire and draw an enemy into a killbox, and all sorts of other tactics that just wouldn't work so well with bolt rifles, which tend to encourage a more stationary approach.  I prefer to be the one in control of the range of engagement and for footsoldiers, I'm not keen on the idea of slowly plodding forward while my opponent shoots at me.

 

Yes, the AP on a Bolt Rifle is nice, but mathematically, two S4 shots at AP0 are more effective than one S4 shot at AP -1.

[Blindhamster]

I believe there is some mathhammer that shows the standard gun to be the overall most efficient gun. With auto bolt rifle a little behind and the stalker being worst.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Here's the thing, if you're taking auto-bolters just take reivers instead. They're cheaper with Carbines and one of the two other upgrades, plus you get the heavy pistol, aura and grenades.

 

I'd take the standard bolt rifles, since they have the best of every world; range, shots and AP

[Lemondish]

Here's the thing, if you're taking auto-bolters just take reivers instead. They're cheaper with Carbines and one of the two other upgrades, plus you get the heavy pistol, aura and grenades.

 

I'd take the standard bolt rifles, since they have the best of every world; range, shots and AP

They do not have ObSec, however.

 

I believe there is some mathhammer that shows the standard gun to be the overall most efficient gun. With auto bolt rifle a little behind and the stalker being worst.

I've actually seen the opposite with some mathhammer showing the auto being overall more efficient pointswise.

 

Of course, my favourite rule is to play your dudes however you want. Nobody really plays the game as a cold mathematical exercise. I like the tactical options the auto brings over the standard and believe it's enough to warrant picking up as often as possible even if I have Reivers with carbines.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Lemondish

[SkimaskMohawk]

Sure, but they die all the same. At least with the standard gun you can plop them on an objective and have them be relatively safe; 24" means they're taking fire back for more points than Reivers, just so they can maybe cap/contest at the end of the game.

 

On most effecient:

 

Full squad of autos does 2.17 against power armour

 

Full squad of rifles does 1.65 against power armour out of rapid fire, 3.3 in.

 

Full squad of stalkers does 2.17 against power armour

 

Its the rifles as best choice; -0.5 out of rapid fire compared to +1.1 while in, in addition to being the cheapest option and keeping your dudes pretty safe.

Edited August 22, 2017 by SkimaskMohawk

[Lemondish]

Sure, but they die all the same. At least with the standard gun you can plop them on an objective and have them be relatively safe; 24" means they're taking fire back for more points than Reivers, just so they can maybe cap/contest at the end of the game.

 

On most effecient:

 

Full squad of autos does 2.17 against power armour

 

Full squad of rifles does 1.65 against power armour out of rapid fire, 3.3 in.

 

Full squad of stalkers does 2.17 against power armour

 

Its the rifles as best choice; -0.5 out of rapid fire compared to +1.1 while in, in addition to being the cheapest option and keeping your dudes pretty safe.

I always wondered why mathhammer only ever considers MEQ rather than the large gamut of units you'd more likely face, but I'm on mobile so I can't really provide the numbers I was referring to. The extra mobility or wiggle room for RG CT aren't things that are included, just damage, and damage is not what you want to bring Intercessors for.

 

For RG, 15" rf means you're very likely to be trading defense for offense on a unit that benefits far more from staying alive to contest or hold objectives. Not many units out there can move 12", but there are a ton that can move 3.

 

But I think we've established all of this as more pedantic than necessary at this point.

 

Fun small thing for RG: bring a 10 man squad with two nade launchers. SftS the squad, then spend a CP to instantly combat squad them splitting one launcher into the other. You spend the same number of CP to forward deploy, but reduce the number of drops to help get first turn at the cost of a single Sgt. (until chapter approved drops anyway). Thought that was small but neat.

[SkimaskMohawk]

People compare against power armour because space marines alone sell more than anything else, not taking into account chaos or the non-codex marines; it's by far the most prevalent profile, so by far the best arbitrary statline to compare against. The wound inflicted spread for GEQ has a better margin for autos, but rapid fire still rifles still beats either, and stalkers by a pretty good margin. Against TEQs, the auto is the worst, rifle is second (but best in rapid fire), stalker pulls ahead. The lower the toughness and save, the better autos get, but they always lose to rifles in rapid fire range unless you're dealing with something with no save at all, in which case they break even. Considering you're always paying points with the autos compared to rifles, the safest investment is to go rifles.

 

 

As for chapter tactics/stratagems, they're usually left out when discussing general merit of units/wargear. It'd be like talking about which load out for aggressors is the best and having a Salamander player saying the flame ones are best. Sure they are, but only specifically for them, when in range. Meanwhile a Raven Guard player will say bolt ones, because we get to break pretty much any slow moving, non transport option unit. So yes, Raven Guard get a bit more value out of stalkers, but is it worth taking the variant with the average worst damage output and highest cost? On average, no; if your opponents run lots of elite marine unit types, yes.

 

I'd take Intercessors as a throw away objective camper, that have a bit of threat with grenade launchers. The rifles are the most flexible of all the guns, and match the range of the grenade launchers. Reivers are a better choice instead of autos, and Scout Snipers are better than stalkers 

[Harrowmaster]

It seems like auto rifles might be something to consider because of the ability to advance and shoot

[ERJAK]

Nothing, take tacs or scouts instead.

[Harrowmaster]

Nothing, take tacs or scouts instead.

 

Any chance you could expand on this point?

[apologist]

People compare against power armour because [it is] by far the best arbitrary statline to compare against. [...]

The wound inflicted spread for GEQ has a better margin for autos, but rapid fire still rifles still beats either, and stalkers by a pretty good margin. [...]

Against TEQs, the auto is the worst, rifle is second (but best in rapid fire), stalker pulls ahead. [...]

 

Given these (very useful) notes, I wonder if we could expand on them a bit? 

 

I appreciate that it's a good general note to look at Marine equivalent infantry, and quite involved to look at things beyond that, but the mitigating factors of tabletop gaming might throw up some pointers to help people

 

For example, on terrain-dense tables, the additional range of the bolt rifle over the auto bolt rifle becomes less useful; but on extremely dense terrain, the auto bolt rifle's advantage is wiped out; as you're only shooting at <15in anyway.

 

Against vehicles, where both bolt rifle and auto bolt rifle are wounding on 6s, the additional shot of the auto bolt rifle presumably makes them twice as effective between 24in and 15in – but does the -1 armour of the bolt rifle balance this out?

 

[Army specifics]

Against orks – with generally low armour, light vehicles and a desire to get close, I wonder if the auto bolt rifle might edge things slightly; or whether the additional range and armour penetration of the boltrifle makes it more versatile against those units that do have decent armour?

 

Against eldar – with a mix of armour from poor to good, medium vehicles and very specialist troops – does the stalker become useful as a reliable counter to anything?

 

etc.

 

[in isolation]

For players who are only using Primaris marines – and from the looks of things there are a few – the argument that 'Tactical marines do it better' is irrelevant. Does this additional restriction affect things?

Edited August 23, 2017 by Apologist