CA won’t help SM

[Ishagu]

It's not made Marines into a top tier army, that's true but it has definitely made them a better mid tier army.

 

In my list I've been able to include a significant anti infantry element that would not have been possible to fit in before. It's a definite improvement. Also, mentally, taking certain units simply feels better because of their reduced cos

[Kallas]

It's not made Marines into a top tier army, that's true but it has definitely made them a better bottom tier army.

Fixed that for you 

[Ishagu]

But they aren't really. Marines can do very well against a lot of armies. Not every unit is as viable of course.

 

You'll find that there are only a few factions or combinations that really ruin their day.

[Kallas]

But they aren't really. Marines can do very well against a lot of armies. Not every unit is as viable of course.

 

You'll find that there are only a few factions or combinations that really ruin their day.

Even with points drops Marines aren't great. CA didn't solve the core Marine problems (bad/mediocre Stratagems; poor CP access in standalone armies; mediocre statline, etc) but it did even out their internal balance a little bit.

 

Marines are easily countered by common weaponry - even Heavy Bolters make Marines significantly less effective on the table. While Marines in cover vs AP0 weapons are resilient, there's plenty of AP-1 or better weapons in abundance in all armies, or otherwise sheer volume of dice making the improved resilience fundamentally moot.

 

I will say that an 85pt Intercessor unit is now pretty much definitely better than a 65pt unit of Tacticals. It's a significant points increase proportionally, but overall Intercessors are just a better investment. Not that I'm happy that they left Tacticals to rot...

[Schlitzaf]

Further: 60 Assault Marines is (post-CA) 900pts. It's half your army as throwaway units (by your own intentions) that don't actually kill much of anything.

 

The 1100pts left have a lot of work to do, and Marines have very few actually efficient units to do it with and they're generally on the more expensive side.

 

Simply, Assault Marines aren't efficient or effective at anything. If you want a flexible melee horde, go with a huge pile of Grey Hunters: they've exactly as many melee attacks, Bolters on top, and they're cheaper base/can have Rhinos/Razorbacks (one of our best units) for mobility/resilience/firepower. For 900pts you can have three AssBacks and 42 Grey Hunters. That's more attacks total (42*4=128+42/64 Bolters, plus the Assault Cannons, vs 120+60 BP), have the vehicles for additional resilience (they can camp inside, or use them to absorb overwatch). They have less overall mobility, but enough to be decent.

 

Or you can just go full horde with 69 Grey Hunters. No Jump Packs, but ObSec instead.

 

And that's not even touching on the Vanguard problem, which The Unseen mentioned - Vanguard are just Assaults+1 for a minimal cost increase.

 

 

NB: Bear in mind that in Matched Play you can actual only take 30 Assaults, as they're not Troops so they can only have 3 Datasheets.

Also Crusader Squads. Secondly the issue with assault marines is not they are ‘bad’ (I’d say inefficient). But is they are troop caliber units. If we take the gold standard as Crusaders or Grey Hunters for marine troops. 10 man Assault Marine is actually very similar mathematically. Espacially with Evis change.

 

For sake of example;

10 Man Grey Hunters are 181 Points

-3 Plasma Guns

-1 Plasma Pistol

-Second Tactic (Wolf Banner)

-4 Power Weapon attacks

-16 Chains

-6 Bolters

 

13 Man Tide Crusaders 179

-2 Flamers

-10 Pistols

-1 Combi Bolter

-1 Krak Grenade

-3 Power Sword Attack

-21 Chainsword

 

10 Man Assault Marines - 170 (182 for BA)

-Move 12” & Deep Strike

-4 PlasmPistols

-BA has 2 PlasmPistols & 2 PlasmGuns

-7 Pistols

-1 Krak Grenade

-20 Chainswords (18 for BA)

 

Now each of these three squads, are similar yet different. One the first is that each tends to put out similar strength 4 output (Crusaders have more but don’t have Plasma. Because Tide Squads are advancing so cannot use rapid Weaponry).

 

Assault Squads win on the mobility over the other two by far. But there Shooty ability is more in line with Grey Hunters espacially BA ones. But in contrast, there melee ability is far worse than either Crusaders or Hunters. Espacially Crusaders whom are closer in role. Notably put out same level of Chainswords, but also have 3 Power Weapons (Or a single Dead Marine).

 

But Assault Marines unlike either Crusaders or Grey Hunters can pull out and shoot. And can stay in combat and not lose effectiveness. But ultimately let’s be clear here.

 

An Assault Marine Squad is potentially equal or better to the gold standard. But they are COMPARABLE. To admittedly the two single best troop choices for space marines (well Intercessors are actually relatively similar to Hunters and Crusaders but going on). They aren’t a clear cut better.

 

That is is there ultimate issue. They are troop caliber unit in fast attack.

[SydonianDragoon404]

My problem with intercessors is, what are they going to hurt/kill? A few cultists or guardmen? Currently the only thing I use them for is to fill out a repulsor for my hellblasters. My tactical squads/crusader squads are always taking plasma, combi plasma, and heavy bolters at 5 men, because crusader squads can. The double plasma can reliably put the hurt on a variety of targets, and they fill a troop slot. The heavy bolter I take because its a cheap heavy weapon that can give me mortal wounds in a pinch. I dont see the same utility in an intercessor squad that only can ride in one form of transport. They die just as easy when they dont have a ride.

 

If I had a way of getting ten of them close to the enemy unmolested without wasting a repulsor on them I might consider taking a squad of veteran intercessors.

[GreyCrow]

My problem with intercessors is, what are they going to hurt/kill? A few cultists or guardmen? Currently the only thing I use them for is to fill out a repulsor for my hellblasters. My tactical squads/crusader squads are always taking plasma, combi plasma, and heavy bolters at 5 men, because crusader squads can. The double plasma can reliably put the hurt on a variety of targets, and they fill a troop slot. The heavy bolter I take because its a cheap heavy weapon that can give me mortal wounds in a pinch. I dont see the same utility in an intercessor squad that only can ride in one form of transport. They die just as easy when they dont have a ride.

 

If I had a way of getting ten of them close to the enemy unmolested without wasting a repulsor on them I might consider taking a squad of veteran intercessors.

 

why would you want them to kill anything?

 

They're objective parkers, other stuff is designed to do the killing!

[Ishagu]

Intercessors are intended to hunt other troops and capture objectives. They are good at those roles.

 

If you expect something more from them you are playing them wrong or are stuck in the wrong mentality. If you want plasma there's this other unit called Hellblasters. If you want lots of bolters there are Inceptors and Aggressors.

 

Guardsmen are amazing. You've heard of the loyal 32 I presume? Typically those guys don't kill a single model in a whole game.

[Panzer]

My problem with intercessors is, what are they going to hurt/kill? A few cultists or guardmen? Currently the only thing I use them for is to fill out a repulsor for my hellblasters. My tactical squads/crusader squads are always taking plasma, combi plasma, and heavy bolters at 5 men, because crusader squads can. The double plasma can reliably put the hurt on a variety of targets, and they fill a troop slot. The heavy bolter I take because its a cheap heavy weapon that can give me mortal wounds in a pinch. I dont see the same utility in an intercessor squad that only can ride in one form of transport. They die just as easy when they dont have a ride.

 

If I had a way of getting ten of them close to the enemy unmolested without wasting a repulsor on them I might consider taking a squad of veteran intercessors.

 

It also doesn't help to always think in extremes. Not every army you face is 60 Cultists or Knights. Unless you play on top tables you also often see T'au Firewarriors, Skitarii Rangers, other Marines and so on. With their AP-1 they are quite good against those (always keep in mind they are your Battleline units, not your fire support units so they aren't supposed to be the most killy units in your list in the first place) and with Sv3+ they go up to Sv2+ in cover which requires some serious shooting from your opponent to punch through which makes them annoying to deal with.

Now I'm not saying Intercessors are the best troop option in the game. That much is obvious. However they aren't terrible at all either. They just get outshined by the cheaper and infiltrating Scouts who also have a 2+ save in cover with cloaks.

 

You're listing Plasma as reason to take Tacticals, which is legit considering that Plasma is pretty much the best infantry weapon in the game and should be more expensive anyway imo, however unless your opponent shoots with Plasma or similar at your Intercessors they will be quite a bit more durable than Tacticals. Something which is quite important for their role as objective campers.

 

As for the Repulsor. It's a great tank, even more so if you take two or three, which just got a nice points drop as well. Taking one for your Intercessors is not a bad idea but if you don't want to use them for whatever reason then I can understand why you're unhappy with Intercessors.

[arigatous]

Intercessors are intended to hunt other troops and capture objectives. They are good at those roles.

 

5 man squad with no extra movement can't be good in objective capturing. By definition of objective capturing.

 

Also what troops besides Guards do you plan to hunt? Genestealers will probably hunt you instead. Cultists or Daemons won't even notice your hunt. T'au are too far away. Eldar/Drukhari will just kill everything in sight.

 

Scouts are unmatched. Even if intercessors were 14 points each, scouts would be strictly better.

[Ishagu]

 

 

Intercessors are intended to hunt other troops and capture objectives. They are good at those roles.

5 man squad with no extra movement can't be good in objective capturing. By definition of objective capturing.

 

Also what troops besides Guards do you plan to hunt? Genestealers will probably hunt you instead. Cultists or Daemons won't even notice your hunt. T'au are too far away. Eldar/Drukhari will just kill everything in sight.

If you sit down 5 Intercessors on an objective mid to late game your opponent will struggle to shift them.

 

Also are you taking only one squad?

 

I get the impression a lot of people are theory crafting without any actual experience with the unit.

 

5 Intercessors ARE far better at holding objectives than Scouts or Tacticals. Scouts have superior deployment rules but beyond that very limited ability or resilience.

 

Get some experience

[Panzer]

 

Intercessors are intended to hunt other troops and capture objectives. They are good at those roles.

 

5 man squad with no extra movement can't be good in objective capturing. By definition of objective capturing.

 

Also what troops besides Guards do you plan to hunt? Genestealers will probably hunt you instead. Cultists or Daemons won't even notice your hunt. T'au are too far away. Eldar/Drukhari will just kill everything in sight.

 

 

How are T'au too far away when they have literally the same range on their weapons? 

Also 5 man squads with no extra movement work well enough in objective capturing. They won't win the objective while hugging with Cultists, but once you've cleared out that objective with your Inceptors or Aggressors or Hellblaster or Repulsor and they sit on it they are hard enough to remove to do their job and their mobility comes from their transport as it has always been the case for most Troops.

[Ishagu]

Seems to me like some Primaris haters are attacking units without having play experience. Keep it out of the topic, chaps.

[Trevak Dal]

Their base gun is 30" with -1 AP, that tells me "troop hunter" with a side of "fire assistance". The 2 wounds and 3+ save tell me they are great at camping cover.

 

Tactical squads offer threat projection of infantry special or heavy weapons besides their concentrated units (sternguard or devestators and now hellblasters of course) but intecessors just seem like they would do it better (holding objectives), and their "transport" (I got 2, I'm not buying more because I don't want to be that guy who buys like 6 heldrakes and then "doop Dee Dee, rule of three" in a FAQ or something.) Which seems more capable of being more 'area denial/threat projection' as well as transport (and unaffected by being charged).

 

That's a lot of "come at me bro" that can hold 30"+ of space and theoretically push up if they have to, laying down dice as they do.

[Brother Crimson]

Seems to me like some Primaris haters are attacking units without having play experience. Keep it out of the topic, chaps.

To be honest he does have a point on scout. Their deployment gives a unique ability that can help a lot and that pretty much no other marine unit can give.

I love intercessor to camp backfield objectives but they don’t have the flexibility of scouts.

 

Maybe the new indomitus crusade special detachement will change my mind on this, but I’ll have to play it first.

[Ishagu]

Scouts are great however without turn 1 reserve drops their utility is not as necessary, imo. Still cheap enough and definitely good. I'm not convinced that they are mandatory anymore.

[Dracos]

No worries, I like the banter!

___

 

I understand that spam lists may not be what you 'like' to see, but that's objectively what this game is about.

 

The only armies that you can afford to run effectively without spam are Knights and Custodes.

 

Funnily enough, nobody has trouble when seeing spam daemon armies, spam Eldar armies or spam Necrons, or even spam Guard or spam Sisters. When it comes to Marines, everybody has a philosophical problem with this.

That's because everybody is confused by GW's statement that the Battle Company is the blueprint of what you should play to be competitive.

 

____

 

Mass is how the game is designed to be played.

 

Italicized by yours truly

 

I wouldn't say no one has "trouble" with it, but your spot on that it is hardly ever surprising and seems less frowned upon than Marines. Marines have a Codex full (some say bloated) with options other Codex do not have. Unlike the Eldar though there is a vastly smaller percentage of those units that would be worth spamming. (And hey look let's point drop all the bad Eldar units in CA18 :(). 

 

It's not popular but your right that if you want to be competitive (and I apologize because any time  I ever say competitive I mean tournament play) then Marines only hope is to find three(?) units that really work with your play style and load up for bear. 

 

Good news for those who prefer OldMarines is your options are more varied and cheaper than NuMarines for spamming preferred units. Like sPanzer says though, none of this will change the competitive meta. If it would you'd seen it already given we have the oldest most tested against codex.

 

I'm hoping the point drops means I can squeeze in another 5 man Plasma-Inceptor squad. I want to base the army around 20 Intercessors and 15 Hellblasters. I want to test where and how to get most effectiveness of either Aggressors and or Plasma-Inceptors as another spammed or support unit. I love the Aggressors for chaff but the Intercessors can fill that role for the most part. If Primaris had a cheap transport I'd just go for more Hellblasters of course.

[BrainFireBob]

Yo.

 

When I started Marines, in the long-long ago of 3rd, they were bottom-tier (Late '99). GreyCrow has forgotten the other three reasons Marines will always have an uphill struggle:

 

3) From the standpoint of opposing armies, all Marine variants die the same

4) Marines are the most popular army, so they will always be over-represented in tournaments (tailoring to fight marines makes strategic sense)

5) If it's good at killing Marines, it's decent at killing vehicles/tanks

 

Those have been immutable since I started playing.

 

Back then, for context, Space Wolves were good and Blood Angels were better. This meant that Vanilla Marines (which I played) and DA were at a disadvantage- we shared weaknesses but not strengths, and the meta was skewed toward exploiting those weaknesses.

 

My 2 cents won't work globally: Subvert the meta. I became very good at not making mistakes, and taking lists that subverted the expectations of other players.

 

Everyone knew Land Speeders sucked- so I took 3. They were cheap and super-mobile, you had to shoot the closest target, and they weren't subject to the "within 1" rule with other vehicles. Leman Russ templates scattered. You know what was good makeshift terrain? Parking a gunless Land Speeder right against the cannon of a Leman Russ battle tank. He had to hope it scattered away from the tank to take that shot. If he had two, and they were at least 6" apart, and you had two speeders, guess who could play "swap targets" and only take glancing hits? Find that kind of niche and Marines work.

 

I played heavily in 3rd-6th, only dabbled in 7th and am prepping for a return in 8th. But I found the most consistently successful strategy was the bolter horde during that time. 30-40 Tacticals were toast. 60 Tacticals that were in your opponent's grill as fast as you could get them there were a different story (Sometimes that meant walking behind a wall of Rhinos, sometimes that meant shooting 6 rhinos forward and shouting "I'm London!"). 10 assault marines sucked. 2 squads of 10 each lead by a Chaplain moving as a single unit? That got stuff done. Especially with meltabombs. ALWAYS TAKE THE MELTABOMBS in editions 3-6.

 

As point costs went back and forth, I sometimes replaced units with Scouts instead- you know what 10 BP/CC Scouts charging out of a LR, lead by a Chaplain, hits like?- but the principle was unchanged. I never wanted to shoot an opposing troop unit- Tacticals, CSMs, Dire Avengers, Fire Warriors- with less than 2.5 squads of firepower before engaging. Everyone I'm reading and hearing says that we've come full circle to those days.

 

The trick was to achieve localized numeric superiority based on the "tipping point" of concentrating Marines. Easier said than done, but I don't see any reason it wouldn't still work. Intercessors may even work better.   

 

EDIT: And this may pass without saying, but Rhinos are not transports. They're mobile terrain/LOS control. That troops can sometimes be carried in.

[Lemondish]

 

 

 

Intercessors are intended to hunt other troops and capture objectives. They are good at those roles.

5 man squad with no extra movement can't be good in objective capturing. By definition of objective capturing.

 

Also what troops besides Guards do you plan to hunt? Genestealers will probably hunt you instead. Cultists or Daemons won't even notice your hunt. T'au are too far away. Eldar/Drukhari will just kill everything in sight.

If you sit down 5 Intercessors on an objective mid to late game your opponent will struggle to shift them.

 

Also are you taking only one squad?

 

I get the impression a lot of people are theory crafting without any actual experience with the unit.

 

5 Intercessors ARE far better at holding objectives than Scouts or Tacticals. Scouts have superior deployment rules but beyond that very limited ability or resilience.

 

Get some experience

A lot of people theory craft from the perspective of only bringing one. That is patently absurd but easy to propagate. It's similar to disparaging the Repulsor under the auspices that if your opponent has the tools to handle a Knight, they can handle the Repulsor. As if that one Repulsor is your only high value, high toughness, high wound count target.

[justicarius6]

People understand they can't actually take 60 assault marines outside of narrative/open play, right?

[Kallas]

People understand they can't actually take 60 assault marines outside of narrative/open play, right?

Well, Rule of Three is an optional rule but it's used often enough competitively to make it a de facto standard.

[Indefragable]

 

 

Intercessors are intended to hunt other troops and capture objectives. They are good at those roles.

5 man squad with no extra movement can't be good in objective capturing. By definition of objective capturing.

 

Also what troops besides Guards do you plan to hunt? Genestealers will probably hunt you instead. Cultists or Daemons won't even notice your hunt. T'au are too far away. Eldar/Drukhari will just kill everything in sight.

If you sit down 5 Intercessors on an objective mid to late game your opponent will struggle to shift them.

 

Also are you taking only one squad?

 

I get the impression a lot of people are theory crafting without any actual experience with the unit.

 

5 Intercessors ARE far better at holding objectives than Scouts or Tacticals. Scouts have superior deployment rules but beyond that very limited ability or resilience.

 

Get some experience

 

 

 

Seems to me like some Primaris haters are attacking units without having play experience. Keep it out of the topic, chaps.

 

Seems to me like some Primaris sycophants are doing anything to justify their crushes.

 

Some of us have experience.

 

Some of us have played multiple games with Intercessors and have come to realize that they are not objectively better than any other option: they are a tool in the toolkit with pros and cons. They have double the wounds of a Tactical squad, so yes, sitting in cover with 10W and 2+ save against small arms can be "better" in some circumstances. But you're also paying 25-35pts more than a squad of naked Tacs or Scouts. With that cost savings you arguably invest more in attack units that eliminate and/or put pressure on the enemy, thus allowing your own cheap Objective holders to not take fire and thus serve their purpose (holding obj) longer.

 

It is always a trade off because cheap units can always get lucky and with ATSKNF, MSU helps them greatly.

 

Intercessors are also far less versatile: they have three different forms of small arms and an occasional 30" Krak grenade. Tacs can do the plas/comb-plas et al. Do the extra wounds of Intercessors and limited target profile make up for that lack of versatility? YMMV.

 

Check your fire.

[Jacques Corbin]

Agreed.

[arigatous]

Seems to me like some Primaris haters are attacking units without having play experience. Keep it out of the topic, chaps.

 

Can you please share the play experience from a serious tournament of 100+ players where multiple units of intercessors play an important role of hunting enemy troops and capturing objectives and thus helping their owner to climb to the top of the players list?

[CrimsonExarch]

I think a solid mix of scouts and Intercessors are the way forward now.

My go-to for a double batallion with Blood Angels involves 3x Bolter scouts with a HB in each squad and then 3x 5 man intercessors squads with a grenade launcher in each.
Its not too expensive. I was originally against all forms of primaris but Intercessors and bolter Inceptors have really grown on me over a league I have played at my LGS and that was before they got a little cheaper in CA.