Ishagu Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 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? Lol this is a pretty silly request and shows your lack personal experience with the units - the attitude of a scrub for all to see. I've said before - tournaments don't show which unit is good, only which unit is best. The most efficient choice is still Guardsmen allies. How many events have you partaken in? I personally have run Marines at GT and Major sized events and have finished with 3 or 4 wins out of 5 games played on multiple occasions. If you go back in this topic you'll see that I specifically point out that Marines are still not a top tier army that can conquer any situation or opposing list but an improved mid tier army. If you're concerned with Tournament statistics only I suggest you collect a different army entirely. My point is that Intercessors are a good Troop option for Marines - I would now argue they are the best option. I'm not saying that any Marine option is optimal for winning a tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Closet Skeleton Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 My honest opinion is that with these points drops 8th edition tactical marines are the best tactical marines have ever been and that anyone who thinks otherwise has some milk bottle thickness rose tinted glasses but marines are still a bad army inspite of that. 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. The marine stat line is not a problem. Eldar have way worse statlines. Tyranid warriors have a great statline but are a low tier tyranid unit, grotesques have an amazing statline and are a good unit yet are lower tier than Dark Reapers and Shining Spears. Its really only Orks that have a better core stat line and that's just because its a focused one, marines technically have better stats. Catachans will thrash marines in melee but that's because they have access to a ton of buffs that make the guard statline irrelevant. People understand they can't actually take 60 assault marines outside of narrative/open play, right? 30 assault marines and 30 vanguard, small difference. 60 Crusaders in rhinos? From my limit experience marine spam is pretty garbage this edition since you have to break cover to win games and you don't really need more than 10 marines in cover to hold something for a turn. Even with 80+ marines I get tabled by turn 3. Eldar are just plain faster than marines, that's why focus fire and terrain positioning is no answer to marines being overcosted. More terrain just makes Eldar and other glass cannon armies better. Playing marines is an uphill struggle because your choices are either to get outmaneuvered or take expensive bikes and transports so you will get outshot instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arigatous Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 How many events have you partaken in? I personally have run Marines at GT and Major sized events and have finished with 3 or 4 wins out of 5 games played on multiple occasions. If you go back in this topic you'll see that I specially point out that Marines are still not a top tier army that can conquer any situation or opposing list but an improved mid tier army. If you're concerned with Tournament statistics only I suggest you collect a different army entirely. My point is that Intercessors are a good Troop option for Marines - I would now argue they are the best option. I'm not saying that any Marine option is optimal for winning a tournament. Pal, I won my first tournament back in 1999 and the last one three weeks ago, so please leave that kind of attitude - like what army I should collect - for your kids and let's stick to the facts from now on :) The facts are as follows: 1. SM army as it is in 8th edition is a character delivery system (that is a direct quote from Nick Nanavati btw, which I fully agree with). Characters are essentially the best part of the Codexes, they are so good that we constantly see them as a part of a soup in top-tier armies. 2. Scouts are of an utter importance whenever we talk about delivery. Besides that they have an awesome ability to block enemy juggernauts delivery. Las but not least, since SM characters are already there, they act as the cheapest CP batteries. That is why we see them in the top tier lists as well. They are not there to hold objectives, they are there to die in order for your main units to play their role. 3. Any unit can hold an objective. If we're talking about objective in your deployment, there are usually units you want to stay in place - e.g. MW Dev squad, etc. If we're talking about objectives in the enemy deployment zone, they hardly reachable for the Intercessors. What we left with is an objective which is neither in deployment zones, nor in the center of the map and is not of an utter importance according to mission rules, so we potentially need a cheap Troops unit with the high survivability. That's a pretty rare case and not a big deal anyway. Now, based on that facts, the only use for the Intercessors in highly competitive games (which are indeed the balance benchmark) is to pay a Brigade tax, because you usually don't need more than several units of Scouts at all. It's not because they are good at what they do, it because tac marines do that even worse, so you're taking the "lesser evil" approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishagu Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 Hey man, you've come to your conclusion. Why are you even playing or discussing Marines? Go and play Guard with a Castellan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kallas Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 Hey man, you've come to your conclusion. Why are you even playing or discussing Marines? Go and play Guard with a Castellan! Because people can still consider something to be subpar and still want and try to enjoy it? I love Space Marines, I think they're damn cool and have done for 20 years. I still think they're generally pretty subpar. If I had the money I'd definitely have multiple armies so that I could pick and choose while certain things got brought up from the pits of despair or brought down from the lofty heights of being overpowered; but I can't afford that, so I went with the army I love the most. I have issue with them, certainly, and I want them to be made better - that doesn't mean I don't play them. You need to get off your high Primaris Hover Horse, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishagu Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 But that's not what he's talking about. There's complaints and a dismissal of units because they aren't the most efficient at a top competitive setting. If that is your top concern then move on to a different army. I'm sure a new codex might shake things up but in the meantime this isn't the army for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kallas Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 Arigatous was comparing the internal worth of Scouts/Intercessors/Tacticals with the general principle that Marines are a character delivery army (which I agree is what Marines are). Intercessors aren't necessarily bad, but they're relatively niche - they're not particularly offensive, they're a reactive, defensive unit but they don't synergise well with the offensive characters for the most part. Sure, if you're castling with Hellblasters they'll be fine! Anyway, there's still value in competitive Marines, but it's limited and harder to get work out of than other factions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishagu Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 And internally speaking, without turn 1 reserves the value of Scouts is diminished. This is why I rate Intercessors. For a modest point increase you have greater durability and offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLACK BLΠFLY Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 I think scouts still have their place plus GSC is right around the corner plus there is always the occasional daemonbomb too . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 Scouts definitely still have their place. Being able to contest objectives outside of your deployment zone before your turn begins and being in the way of your opponents infiltrating units is still huge. Also if your opponent wants to drop units turn 2 he still has to deal with those Scouts instead of your other units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arigatous Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 Besides deep strike, there are still enough options to throw something terrifying at your face at the very first turn. Say, a unit of 40 boyz is not exactly what you want to charge you. A Gallant running towards your positions at the speed of light is also not really your dream. Hell, if we're speaking mid-low tier even Grey Knights LRC full of angry marines can create a lot of problems. That is something scouts are perfectly capable to manage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Race Bannon Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 Ok. Personal points of view to another Frater can go to PM. This is an open discussion with the goal to constructively maintain dialog about the topic. ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arigatous Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 Hey man, you've come to your conclusion. Why are you even playing or discussing Marines? Go and play Guard with a Castellan! Every army has its star moments. I played Grey Knights (including the unit of Terminators) + AdMech soup - which is at the lowest possible tier now - at the recent local qualifier. Now with CA this list is almost 400 points cheaper. I went second all the time and won two games out of 3, losing the final one 9-11. All three of my opponents used morer or less top tier lists, you can find similar ones on bloodofkittens. I brought that exact list for a reason - tournament missions were heavily built around holding the objectives at the end of the game (and sometimes razing the ones in enemy deployment zone). Also the time limit was pretty low which in turn meant that games didn't go to the very end. That two factors were exactly what one needs to make GK shine. That is a good example of relativity of tiers. ITC is not the same as ETC which is again not the same as custom local tournament. But what ITC statistics brings to you is what units are the best in which common role. Smash captain has a role which he shines at. Scouts have a role which they shine at. Hellblasters have a role they are good at. Even Aggressors have a role they are good at - there was an alpha strike RG list based on a bunch of Aggressors which actually went 3rd at a major tournament :) But it is not the case for Intercessors. Almost every army has a unit which is better in holding objectives and Marines have a lot of units which are better at anything else Intercessors do. So for pure Marines army using Intercessors is an evil that they sometimes can't avoid which is clearly not the same as "they are good for this or that role". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLACK BLΠFLY Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 Sorry but there is no way you can justify a claim that a tactical squad is better than an Intercessor squad. I see that you like to game the missions which could explain your lack of understanding what is really good about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firepower Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 I have to wonder about statements of absolute certainty in a game that functions on random chance. Tacticals, Crusader Squads, and Intercessors are similar enough in function, purpose and ability that there is no undisputed, absolute victor in the rankings. Scouts are a different sort of animal because their role is very different. To the point of the topic, CA does help Space Marines, it's just that it helps other armies as well. Overall, I don't think a whole lot has changed in game wide balance, however if nothing else we get to bring more toys to the table at a time. Ultimately though, the problems with C:SM lies in its rules, stratagems, etc. It's the first dex of a new rule set. This always happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arigatous Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 Sorry but there is no way you can justify a claim that a tactical squad is better than an Intercessor squad. I see that you like to game the missions which could explain your lack of understanding what is really good about them. Of course there is no way to justify such a claim. Tactical squad is one of the worst troops ever as of today. I would honestly be very happy if Intercessors receive further buffs because these are truescale marines. I mean, the whole community were asking for true scale for many years. Now they are here, we all should dance instead of whining :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbienw Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 The whole community really? I’m sure you have some cast iron evidence to justify such a claim :lol: They aren’t actually truescale you know, they don’t match the proportions of the Primaris marines in the art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemondish Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 I have to wonder about statements of absolute certainty in a game that functions on random chance. Results of certain actions are random, but you can reduce the impact of that random factor. This is the first lesson one should learn before playing competitively. Games aren't just an elaborate coin flip - the decisions you make matter. It's absurd to say no statements can be made with certainty while holding the position the game is random. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighMarshalAmp Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Sorry but there is no way you can justify a claim that a tactical squad is better than an Intercessor squad. I see that you like to game the missions which could explain your lack of understanding what is really good about them. Of course there is no way to justify such a claim. Tactical squad is one of the worst troops ever as of today. I would honestly be very happy if Intercessors receive further buffs because these are truescale marines. I mean, the whole community were asking for true scale for many years. Now they are here, we all should dance instead of whining I have to wonder about statements of absolute certainty in a game that functions on random chance. Results of certain actions are random, but you can reduce the impact of that random factor. This is the first lesson one should learn before playing competitively. Games aren't just an elaborate coin flip - the decisions you make matter. It's absurd to say no statements can be made with certainty while holding the position the game is random. 40k is a game of averages. The best unit for a task in a certain group of units is the one that, because of its stats, averages out above the others in the same situation. There is one unfortunate fact: both in total and per point, an Intercessor Squad will last longer, dish out more damage against most targets and can have a longer range than a Tactical Squad. Very few situations give the Tac Squad with it's special/ heavy weapon options an edge. With their similar areas of use, Intercessors and Tac Squads need to be compared, and Tac Squads just come in second. But who's to say that you can't win a game using Tac Squads? I nearly got tabled by Tac Squads this WE, and I betcha I could have turned the tables if I had placed and played MY Tac Squads better. But if I wanted a better chance of kicking ass while playing exactly the same way, I'd have to take Intercessors. Wouldn't be a guarantee of winning, but I'd have better odds. Hence this: [...] people can still consider something to be subpar and still want and try to enjoy it? I had a ton of fun getting my Tac Squads tabled and Emperor willing, I'll have tons of fun winning with them again some time soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnkyHamHam Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 The whole community really? I’m sure you have some cast iron evidence to justify such a claim :lol: They aren’t actually truescale you know, they don’t match the proportions of the Primaris marines in the art. People should really start using quotes when referring to Primaris as truescale. They are NOT truescale. But they are probably "truescale." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemondish Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 The whole community really? I’m sure you have some cast iron evidence to justify such a claim :lol: They aren’t actually truescale you know, they don’t match the proportions of the Primaris marines in the art. People should really start using quotes when referring to Primaris as truescale. They are NOT truescale. But they are probably "truescale." Truerscale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spessmarine Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 if you want space marines viable and to play them competitively, you're gonna have to let the tacticals go the standard meq/teq statlines suck and gw doesn't seem particularly interested in bothering with any rule changes for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracos Posted December 12, 2018 Author Share Posted December 12, 2018 Whew, suddenly I feel need to apologize to the board. I let my sleep deprivation combined with frustration over the game mechanics of power armor and bolters put me in a bad place posting for a few days. I'm sincerely sorry. I believe 2018 CA has done what it can given company production schedules. I for one am going to adapt to what we have to work with and say a tiny prayer for fundamental changes in the next Codex(es?). Hopefully it will be a triumvirate of - Space Marine - Primaris Marine - and . . . . Black Legion Respect for everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbienw Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 The whole community really? I’m sure you have some cast iron evidence to justify such a claim :lol: They aren’t actually truescale you know, they don’t match the proportions of the Primaris marines in the art. People should really start using quotes when referring to Primaris as truescale. They are NOT truescale. But they are probably "truescale." Or maybe ‘slightly less heroic scale’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Or just don't give it some unfitting new description and leave it at "same old but better proportioned" if they really have to talk about it. ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.