Intercessors redundant already?

[Ishagu]

I feel like it should be mentioned, scouts are inferior to tactical marines only in the loss of an armor save, they can still deal the same damage (unless you count special weapons) because infiltrators do not have the same damage or range as the intercessor, I'm really getting depressed about them.

Why are you concerned about the damage? Scours have the same Bolter but an inferior save. Troops aren't the main damage dealers.

What's important here is that one options shouldn't be hands down better than another. But they still need a point reduction lol

[Panzer]

On the topic of Infiltrators... We don't need number crunching to see their problems:

 

1) very average killing potential.

 

2) Expensive points (even at reduced points of Intercessors).

 

 

Actually for their points I'd say their killing potential is very much below average. It's just Bolters with a tiny special rule that rarely is worth mentioning. I'd say that every unit in the game with a ranged weapon that's not a regular pistol has better killing potential for their points.

 

 

I don't care about them killing some high profile target - I'd much rather have dedicated units for that. It's how Eldar do it, and Eldar are the best lol

Nobody was arguing they should kill high profile targets though? They simply are worse than any alternative even against light infantry (aside of Assault Marines I guess). With 2 Bolter shots and 2 attacks they still struggle to kill a single Firewarrior/Skitarii Ranger but they cost three times as many points. One Infiltrator reliably kills one Guardsmen with shooting and then charging, but costs more than 5(!) times as much. It looks a little bit better against chaff like Cultists and Kroot but still not anywhere near good.

Fact is for how much they cost you could pretty much completely ignore their damage output and treat it like melee for T'au ... just charge them into something so it can't shoot the rest of your army but don't expect to do much damage with them.

That being said ironically they are only slightly better than Intercessors (not considering point costs) against some high profile targets. It's just not targets you want to shoot at with Bolter and relying on 6s is a terrible tactic lol

 

So the only real use Infiltrators have is in anything they bring to the table that's not killing related ... and there they simply fall short compared to Scouts. The only unique thing they have going for themselves is the 12" deep strike denial, however as an infiltrating unit and deep striked banned to turn 2-3 that's really not needed anymore.

[Lemondish]

The complaint is the cost of Infiltrators, even if reduced to Intercessor value, will be too expensive for what they can do compared to what other units can do. Why take this unit when you can take Intercessors? Because you want to push units that deep strike turn 2 or 3 a further 3"?

 

That's not worth superior Intercessors. Or cheaper Scouts.

Because progressive scoring encourages holding objectives from turn 1 and there's very few units in the pre-Shadowspear Primaris range that can make you choke up the middle of the board quite like Infiltrators can. Their costs are too high, that's true - but there's more value in what they bring than you're giving them credit for because they do not suffer from the absolute biggest knock on Intercessors - lack of mobility.

 

 

 

On the topic of Infiltrators... We don't need number crunching to see their problems:

 

1) very average killing potential.

 

2) Expensive points (even at reduced points of Intercessors).

 

Actually for their points I'd say their killing potential is very much below average. It's just Bolters with a tiny special rule that rarely is worth mentioning. I'd say that every unit in the game with a ranged weapon that's not a regular pistol has better killing potential for their points.

And I would say you should probably support that claim with data, otherwise it's just baseless hyperbole.

 

I notice people really seem to want to end the game in one turn...that seems odd to me.

[Panzer]

 

 

On the topic of Infiltrators... We don't need number crunching to see their problems:

 

1) very average killing potential.

 

2) Expensive points (even at reduced points of Intercessors).

Actually for their points I'd say their killing potential is very much below average. It's just Bolters with a tiny special rule that rarely is worth mentioning. I'd say that every unit in the game with a ranged weapon that's not a regular pistol has better killing potential for their points.

And I would say you should probably support that claim with data, otherwise it's just baseless hyperbole.

 

I notice people really seem to want to end the game in one turn...that seems odd to me.

 

 

I definitely don't want that but not wanting one thing and seeing the current state are two entirely different things.

 

You want me to support that claim with data? You really can't see how a basic Bolter on a 22p model is weaker than Autoguns on 6p models, Pulserifles on 7p models, Lasguns on 4p models, Bolter on cheaper Marines etc without having someone mathhammer it out for you?

Tell me what units you want the data from and I can send you a PM. Really, no problem. I think it's very pointless and a waste of time though. Bolter on Tacticals are considered weak. Bolter on even more expensive Primaris won't suddenly become good.

[Captain Idaho]

Scoring objectives is very important but then we come back to using Scouts if you want that 1st turn objective grab. Sure they won't last long but we're kidding ourselves if we think more expensive troops but just power armour models are going to last much longer.

 

It's also a much easier choice to focus on more expensive Infiltrators instead of other units than it is for Scouts. The Infiltrators are more costly thus losing them will impact you more - and they also are holding the objectives to boot.

 

***

 

If Tactical/basic Marines go down to 11/12pts a model, I can see a 15pt Infiltrator being acceptable. Maybe even 14pts if Marines are 11pts a model. (Scouts would obviously need to go to 9/10pts on that basis)

[MrZakalwe]

Scoring objectives is very important but then we come back to using Scouts if you want that 1st turn objective grab. Sure they won't last long but we're kidding ourselves if we think more expensive troops but just power armour models are going to last much longer.

 

 

Deployed into cover Infiltrators will take quite a bit of firepower to shift and most light anti infantry weapons are very weak against them. It will take more than you think to flush them out with clever deployment. 

[Captain Idaho]

I've never had trouble killing Intercessors above how much they cost as an investment. That's the point really - killing Infiltrators isn't as easy as Scouts but then it's not so hard either.

[Panzer]

Also if the opponent has trouble killing Infiltrators in cover he can simply place the objective markes outside of cover. Many successfull tournament players put quite a lot of thought into placing objective markers and are of the opinion that it's about as important as the list building and makes you win games if done right.

[MrZakalwe]

Also if the opponent has trouble killing Infiltrators in cover he can simply place the objective markes outside of cover. Many successfull tournament players put quite a lot of thought into placing objective markers and are of the opinion that it's about as important as the list building and makes you win games if done right.

 

The Chapter approved 2018 missions tend to be a fair bit more restrictive on where objectives can be placed. 

[Lemondish]

 

 

Also if the opponent has trouble killing Infiltrators in cover he can simply place the objective markes outside of cover. Many successfull tournament players put quite a lot of thought into placing objective markers and are of the opinion that it's about as important as the list building and makes you win games if done right.

The Chapter approved 2018 missions tend to be a fair bit more restrictive on where objectives can be placed.

Exactly this.

[Panzer]

 

Also if the opponent has trouble killing Infiltrators in cover he can simply place the objective markes outside of cover. Many successfull tournament players put quite a lot of thought into placing objective markers and are of the opinion that it's about as important as the list building and makes you win games if done right.

 

The Chapter approved 2018 missions tend to be a fair bit more restrictive on where objectives can be placed. 

 

 

Only the Eternal War ones and only 5 of them so the majority is just the usual "place anywhere as long as it's 12" away from another marker and 6" away from the battlefield edge".

[MrZakalwe]

Ahh I don't really play much Maelstrom (why add random win conditions to a dice game?) so it's normally 5 out of 6 for me. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Objective markers are mostly fixed in the ITC Missions too.

[momerathe]

 

 

 

On the topic of Infiltrators... We don't need number crunching to see their problems:

 

1) very average killing potential.

 

2) Expensive points (even at reduced points of Intercessors).

Actually for their points I'd say their killing potential is very much below average. It's just Bolters with a tiny special rule that rarely is worth mentioning. I'd say that every unit in the game with a ranged weapon that's not a regular pistol has better killing potential for their points.

 

And I would say you should probably support that claim with data, otherwise it's just baseless hyperbole.

 

I notice people really seem to want to end the game in one turn...that seems odd to me.

 

 

I definitely don't want that but not wanting one thing and seeing the current state are two entirely different things.

 

You want me to support that claim with data? You really can't see how a basic Bolter on a 22p model is weaker than Autoguns on 6p models, Pulserifles on 7p models, Lasguns on 4p models, Bolter on cheaper Marines etc without having someone mathhammer it out for you?

Tell me what units you want the data from and I can send you a PM. Really, no problem. I think it's very pointless and a waste of time though. Bolter on Tacticals are considered weak. Bolter on even more expensive Primaris won't suddenly become good.

 

Just to back this up, I have a spreadsheet I use for my own theorycrafting that graphs "points per wound dealt" vs. "points lost per hit recieved" (based on a bunch of mostly arbitrary criteria ). Infiltrators shooting is so bad, so much worse than any other unit I considered, that I had to extend the x-axis just to fit them on.

[GreyCrow]

@momerath :

 

Very interesting, can you share that spreadsheet please?

If we go purely shooting, I agree that Infiltrators are not in the best spot. What makes their difference is the Turn 1 shoot and charge potential.

[Captain Idaho]

I don't think anyone is scared of 11 WS3+, S4 attacks first turn.

 

The only reason to justify Infiltrators is an expensive screen and if you throw them away at the opponent you'll just waste them. And what are you charging so effortlessly without an opponent's own screens preventing it?

 

;)

[GreyCrow]

I don't think anyone is scared of 11 WS3+, S4 attacks first turn.

 

The only reason to justify Infiltrators is an expensive screen and if you throw them away at the opponent you'll just waste them. And what are you charging so effortlessly without an opponent's own screens preventing it?

 

 

That's 5 guys, Idaho. As discussed, for anything in 40k you need mass. Only a fool would just use 5 Infiltrators upfront, and deserves to lose. :P

 

They did not design the units to operate independently. They designed units to be used to combine with other units. And GW did a horrible job at explaining this with players.

 

40k is not a game where you can maneuver and adapt as the battle goes, due to how movement and ranges work. Ranges being more important than movements means that you have to look at everything on the table as a target and a threat.

 

That's why you need mass. Because as soon as they are on the board, they are already commited to the battle.

[momerathe]

@momerath :

 

Very interesting, can you share that spreadsheet please?

This is the chart (sblocked for size).

Be aware that it is chock-full of assumptions, from the range of targets (infantry) to the weapons the unit is shot with (this version includes plasma which shifts most primaris units upwards). It assumes the use of no stratagems, buff characters or anything else like that (which is why firewarriors aren't much further to the left than where they are). It also rather optimistically assumes that necrons always get their WBB roll. Rapid fire weapons count as ROF 1.5, except for Astartes where it counts as 2 (beta bolters). It also doesn't take range into account.

[Panzer]

What does PLPH stand for?

 

EDIT: Nevermind, I re-read your earlier post. It's Points-Lost-Per-Hit-Received. Against which kind of targets did you do the PPW part? Or is that an average against multiple different targets?

[momerathe]

Average of GEQ, T3/4+, and MEQ. I considered adding TEQ in to the average, but really how many termies do you see? Arbitrary, I know, but I had to draw the line somewhere.

 

PLPH is an average of lasgun, bolter, heavy bolter and overcharged plasma.

[GreyCrow]

Thanks friend, can you do potential damage on turn 1 including charge if they have deployment options like Scouts and infiltrators ?

[The Unseen]

Taking a lot of bad units to "mass them" doesn't suddenly make them good greycrow.

I'll pit my scouts with pistols and blades and backfield intercessors vs infiltrators any day.

 

Infiltrators would need to cost way way less than 2 complete scouts to be in any way viable, like, probably 1.5 scouts.

 

That's a neat chart, momerathe, and it's a great visual representation of just how over costed infiltrators are, especially compared to scouts, who seem to be running middle of the pack for points effeciency even with their ability to infiltrate.

[GreyCrow]

Thanks friend, can you do potential damage on turn 1 including charge if they have deployment options like Scouts and infiltrators ?

[GreyCrow]

Taking a lot of bad units to "mass them" doesn't suddenly make them good greycrow.

I'll pit my scouts with pistols and blades and backfield intercessors vs infiltrators any day.

 

Infiltrators would need to cost way way less than 2 complete scouts to be in any way viable, like, probably 1.5 scouts.

 

That's a neat chart, momerathe, and it's a great visual representation of just how over costed infiltrators are, especially compared to scouts, who seem to be running middle of the pack for points effeciency even with their ability to infiltrate.

That’s actually the point of army building and strategy.

Massing Force, while not caring too much about the losses.

 

You build an army that works as a system that will inflict damage and take losses.

Games Workshop sells pieces of this system.

 

They don’t sell standalone good or bad units.

 

Besides, what the freak is a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ unit in absolute ? NONE, it’s all relative to what you value.

 

If you want, we can have a Vassal game an evening next week. i’ll Play Infiltratos against whatever you want to field :D

[The Unseen]

Thanks friend, can you do potential damage on turn 1 including charge if they have deployment options like Scouts and infiltrators ?

Umm

Yeah?

Scouts do more damage than infiltrators for the points you spend, especially when theyre blood angels with blades.

Intercessors deployed in a good spot have a 30" threat range with the beta bolter rule.

Death Company use Forlorn Fury turn 1 and mulch something, scout bikers use 14" of movement with stormbolters/shotguns/blades to clear infantry screens, mm attack bikes target vehicles or run interference against infantry, and double dev squads hammer fire into stuff I don't want to deal with in melee.

Turn 2 a captain, and either sanguinary guard/vanguard/2nd DC unit use Descent of Angels to take out biggest target opponent has.

 

All my common lists do is hammer the opponent early to seize board control, and then uses multiple melee units to tie up shooting threats to maintain said board control.

When playing competetively, I strive to end games in my 2nd melee phase, and it usually works.

After that, I'm either mopping up what remains and racking up objective points, or the reverse is happening to me.

You know, that thing infiltrators should be good at, but aren't because they cost way to much and can't threaten anything.

 

And tbf, I understand some of those tactics don't apply to codex marines, but I also can't bring a Gman blob, which seems to be what your recommending.