Tacs vs Intercessors (new codex mathhammer)

[Drudge Dreadnought]

So the new codex is here, but what will it actually mean for marine troops choices? Marine infantry has been in a poor place for a long time due to generally poor offense and defense, and the fact that its easily wiped off the board by plasma, and even weapons that are typically considered to be anti horde (heavy bolters, punisher russes). But now the new chapter traits will give them a lot more defense, there's been some points changes, and increases to offensive power from the new Combat Doctrine system. Lots of people seem to be thinking that Old Marines are out and that the reign of Primaris will now be beginning, so I thought it'd be interesting to run the numbers on Intercessors vs the humble Tactical marine and see how they shake out both at killing each other, and at killing other common targets.

 

Let's keep in mind these changes from the new codex:

- Tactical marines are now 12 points

- All rapidfire and assault weapons can get ap-1 starting turn 2 (turn 1 its all heavy weapons) from Combat Doctrines

- Auto Bolt Rifles went up to Assault 3 (they still cost 1 pt, putting Intercessors to 18)

- Ultramarines count as having not moved when in Tactical Doctrine, thus always getting Bolter Discipline and no heavy weapon penalties to hit.

 

Here's some numbers comparing two plasma heavy tactical squads with an equivalent amount of intercessors. Note that there's basically no reason to take a ten man squad when you can take 2 5 man squads and get an extra weapon, and extra melee special weapon. So pay more attention to the second Column for tacs. Also note that this is showing damage, not kills. So for multiwound models, you need to divide the first column by the number of wounds the model has.

 

 

Conclusions:

 

1) Wow those tacs actually do a lot of damage now! Plasma hasn't changed of course, but the plasma guns are getting an extra -1 ap from Tactical Doctrine, which means they completely ignore 3+ saves. And now the Bolters actually can kill. Intercessors cost another 50% more than tacs, but once you factor in the cost of special/heavy weapons, these two unit types even out quite well.

 

2) The Auto Bolt Rifle intercessors can overtake the tacs at killing Guardsmen and Boyz due to their new 3rd shot. The Auto Bolt Rifle massively outperforms the Bolt Rifle now too, even being slightly better than the Bolt Rifle vs heavier targets. But you lose range, which could easily mean a full turn of shooting lost.

 

3) The Bolt Rifle Intercessors will do their full damage out to 30" (even when moving if Ultramarines). The Tacs need to get into rapidfire range to bring the plasma to bear. But will still do decently at 24".

 

4) The intercessors are basically only good against infantry, whereas the tacs can threaten literally anything.

 

5) If the tacs took plasma cannons instead of guns, then they'd have more range, and those would benefit from the Devastator Doctrine's -1 ap turn 1. It would trade firepower turn 2 and beyond for more firepower turn 1. Good for Objective Camper squads too.

 

6) The intercessors have about double wounds for the same squad price, but are also vulnerable to d2 weapons. And as models are lost, they lose firepower in a linear way. But the tacs have most of their firepower packed into the plasma users, so they can lose several models before it changes much. Overall, these units are actually going to have similar levels of durability and efficiency on the battlefield because of this (unless your opponent brings either no d2, or a huge amount of it).

 

7) The intercessors have an extra 50% attacks in melee in the first round, or 100% more second round. So they are far better in melee than the tacticals. But they still aren't great there unless you get to Assault Doctrine on turn 3, in which case they'll do okay, but still not likely to measure up against dedicated melee units. With melee focused Chapter Traits they'd be pretty nasty.

 

8) If tacs took Grav instead of Plasma you'd have similar results vs infantry but with less risk and slightly higher cost, but they wouldn't be as much of a threat to heavy armor.

 

9) The Tacticals will absolutely obliterate the Intercessors at close ranges, and perhaps even at 24".

 

Anyone have any other conclusions to draw from this? Did I make any math mistakes?

 

Overall, I'm thinking this means that the day of the humble Tactical Marine is far from over. You'll need a way to get them into range to deliver their plasma, but Rhinos just got a points drop, and Drop Pods can drop turn 1 again, so that might actually work out. Intercessors will have a solid role being able to threaten infantry at long range and be durable vs small arms too. We may see a meta where both these units actually have their uses!

[Raktra]

Honestly making me rethink my list foundation. I’ve around 60 transferrable Tactical-esque models from Heresy I was gonna leave by the wayside given how good an Iron Hands Intercessor is, but this might sway me to save the money.

[Tamiel]

A few things I've noticed about the direction that space marines are going:

1. We're gonna have to get into melee a lot more now to make use of our new gifts. The shock assault rule and the assault doctrine alone are too good to pass up (and things like the new Standard of Macragge make going into melee even better). Even our shooty units, like intercessors and tacticals, should genuinely be trying to get into melee sooner or later. We're no longer "Guard with power armour" and the people who begin to understand this quickly are going to have an easier time than the marine players who want to play as if they're just guard.

2. Stratagems are beginning to matter too much to pass up. While Tac Marines have better transport options (like being able to deep strike turn 1) and are better at hiding a plasma gun or two, Intercessors have far better stratagem support. We have a 2CP stratagem that lets a squad of intercessors (best used on a ten man squad) fire twice. A 10man squad of ultramarines gets to fire 40 times when they are in tac doctrine, for 2CP. We also have another stratagem that lets intercessors (I believe) auto wound enemies on hit rolls of 6s in melee. Being able to auto wound high toughness targets just based on rolling a 6 to hit is good, and I think it costs 1cp. On top of that, we have another stratagem where a primaris squad cannot be wounded on a wound roll of 2 or 3, making a 10man squad pretty much impervious even against knight shooting. Long story short, Intercessors, especially the bolt rifle ones, still seem the most favourable to me. They are slightly worse in terms of raw points, but have some of the best stratagems in our codex.

I think the purpose of Tactical marines now is to be used specifically as transport soldiers. You drop pod somewhere, or camp an objective with a smoke grenade rhino filled with tacs. I don't think having one or two plasma guns is worth giving up the insane shooting potential intercessors have with the right CP backing them up. And in melee, it's not even a question. Intercessors are better general soldiers (especially footsloggers), while tactical marines are more niche and usually revolve around their ability to have good transports. To this day, the rhino (and now the drop pod, with its unique ability to drop in on turn 1) are some of the best transports in the game.

Instead of trying to compete with Intercessors on what they're good at (just straight up murdering anything short of a heavy tank, assuming you have a couple of CP for them), Tac marines should be used for their unique niche role that Intercessors can't do at all: cheap and effective transports. Compare a drop pod and an impulsor. Impulsor carries 6 primaris marines, drop pod caries 10 regular marines. Primaris just can't compete on the transport assault field. That's where tacitcal marines shine, in my eyes.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

A few things I've noticed about the direction that space marines are going:

1. We're gonna have to get into melee a lot more now to make use of our new gifts. The shock assault rule and the assault doctrine alone are too good to pass up (and things like the new Standard of Macragge make going into melee even better). Even our shooty units, like intercessors and tacticals, should genuinely be trying to get into melee sooner or later. We're no longer "Guard with power armour" and the people who begin to understand this quickly are going to have an easier time than the marine players who want to play as if they're just guard.

2. Stratagems are beginning to matter too much to pass up. While Tac Marines have better transport options (like being able to deep strike turn 1) and are better at hiding a plasma gun or two, Intercessors have far better stratagem support. We have a 2CP stratagem that lets a squad of intercessors (best used on a ten man squad) fire twice. A 10man squad of ultramarines gets to fire 40 times when they are in tac doctrine, for 2CP. We also have another stratagem that lets intercessors (I believe) auto wound enemies on hit rolls of 6s in melee. Long story short, Intercessors, especially the bolt rifle ones, still seem the most favourable to me. They are slightly worse in terms of raw points, but have some of the best stratagems in our codex.

 

I think the purpose of Tactical marines now is to be used specifically as transport soldiers. You drop pod somewhere, or camp an objective with a smoke grenade rhino filled with tacs. I don't think having one or two plasma guns is worth giving up the insane shooting potential intercessors have with the right CP backing them up. And in melee, it's not even a question. Intercessors are better general soldiers, while tactical marines are more niche and usually revolve around their ability to have good transports. To this day, the rhino (and now the drop pod, with its unique ability to drop in on turn 1) are some of the best transports in the game.

 

Instead of trying to compete with Intercessors on what they're good at (just straight up murdering anything short of a heavy tank, assuming you have a couple of CP for them), Tac marines should be used for their unique niche role that Intercessors can't do at all: cheap and effective transports. Compare a drop pod and an impulsor. Impulsor carries 6 primaris marines, drop pod caries 10 regular marines. Primaris just can't compete on the armored troop assault field. That's where tacitcal marines shine, in my eyes.

 

I agree overall, but man those strats get expensive fast, and you can only use them on one unit a turn each. You'll definitely want a couple intercessor squads. But after that, then what?

 

Also keep in mind that even with those strats, intercessors still aren't great against anything above t4.

[ERJAK]

A few things I've noticed about the direction that space marines are going:

1. We're gonna have to get into melee a lot more now to make use of our new gifts. The shock assault rule and the assault doctrine alone are too good to pass up (and things like the new Standard of Macragge make going into melee even better). Even our shooty units, like intercessors and tacticals, should genuinely be trying to get into melee sooner or later. We're no longer "Guard with power armour" and the people who begin to understand this quickly are going to have an easier time than the marine players who want to play as if they're just guard.

2. Stratagems are beginning to matter too much to pass up. While Tac Marines have better transport options (like being able to deep strike turn 1) and are better at hiding a plasma gun or two, Intercessors have far better stratagem support. We have a 2CP stratagem that lets a squad of intercessors (best used on a ten man squad) fire twice. A 10man squad of ultramarines gets to fire 40 times when they are in tac doctrine, for 2CP. We also have another stratagem that lets intercessors (I believe) auto wound enemies on hit rolls of 6s in melee. Being able to auto wound high toughness targets just based on rolling a 6 to hit is good, and I think it costs 1cp. On top of that, we have another stratagem where a primaris squad cannot be wounded on a wound roll of 2 or 3, making a 10man squad pretty much impervious even against knight shooting. Long story short, Intercessors, especially the bolt rifle ones, still seem the most favourable to me. They are slightly worse in terms of raw points, but have some of the best stratagems in our codex.

 

I think the purpose of Tactical marines now is to be used specifically as transport soldiers. You drop pod somewhere, or camp an objective with a smoke grenade rhino filled with tacs. I don't think having one or two plasma guns is worth giving up the insane shooting potential intercessors have with the right CP backing them up. And in melee, it's not even a question. Intercessors are better general soldiers, while tactical marines are more niche and usually revolve around their ability to have good transports. To this day, the rhino (and now the drop pod, with its unique ability to drop in on turn 1) are some of the best transports in the game.

 

Instead of trying to compete with Intercessors on what they're good at (just straight up murdering anything short of a heavy tank, assuming you have a couple of CP for them), Tac marines should be used for their unique niche role that Intercessors can't do at all: cheap and effective transports. Compare a drop pod and an impulsor. Impulsor carries 6 primaris marines, drop pod caries 10 regular marines. Primaris just can't compete on the armored troop assault field. That's where tacitcal marines shine, in my eyes.

To address the OPs mathhammer, including reroll 1s to hit is a hyper inflation of plasma's value that is not at all representative of how Tac marines with plasma would actually be used. You're not going to bring plasma tacs for your center blob so long as Hellblasters, Devs, and Sternguard exist(as well as the new infiltrators) and you're sure as hell not investing almost 100pts in characters to give TAC SQUADS rerolls. You could buy an entire 'nother squad with that amount of points.

 

 

1. Nah. You're not trying to get into melee because even on the charge, with assault doctrine you still don't kill anything that wouldn't be killed just as easily at 24" with tactical doctrine bolters. The bonuses to melee are good for when things charge YOU or for when you need a teensy bit extra to clear chaff off of objectives. Actively trying to fight things is still a pretty pointless endeavor, especially if they survive past that first turn and you're back to 0AP slapfights again. Don't suddenly start rhino rushing tacticals forward for their leet pwnzor melee abilities because it's only slightly less terrible of an idea than it was before.

 

Now making an actual melee focused space marine army is different, you have just enough stats now that a significant investment in things that are actually good at melee(and not charging intercessors with delusions of granduer) might actually just reward you with some pretty significant damage out of deepstrike or infiltrate.

 

2. You still won't see drop pods very often and putting Tac marines in one is list suicide when Sternguard, Devs, and Centurions still exist. Rhinos are still not worth their points and tax marines(deliberate) don't offer anywhere near enough utility or value for their 12ppm to be worth investing another 70+ points in. Also, plasma guns are absolute suicide(or hilariously overcosted) without a captain's reroll aura for backup. 

 

No the rhino and the drop pod are not anywhere near close to the best transports in the game. They're not even good. They're pinatas full of delicious marine candy for most armies which is why you NEVER see Rhinos in competitive lists anymore. Drop pods were easily the WORST transport in the game and even first turn deepstrike only took them up to 'maybe not actively detrimental to my chances of winning? Maybe?' You'll see people cram Grav Centurions with Tiggy in them to relive the old Centurion Star glory days and that'll be about it. 

 

I play Sisters of battle. My Transports are the same price and chassis as yours but MINE have a 4++ invul save and SCOUT. I do not take them because they are terrible and die super fast every game leaving your infantry sitting out in the middle of nowhere with their butts in the wind. Transport based lists require heavy investment because you need target saturation. You need to be able to overload your opponent's anti-armor in order to ensure that you'll be able to have enough of the transports survive long enough to deliver their payload to actually do significant damage to your opponent. In my experience at least 5 transports are necessary to ensure 2-3 can make it in to range. That's 700pts you'd be investing just in bodies to get maybe 180pts of tac marine where they want to go. If you actually want them to do anything when they get there then you need character support, special weapons, long range fire support, etc. That is WAY too much investment into a unit that kills 3 unbuffed intercessors per turn under perfect conditions.

 

You wanna know what tac marines are actually going to be useful for? Cheap CP for lists that want to keep combat doctrines AND have 3+(2+ in cover) chaff. Take 3 min squads with no weapon upgrades and sit them on objectives the entire game.

[GrinNfool]

While I like the breakdown you did it only tells part of the story as with anything like this.  Tacs can outperform intercessors in damage, quite true due to the special weapons available to them.  However you say the tacs would handily take down a squad of intercessors, this is quite unlikely just due to the 2 wounds.  You talk as though 2 damage weapons are litterally everywhere when making these assessments, and while they aren't super uncommon, neither are they everywhere.  Vs guard/crons/more aeldari infantry (of all types)/Tau (especially vs tau) 2 wounds is a real big kicker, every unsaved wound matters for tacs, not the case for intercessors, takes 4 wounds to put much of a dent in their effectiveness, 4 wounds vs a tac squad and the unit is reduced to nothing.  You are also always overcharging there, so 1/36 per shot to lose a plasma gun, so if you are double tapping 2 plasmas thats not as uncommon as you might think.  I also have scions and run 4 man plasma commands, and with rerolls you still lose guys more than you would like.  I am certainly not deterring tacs, as I do think they have uses, as you pointed out they are generally better at threatening ALL targets, and tend to have a bit more offensive output due to special weapon options.

 

I stand by the opinion I have always had when looking at primaris vs tacs, it depends on 2 things, your local meta, and what you want out of the unit.  To me personally it just comes down to what you want the unit to do because you can set up a list to get it to work.  Troops in general though aren't the best for killing, their main role is to survive, and intercessors tend to do that better.

 

Edit: @erjak posted while I typed this, but I do agree with you on the drop pods.... with a minor caveat.  2 drop pods even not putting anything in it CAN have merit now that they can arrive turn 1.  Just using them as a wall, not a troop delivery system.  As an example you get to go first vs a nid list, you drop 2 drop pods with doors open infront of his melee Gene stealer blob, the doors count as part of the model, and you basically get to create a foot+ long wall they have to go around, works vs orks or anything.  Basically treat them like Aeldari used to treat their flyers, before they get FAQd.  Has merit for blocking getting to an objective, or protecting a forward deployed unit etc.  Not saying 130 points for that is good, but at least its a use for them, I don't think dropping a unit is honestly worth it in general some exceptions I am sure.

[Lemondish]

No the rhino and the drop pod are not anywhere near close to the best transports in the game. They're not even good. They're pinatas full of delicious marine candy for most armies which is why you NEVER see Rhinos in competitive lists anymore. Drop pods were easily the WORST transport in the game and even first turn deepstrike only took them up to 'maybe not actively detrimental to my chances of winning? Maybe?' You'll see people cram Grav Centurions with Tiggy in them to relive the old Centurion Star glory days and that'll be about it.

 

I was following along with interest until you jumped into the insane realm of hyperbole and exaggeration. A pity because I thought maybe you were going to get to a point :(

[ERJAK]

To be fair, no one who is in support of tacticals or Intercessors has supplied any data beyond how they relate to each other either. Saying anything more than '10 tac marines with full plasma and captain rerolls does 1.43 more wounds to genestealers than 9 intercessors' isn't supported by the data either.

 

Even the OP's very first bullet point (wow tacs do a lot of damage) isn't actually supported by the data. There's not enough information about the rest of the models in the codex, let alone the rest of the game, to say that tac marines do 'a lot of damage'. You can say that under the specified conditions(rapid fire range, captain rerolls, etc) they do more damage than intercessors against most targets, but that's it.

 

2 and 3 are supported, 4 is subjective based on how you define 'threaten', 5 is a subjective assessment of value, 6 is spitballing and doesn't account for the fact that your plasma can still kill you, 7 is half data half subjective assessment of value, 8 is data driven but doesn't support any particular thesis, 9 is based off an ideal scenario and is agnostic to actual play conditions so ends up being entirely subjective even with relevant data present.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

They are still a good choice for Templars assuming you can still field five man tactical squad equivalents each with a lascannon and plasma gun but they aren’t great either. The current meta has invalidated what made them extremely effective.

[templargdt]

So the new codex is here, but what will it actually mean for marine troops choices? Marine infantry has been in a poor place for a long time due to generally poor offense and defense, and the fact that its easily wiped off the board by plasma, and even weapons that are typically considered to be anti horde (heavy bolters, punisher russes). But now the new chapter traits will give them a lot more defense, there's been some points changes, and increases to offensive power from the new Combat Doctrine system. Lots of people seem to be thinking that Old Marines are out and that the reign of Primaris will now be beginning, so I thought it'd be interesting to run the numbers on Intercessors vs the humble Tactical marine and see how they shake out both at killing each other, and at killing other common targets.

 

Let's keep in mind these changes from the new codex:

- Tactical marines are now 12 points

- All rapidfire and assault weapons can get ap-1 starting turn 2 (turn 1 its all heavy weapons) from Combat Doctrines

- Auto Bolt Rifles went up to Assault 3 (they still cost 1 pt, putting Intercessors to 18)

- Ultramarines count as having not moved when in Tactical Doctrine, thus always getting Bolter Discipline and no heavy weapon penalties to hit.

 

Here's some numbers comparing two plasma heavy tactical squads with an equivalent amount of intercessors. Note that there's basically no reason to take a ten man squad when you can take 2 5 man squads and get an extra weapon, and extra melee special weapon. So pay more attention to the second Column for tacs. Also note that this is showing damage, not kills. So for multiwound models, you need to divide the first column by the number of wounds the model has.

 

 

Conclusions:

 

1) Wow those tacs actually do a lot of damage now! Plasma hasn't changed of course, but the plasma guns are getting an extra -1 ap from Tactical Doctrine, which means they completely ignore 3+ saves. And now the Bolters actually can kill. Intercessors cost another 50% more than tacs, but once you factor in the cost of special/heavy weapons, these two unit types even out quite well.

 

2) The Auto Bolt Rifle intercessors can overtake the tacs at killing Guardsmen and Boyz due to their new 3rd shot. The Auto Bolt Rifle massively outperforms the Bolt Rifle now too, even being slightly better than the Bolt Rifle vs heavier targets. But you lose range, which could easily mean a full turn of shooting lost.

 

3) The Bolt Rifle Intercessors will do their full damage out to 30" (even when moving if Ultramarines). The Tacs need to get into rapidfire range to bring the plasma to bear. But will still do decently at 24".

 

4) The intercessors are basically only good against infantry, whereas the tacs can threaten literally anything.

 

5) If the tacs took plasma cannons instead of guns, then they'd have more range, and those would benefit from the Devastator Doctrine's -1 ap turn 1. It would trade firepower turn 2 and beyond for more firepower turn 1. Good for Objective Camper squads too.

 

6) The intercessors have about double wounds for the same squad price, but are also vulnerable to d2 weapons. And as models are lost, they lose firepower in a linear way. But the tacs have most of their firepower packed into the plasma users, so they can lose several models before it changes much. Overall, these units are actually going to have similar levels of durability and efficiency on the battlefield because of this (unless your opponent brings either no d2, or a huge amount of it).

 

7) The intercessors have an extra 50% attacks in melee in the first round, or 100% more second round. So they are far better in melee than the tacticals. But they still aren't great there unless you get to Assault Doctrine on turn 3, in which case they'll do okay, but still not likely to measure up against dedicated melee units. With melee focused Chapter Traits they'd be pretty nasty.

 

8) If tacs took Grav instead of Plasma you'd have similar results vs infantry but with less risk and slightly higher cost, but they wouldn't be as much of a threat to heavy armor.

 

9) The Tacticals will absolutely obliterate the Intercessors at close ranges, and perhaps even at 24".

 

Anyone have any other conclusions to draw from this? Did I make any math mistakes?

 

Overall, I'm thinking this means that the day of the humble Tactical Marine is far from over. You'll need a way to get them into range to deliver their plasma, but Rhinos just got a points drop, and Drop Pods can drop turn 1 again, so that might actually work out. Intercessors will have a solid role being able to threaten infantry at long range and be durable vs small arms too. We may see a meta where both these units actually have their uses!

Great analysis, nice to see that the numbers show that Tacticals still have game.  Thank you for doing this work for the Community.  

[Captain Idaho]

=][= First and only warning in this thread - keep your posts constructive and on topic. I've pruned a rather unconstructively post that a less trusting Mod might assume was trolling. If you're going to comment, ensure it's constructive. If you don't agree that's fine, but make sure you explain why, politely and within the bounds of the rules. =][=

[Captain Idaho]

Regarding the topic...

 

I haven't checked the numbers (gives my brain a head ache...) but it seems like the conclusions are quite interesting read for my break, thank you.

 

I've already came to the conclusion that the Devastator and Tactical Doctrines make Tactical Marines quite effective.

 

A squad with Heavy Bolter or what have you can start outside of a transport and contribute to the firepower of your first turn. AP-2 is very effective on a Heavy Bolter, whilst Missile Launchers get AP-1 Frag missiles or Lascannon effectiveness against everything T7 or less!

 

Likewise, being able to jump out of a Rhino and put even just AP-1 Flamers on enemies with a combi and special will be nice. I like my plasma death squad so a combi and special plasma followed up with a (now cheaper) Grav Cannon will make a splash too for relatively modest cost whilst contributing numbers to an attacking force and using up a Troops slot.

 

Intercessor squads are still the beasts we know and love, but don't take advantage of the Devastator Doctrine enough for my style.

 

Which is great, because there is a genuine difference in the application of both Tactical and Intercessor squads now.

[taikishi]

Long-range marksmen, flamers and/or meltas with drop pods. Not as effective as Sisters because Dominions can get 5 and fire from the safety of a Repressor while scouting 12", but the extra 3" of range can make quite a difference since the deploying squad still has to be >9" away upon exiting the drop pod. Probably a better tactic for Sternguard, though.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Thanks for the replies everyone!

 

 

To address the OPs mathhammer, including reroll 1s to hit is a hyper inflation of plasma's value that is not at all representative of how Tac marines with plasma would actually be used. You're not going to bring plasma tacs for your center blob so long as Hellblasters, Devs, and Sternguard exist(as well as the new infiltrators) and you're sure as hell not investing almost 100pts in characters to give TAC SQUADS rerolls. You could buy an entire 'nother squad with that amount of points.

 

 

I ran it with re-roll 1's to hit because otherwise, someone would just respond saying "Nobody is ever going to use plasma without re-rolls to hit, so this isn't representative!" There are more methods to get re-rolls than just Captain of course too. Salamanders combiplas+plasma cannon 5man squads will be quite nice! (although lasplas probably better). You certainly may be correct that there are better plasma platforms though. I'm not necessarily advocating a tac spam plasma strat. Merely investigating how much damage they can actually do now. Sternguard will of course do more for slightly more points, but not more durability. Hellblasters will do a lot more, but cost a lot in comparison and lose firepower quickly. The overall point is that I think it's worth revisiting how these units can be used now that they can actually deal damage. Lastly, if you didn't have re-rolls you'd probably use Grav instead. This would be similar damage vs infantry, but less vs heavy armor.

 

 

While I like the breakdown you did it only tells part of the story as with anything like this.  Tacs can outperform intercessors in damage, quite true due to the special weapons available to them.  However you say the tacs would handily take down a squad of intercessors, this is quite unlikely just due to the 2 wounds.  You talk as though 2 damage weapons are litterally everywhere when making these assessments, and while they aren't super uncommon, neither are they everywhere.  Vs guard/crons/more aeldari infantry (of all types)/Tau (especially vs tau) 2 wounds is a real big kicker, every unsaved wound matters for tacs, not the case for intercessors, takes 4 wounds to put much of a dent in their effectiveness, 4 wounds vs a tac squad and the unit is reduced to nothing.

 

The wounds 2 doesn't help against plasma, so yes I stand by that. As long as the plasma is in rapidfire range, the tacs are killing more points of intercessors each round than the intercessors are of tacs (And more models period. Compare the second column of each: The tacs kill ~6 intercessors, but the intercessors only kill ~5 tacs) At 24" its kind of a toss up, and at higher ranges the intercessors will win. And I am talking as if 2 damage weapons are literally everywhere because if Primaris turn out to be worth using, they will be. People will start to prioritize them. The more people adjust their lists to beat W2, the more incentive there will be to run w1 marines instead so that they are wasting their D2. There's also a fair amount of units in the game that aren't very offensively efficient right now because there's not many W2 targets out there, but will become quite nasty if there's lots of juicy primaris to kill. Plasma Plague marines being a good example. They'll be a nightmare for Intercessors.

 

Overall though you are correct that this is only a small part of the story. However, previously I'd say the story was "There's never any point in tacs at all" and now part of the story at least is "Plasma tacs can do a bunch of damage and threaten things Intercessors don't."

 

 

To be fair, no one who is in support of tacticals or Intercessors has supplied any data beyond how they relate to each other either. Saying anything more than '10 tac marines with full plasma and captain rerolls does 1.43 more wounds to genestealers than 9 intercessors' isn't supported by the data either.

Even the OP's very first bullet point (wow tacs do a lot of damage) isn't actually supported by the data. There's not enough information about the rest of the models in the codex, let alone the rest of the game, to say that tac marines do 'a lot of damage'. You can say that under the specified conditions(rapid fire range, captain rerolls, etc) they do more damage than intercessors against most targets, but that's it.

2 and 3 are supported, 4 is subjective based on how you define 'threaten', 5 is a subjective assessment of value, 6 is spitballing and doesn't account for the fact that your plasma can still kill you, 7 is half data half subjective assessment of value, 8 is data driven but doesn't support any particular thesis, 9 is based off an ideal scenario and is agnostic to actual play conditions so ends up being entirely subjective even with relevant data present.

 

I think you're being a bit too literal here. The point of a comparison like this is to let you extrapolate and think about the wider implications, not to be a formal logic proof.

 

1) Tacs do a lot of damage now compared to what they did before, and the numbers of unsaved wounds from this loadout is pretty high compared to what I was expecting. You are correct that I didn't include data for every other unit, so my claim of 'a lot' is certainly subjective. But you can take these concrete numbers and easily extrapolate to other units with similar profiles and loadouts. Its safe to assume that plasma sternguard or devs will do more than this, for example. It gives you a reference point.

 

4) "Threaten" isn't all that subjective. s4's efficiency drops hard as toughness increases, especially as it hits t8. And they are d1. Tanks aren't going to care much about being shot by Bolt Rifles. Nothing in the game wants to get shot by plasma.

 

5) This is an extrapolation from the current data. It being 'subjective' doesn't mean much.

 

6) Yes, it's spitballing. That's kind of the whole point of the entire post. Spitballing is how you figure out what you want to test more thoroughly. And technically, the entire comparison doesn't account for the fact that plasma can kill you. I am confident that everyone already knows that! Or do I need to come up with some mathematical value to assign to the risk of it killing you and create some other column where I adjust some other value based on it for the numbers to be valid? I'm not going to because the purpose here is to let people know how much they can expect to kill with what loadout, not to mathematically express every possible game variable.

 

7) Its an extrapolation.

 

8) Its an observation of how things would be different if you took a different loadout. Hard numbers aren't necessary to get a general idea.

 

9) Yes, its an assessment of what will happen under certain conditions, not a claim about the viability of achieving the conditions. But of course, a large part of the game is creating favorable conditions. Knowing what units can do under which conditions is an important part of deciding what units you will use and how. If you were playing with intercessors vs tacs and you know that they beat you up close, you'll work to make sure that doesn't happen. And if you knew that they didn't beat you up close, then you'd know not to worry about it. That's why having comparisons like these is useful. You could just argue "Its too difficult to get plasma tacs into the situations where they'd be useful given how games tend to go, so they still aren't worth it." Calling everything subjective doesn't really mean anything in this context.

 

 

 

 

 

[Schlitzaf]

Interesting, gonna mark this down. I think we should wait however to see if the other three tactical ‘equivalents’ (Crusader Squad, Grey Hunters And Chaos Marines) get the point reduction and buffs.

[CaptainMarsh]

"The more people adjust their lists to beat W2, the more incentive there will be to run w1 marines instead so that they are wasting their D2."

So while much of the specific math is fine and I think certainly points to small Tac Squads having a good role, in terms of actual table tactics, I don't see the logic behind this specific argument- and to be fair to you, I never have. D2 weapons will kill 1W Marines as easily as 2W Marines. There is no hard limit on the amount of wounds you can dish out in a game, limited purely by time. There is, however, a hard limit of the amount of wounds you can suffer- limited by what you've brought. While this means W2 Space Marines are efficiently killed by D2 weapons, it should also mean that 1W Marines are being efficiently killed by D1 weapons. D1 Weapons are inefficient and weak against 2W, while D2 weapons are inefficient and overkill against 1W. Inefficient in both cases sure but one is still left standing in this matrix and one isn't.

One of the many armies I play is a  2K Pure Scions list and I've been overcharging on 1W Marines so I get the 2+ to wound already. If I didn't want to for some cause, I still have a good chance of killing a Tac with any single one of the plasma wielding Scions getting through (while I would fail to kill with a single hit against an Intercessor non-overcharged). This does't even discuss Hot-Shot Lasguns or other strong (Good S and/Or Good AP) 1D weapons because we can all acknowledge it becomes a bit obvious. If I do overcharge against a 1W model  I don't grimace because that second wound is in the aether, just like I don't get down on my knees and scream to the heavens when I Krak Missile a Custodes with two wounds left and get six damage. If players are bringing weapons that are cutting down Intercessors in such numbers as to have a large impact, Tactical Marines (and Marine infantry in general) will be suffering just as much. These weapons may not be doing it efficiently in terms of mathhammer, but the layered corpses of a Space Marine Chapter don't care how efficiently they were being killed when the field is emptied of them and the enemy is securing the objectives and winning games.

The real question should be, "Which is more efficient in comparison to an Infantry Squad?" or any of the other acknowledged best troops in the game, since those are your real obstacles to troop dominance. 
That would be interesting mathhammer to see displayed. 

[techsoldaten]

Chaos player here to talk about Drop Pods.

 

I get the impression Loyalists underestimate their potential impact. Help me understand what I am missing.

 

With the doors fully extended, each Drop Pod is about 10 inches wide. For the purposes of denying deep strike, 3 of them in a row extends about 5 feet. For about 200 points, you're getting 3 big area of denial units that can land anywhere turn 1 (and gives Tacticals deep strike to boot.) With careful deployment, an opponent could be confined to their own side of the board by transports with no tactical value.

 

(AFAIK it's not legal to walk over the doors when they are extended.)

 

Since Chaos lists tend to be mid-range armies with powerful melee units, getting close fast is important. Any list with Maulerfiends, Blood Slaughters, melee Helbrutes, melee Knights, Bikes, Possessed, massed Cultists, Lord of Skulls, etc is going to be at a disadvantage for having to go around those Drop Pods or spend a turn blowing them up. Any list with Raptors, Obliterators, Terminators, Bloodletter Bombs, etc will be at a disadvantage because there won't be many good places to arrive. Anything that can fly over them will be unsupported. Lots of potential to disrupt armies just by being in the way.

 

Feels like Space Marine players are down on the Drop Pods. Why? It feels like they are the hard counter to most CSM armies.

[CaptainMarsh]

Chaos player here to talk about Drop Pods.

 

I get the impression Loyalists underestimate their potential impact. Help me understand what I am missing.

 

With the doors fully extended, each Drop Pod is about 10 inches wide. For the purposes of denying deep strike, 3 of them in a row extends about 5 feet. For about 200 points, you're getting 3 big area of denial units that can land anywhere turn 1 (and gives Tacticals deep strike to boot.) With careful deployment, an opponent could be confined to their own side of the board by transports with no tactical value.

 

(AFAIK it's not legal to walk over the doors when they are extended.)

 

Since Chaos lists tend to be mid-range armies with powerful melee units, getting close fast is important. Any list with Maulerfiends, Blood Slaughters, melee Helbrutes, melee Knights, Bikes, Possessed, massed Cultists, Lord of Skulls, etc is going to be at a disadvantage for having to go around those Drop Pods or spend a turn blowing them up. Any list with Raptors, Obliterators, Terminators, Bloodletter Bombs, etc will be at a disadvantage because there won't be many good places to arrive. Anything that can fly over them will be unsupported. Lots of potential to disrupt armies just by being in the way.

 

Feels like Space Marine players are down on the Drop Pods. Why? It feels like they are the hard counter to most CSM armies.

It could be a case of where you look, perhaps? Most players I see are happy 'bout them now.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

"The more people adjust their lists to beat W2, the more incentive there will be to run w1 marines instead so that they are wasting their D2."

 

So while much of the specific math is fine and I think certainly points to small Tac Squads having a good role, in terms of actual table tactics, I don't see the logic behind this specific argument- and to be fair to you, I never have. D2 weapons will kill 1W Marines as easily as 2W Marines. There is no hard limit on the amount of wounds you can dish out in a game, limited purely by time. There is, however, a hard limit of the amount of wounds you can suffer- limited by what you've brought. While this means W2 Space Marines are efficiently killed by D2 weapons, it should also mean that 1W Marines are being efficiently killed by D1 weapons. D1 Weapons are inefficient and weak against 2W, while D2 weapons are inefficient and overkill against 1W. Inefficient in both cases sure but one is still left standing in this matrix and one isn't.

 

One of the many armies I play is a  2K Pure Scions list and I've been overcharging on 1W Marines so I get the 2+ to wound already. If I didn't want to for some cause, I still have a good chance of killing a Tac with any single one of the plasma wielding Scions getting through (while I would fail to kill with a single hit against an Intercessor non-overcharged). This does't even discuss Hot-Shot Lasguns or other strong 1D weapons because we can all acknowledge it becomes a bit obvious. If I do overcharge against a 1W model  I don't grimace because that second wound is in the aether, just like I don't get down on my knees and scream to the heavens when I Krak Missile a Custodes with two wounds left and get six damage. If players are bringing weapons that are cutting down Intercessors in such numbers as to have a large impact, Tactical Marines (and Marine infantry in general) will be suffering just as much. These weapons may not be doing it efficiently in terms of mathhammer, but the layered corpses of a Space Marine Chapter don't care how efficiently they were being killed when the field is emptied of them and the enemy is securing the objectives and winning games.

 

It is a matter of efficiency. You are paying for that D2, and so you want good targets for it. Killing a 12pt tac vs killing a 30+pt hellblaster is a big difference in efficiency. If you paid a lot of extra points for D2 weapons and then don't have W2 targets to shoot them at, you are effectively wasting points, even if your d2 weapons can still kill w1 models. If player A brings 10 models of Unit X with d1 guns and playber B brings 8 models of Unit X with d2 guns, then if Unit X is W1 player A wins.

 

You are passing over the whole matter of proportional efficiency because the army you are talking about is good at killing both, largely because plasma is so incredibly good in 8th. In terms of actual table tactics, Plasma Scion heavy armies are going to melt any heavy infantry. But there's lots of armies and lists out there that aren't plasma scions, or don't use plasma at all. Others have to make tradeoffs and have less of a 1 size fits all solution.

 

 

 

The real question should be, "Which is more efficient in comparison to an Infantry Squad?" or any of the other acknowledged best troops in the game, since those are your real obstacles to troop dominance.

 

Which is more efficient at what? Intercessors are certainly better at surviving and killing infantry squads. But beyond that, it varies.

[The Unseen]

Any tournament that allows the doors to count as part of the hull deserves what they get.

That FAQ from GW is a huge mistake.

The doors never counted in previous editions, and for good reason.

 

And also, paying for board disruption sounds really strong vs say CSM, but against Eldar for example, or guard, it doesn't help much, because they'll either fly over, or didn't need to move anyway.

[CaptainMarsh]

 

"The more people adjust their lists to beat W2, the more incentive there will be to run w1 marines instead so that they are wasting their D2."

 

So while much of the specific math is fine and I think certainly points to small Tac Squads having a good role, in terms of actual table tactics, I don't see the logic behind this specific argument- and to be fair to you, I never have. D2 weapons will kill 1W Marines as easily as 2W Marines. There is no hard limit on the amount of wounds you can dish out in a game, limited purely by time. There is, however, a hard limit of the amount of wounds you can suffer- limited by what you've brought. While this means W2 Space Marines are efficiently killed by D2 weapons, it should also mean that 1W Marines are being efficiently killed by D1 weapons. D1 Weapons are inefficient and weak against 2W, while D2 weapons are inefficient and overkill against 1W. Inefficient in both cases sure but one is still left standing in this matrix and one isn't.

 

One of the many armies I play is a  2K Pure Scions list and I've been overcharging on 1W Marines so I get the 2+ to wound already. If I didn't want to for some cause, I still have a good chance of killing a Tac with any single one of the plasma wielding Scions getting through (while I would fail to kill with a single hit against an Intercessor non-overcharged). This does't even discuss Hot-Shot Lasguns or other strong 1D weapons because we can all acknowledge it becomes a bit obvious. If I do overcharge against a 1W model  I don't grimace because that second wound is in the aether, just like I don't get down on my knees and scream to the heavens when I Krak Missile a Custodes with two wounds left and get six damage. If players are bringing weapons that are cutting down Intercessors in such numbers as to have a large impact, Tactical Marines (and Marine infantry in general) will be suffering just as much. These weapons may not be doing it efficiently in terms of mathhammer, but the layered corpses of a Space Marine Chapter don't care how efficiently they were being killed when the field is emptied of them and the enemy is securing the objectives and winning games.

 

It is a matter of efficiency. You are paying for that D2, and so you want good targets for it. Killing a 12pt tac vs killing a 30+pt hellblaster is a big difference in efficiency. If you paid a lot of extra points for D2 weapons and then don't have W2 targets to shoot them at, you are effectively wasting points, even if your d2 weapons can still kill w1 models. If player A brings 10 models of Unit X with d1 guns and playber B brings 8 models of Unit X with d2 guns, then if Unit X is W1 player A wins.

 

You are passing over the whole matter of proportional efficiency because the army you are talking about is good at killing both, largely because plasma is so incredibly good in 8th. In terms of actual table tactics, Plasma Scion heavy armies are going to melt any heavy infantry. But there's lots of armies and lists out there that aren't plasma scions, or don't use plasma at all. Others have to make tradeoffs and have less of a 1 size fits all solution.

 

 

 

The real question should be, "Which is more efficient in comparison to an Infantry Squad?" or any of the other acknowledged best troops in the game, since those are your real obstacles to troop dominance.

 

Which is more efficient at what? Intercessors are certainly better at surviving and killing infantry squads. But beyond that, it varies.

 

I used a specific example of one army I play. When I run my Tallarn Horde (which starts at 200 Infantry before I think of much else!), my tactics have to change and so do the target priorities. Same with my other Guard lists, Custodes lists, Space Marines (of which I play four different lists primarily), Sisters, and Knights. And after more than 200 games of 8th (I work at a FLGS and run the scene there, so sometimes I have to play even when I'd rather not) I think I can remember less than...maybe 10 times that I looked at a battle and thought I brought too much killing power to the extent it would have an actual impact on my ability to win the game. Efficiency is not an...unimportant topic, but I think too much of 40K Discourse revolves around Mathhammer.

Plus your post is about Tacs vs Intercessors. Hellblasters vs Devastator is a better comparison there, I'd think.

 

[GrinNfool]

Thanks for the replies everyone!

 

 

While I like the breakdown you did it only tells part of the story as with anything like this.  Tacs can outperform intercessors in damage, quite true due to the special weapons available to them.  However you say the tacs would handily take down a squad of intercessors, this is quite unlikely just due to the 2 wounds.  You talk as though 2 damage weapons are litterally everywhere when making these assessments, and while they aren't super uncommon, neither are they everywhere.  Vs guard/crons/more aeldari infantry (of all types)/Tau (especially vs tau) 2 wounds is a real big kicker, every unsaved wound matters for tacs, not the case for intercessors, takes 4 wounds to put much of a dent in their effectiveness, 4 wounds vs a tac squad and the unit is reduced to nothing.

 

The wounds 2 doesn't help against plasma, so yes I stand by that. As long as the plasma is in rapidfire range, the tacs are killing more points of intercessors each round than the intercessors are of tacs (And more models period. Compare the second column of each: The tacs kill ~6 intercessors, but the intercessors only kill ~5 tacs) At 24" its kind of a toss up, and at higher ranges the intercessors will win. And I am talking as if 2 damage weapons are literally everywhere because if Primaris turn out to be worth using, they will be. People will start to prioritize them. The more people adjust their lists to beat W2, the more incentive there will be to run w1 marines instead so that they are wasting their D2. There's also a fair amount of units in the game that aren't very offensively efficient right now because there's not many W2 targets out there, but will become quite nasty if there's lots of juicy primaris to kill. Plasma Plague marines being a good example. They'll be a nightmare for Intercessors.

 

Overall though you are correct that this is only a small part of the story. However, previously I'd say the story was "There's never any point in tacs at all" and now part of the story at least is "Plasma tacs can do a bunch of damage and threaten things Intercessors don't."

Ya... but that example is exactly my point, you place the plasma tacs in the best possible position, give them first shot, and give them rerolls.  Without rerolls you are losing a plasma tac more than 50% of the time, on top of whatever the intercessors do, and aside from the plasma the normal tacs aren't going to threaten the intercessors.  Plasma only gets rapidfire at 12, the boltguns are rapidfiring at 30... etc etc.  If your logic is the plasma tac squad has a rhino... where thats gotta be included in your point evaluation, otherwise that plasma squad is going to be shot every step on the way to that 12" rapid fire.  The captain also being here is hard to account for as if the squad is taking a rhino now your captain at minimum needs a jump pack, or be in term DS'ing... more point increases vs the intercessors

 

Also... just mathing out here, tacs 2x plasma + PC, ((4*.17) +4)*.67*.83 = ~2.6 dead primaris ((2.*.17)+2) * .67 *.83*.83 = 1.08 dead primaris  ((14*.17)+14) * .67*.5*.5 2.7 wounds or 1.35 dead primaris we can safely ignore the remainder on that since the plasma is 2 damage a pop.  So on average the 10 man PC +2 plasma kills 4 intercessors, with ~ a 70% chance for a 5th. 

 

Intercessors ((20*.17)+20) * .67*.5*.67 = 5.25 dead marines or 5 + 25% of the time a 6th., the difference, saying the tacs def win seems an exaggeration,  Also yes this is quick and dirty math but its not necessary to be exacting for this example.

 

This is extremely close and certainly not a landslide win, for the tacs, ya the tacs with that loadout are 12 points cheaper than the intercessors, but you are giving the tacs huge advantages, namely rapid fire for plasma (which is the main reason this is even close) and rerolls, not sure how you are going to account for getting the captain aura too since a rhino only holds 10.  The biggest problem here is bolter discipline is just soooo good that it makes tac plasma require so much in its favor to eek out a possible win, for very little point differential.  Top that off with tacs still being highly vulnerable to ALL weapons, while the intercessors are at least only vulnerable to 2damage (which again isn't as prevalent as you seem to make it sound)  This is exactly what I am talking about here when I say the graph only tells half the tale.

 

Point models like this as I said are nice, and again I commend you for doing it because it helps when making decisions, I just take a few exceptions with the liberties you are taking in extrapolating from your own data.  There are so many variables on how things work in 40k you can't draw conclusions simply from one thing.  I am not trying to be contrary I really do like this chart, and I mean that, just think some of your conclusions you are drawing should be tempered a bit.

 

Edit also, you mention that its points inefficient to shoot 2 damage weapons at 1 wound marines, thats only true if the point differences between what you are shooting at are far apart.  You list hellblasters and for sure those are big targets (honestly this is probably where you should be making comparisons for your tacs as they get protected a lot easier) but if I am shooting a bunch of 2 damage shots at a 148 point tac squad or a 170 intercessor squad my efficiency difference is very negligible.  Ya if you are having to shoot at 4/5 guard/cultists then thats getting really inefficient but a marine is still a reasonable target.

[SkimaskMohawk]

They made the doors count in 7th for a while, and then realized just how much of a problem it created. They probably thought with no scatter and no mishaps, there wasn't a big reason to keep the doors separate.

 

This does go back to the 7th ed issue though, be cheesy by opening the pod up and denying space, or be cheesy by having it shut and block Los. Lose lose for anyone just looking to follow the rules but not looking for an advantage

[BrainFireBob]

High level, I think mixes are better, with Firstborn being better T1- pods, dev doctrine- and Intercessors after

[Drudge Dreadnought]

 

Thanks for the replies everyone!

 

 

While I like the breakdown you did it only tells part of the story as with anything like this.  Tacs can outperform intercessors in damage, quite true due to the special weapons available to them.  However you say the tacs would handily take down a squad of intercessors, this is quite unlikely just due to the 2 wounds.  You talk as though 2 damage weapons are litterally everywhere when making these assessments, and while they aren't super uncommon, neither are they everywhere.  Vs guard/crons/more aeldari infantry (of all types)/Tau (especially vs tau) 2 wounds is a real big kicker, every unsaved wound matters for tacs, not the case for intercessors, takes 4 wounds to put much of a dent in their effectiveness, 4 wounds vs a tac squad and the unit is reduced to nothing.

 

The wounds 2 doesn't help against plasma, so yes I stand by that. As long as the plasma is in rapidfire range, the tacs are killing more points of intercessors each round than the intercessors are of tacs (And more models period. Compare the second column of each: The tacs kill ~6 intercessors, but the intercessors only kill ~5 tacs) At 24" its kind of a toss up, and at higher ranges the intercessors will win. And I am talking as if 2 damage weapons are literally everywhere because if Primaris turn out to be worth using, they will be. People will start to prioritize them. The more people adjust their lists to beat W2, the more incentive there will be to run w1 marines instead so that they are wasting their D2. There's also a fair amount of units in the game that aren't very offensively efficient right now because there's not many W2 targets out there, but will become quite nasty if there's lots of juicy primaris to kill. Plasma Plague marines being a good example. They'll be a nightmare for Intercessors.

 

Overall though you are correct that this is only a small part of the story. However, previously I'd say the story was "There's never any point in tacs at all" and now part of the story at least is "Plasma tacs can do a bunch of damage and threaten things Intercessors don't."

Ya... but that example is exactly my point, you place the plasma tacs in the best possible position, give them first shot, and give them rerolls.  Without rerolls you are losing a plasma tac more than 50% of the time, on top of whatever the intercessors do, and aside from the plasma the normal tacs aren't going to threaten the intercessors.  Plasma only gets rapidfire at 12, the boltguns are rapidfiring at 30... etc etc.  If your logic is the plasma tac squad has a rhino... where thats gotta be included in your point evaluation, otherwise that plasma squad is going to be shot every step on the way to that 12" rapid fire.  The captain also being here is hard to account for as if the squad is taking a rhino now your captain at minimum needs a jump pack, or be in term DS'ing... more point increases vs the intercessors

 

Also... just mathing out here, tacs 2x plasma + PC, ((4*.17) +4)*.67*.83 = ~2.6 dead primaris ((2.*.17)+2) * .67 *.83*.83 = 1.08 dead primaris  ((14*.17)+14) * .67*.5*.5 2.7 wounds or 1.35 dead primaris we can safely ignore the remainder on that since the plasma is 2 damage a pop.  So on average the 10 man PC +2 plasma kills 4 intercessors, with ~ a 70% chance for a 5th. 

 

Intercessors ((20*.17)+20) * .67*.5*.67 = 5.25 dead marines or 5 + 25% of the time a 6th., the difference, saying the tacs def win seems an exaggeration,  Also yes this is quick and dirty math but its not necessary to be exacting for this example.

 

This is extremely close and certainly not a landslide win, for the tacs, ya the tacs with that loadout are 12 points cheaper than the intercessors, but you are giving the tacs huge advantages, namely rapid fire for plasma (which is the main reason this is even close) and rerolls, not sure how you are going to account for getting the captain aura too since a rhino only holds 10.  The biggest problem here is bolter discipline is just soooo good that it makes tac plasma require so much in its favor to eek out a possible win, for very little point differential.  Top that off with tacs still being highly vulnerable to ALL weapons, while the intercessors are at least only vulnerable to 2damage (which again isn't as prevalent as you seem to make it sound)  This is exactly what I am talking about here when I say the graph only tells half the tale.

 

Point models like this as I said are nice, and again I commend you for doing it because it helps when making decisions, I just take a few exceptions with the liberties you are taking in extrapolating from your own data.  There are so many variables on how things work in 40k you can't draw conclusions simply from one thing.  I am not trying to be contrary I really do like this chart, and I mean that, just think some of your conclusions you are drawing should be tempered a bit.

 

Edit also, you mention that its points inefficient to shoot 2 damage weapons at 1 wound marines, thats only true if the point differences between what you are shooting at are far apart.  You list hellblasters and for sure those are big targets (honestly this is probably where you should be making comparisons for your tacs as they get protected a lot easier) but if I am shooting a bunch of 2 damage shots at a 148 point tac squad or a 170 intercessor squad my efficiency difference is very negligible.  Ya if you are having to shoot at 4/5 guard/cultists then thats getting really inefficient but a marine is still a reasonable target.

 

 

I'm not really clear on what you're trying to get across here. I claimed that the plasma tacs win in a very specific scenario and otherwise lose, and you seem to be trying to explain to me that plasma tacs lose if it isn't the specific scenario I talk about. Am I misunderstanding?

 

I'm not clear on why you are estimating the math again either. The amounts are already in my first table. The Plasma tacs kill 5 primaris, and the primaris kill a little less than 5 tacs. The Primaris lose a lot more points worth of stuff, and proportionally more firepower since the tacs have most of their loaded into the special weapons. Of course it's mostly going to come down to who shoots first. That goes without saying.