Tacs vs Intercessors (new codex mathhammer)

[MrZakalwe]

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.

 

 

It's worse than neutral against guard as I'll charge the pods with my frontline squads to makesome of my infantry picket line invulnerable to ranged fire. The one or two guard I'd put in contact with the pod will never meaningfully damage it and it can't fight back.

[Captain Idaho]

I think the data shows that there is a place for Tactcial Marines. The Doctrine rules in particular assist Tactical Marines just as much as Intercessors as you can hang back and fire a Heavy weapon early game and move up in a transport or just get podded in for a cheap AP-3 hit squad.

 

Doesn't mean there isn't a place for Intercessors. They sit quite comfortably in a position to trade blows with other troops choices and soak attention that is just killing normal Marines rather than things like Inceptors, Terminators or whatever. They can also contribute nicely to anti infantry work.

 

It's important not to get too tribal over the Primaris or Classic debate. It's one thing I know I've learnt the past year. There is a place now for most Marines units in the Codex.

 

Except maybe Servitors.

[Blindhamster]

I think the point being made was simply that with rules like bolter discipline in place, short of prodding in, or using a transport (both of which dont really fit in the vaccume example being provided) and without a captain (unless both get one I guess), the likelihood of tacticals winning has been quite overblown. Mostly due to the 30" double tapping the intercessors can do. Although the plasma cannon has the range that for the 10 man squad they do better than the intercessors for the same reason intercessors do better than the two 5 man squads.

 

Saying a unit is better than another when given perfect circumstances isn't really saying much.

 

A comparison of 10 intercessors +primaris apothecary vs a captain with combi plasma + 5 tacticals with plasma gun and combi plasma arriving via pod would be a better math hammer example.

[Ishagu]

Whilst the math is good for a Tac squad in terms of their investments, the Strat support and range of Intercessors pushed them over the edge.

 

It's that sweet 40 shots with at least Ap-1 at 30" range, or those 30 shot auto rifles that make them so potent.

[GrinNfool]

Blindhamster got what I was trying to get across, the data is in a vacuum, and drawing game conclusions based on that data to the point of claiming x unit is better is a tough sell.  When you start factoring in buffs/support/ranges it becomes less and less valuable.  Basically your point per damage data, starts meaning a lot less when we are assuming the squad arrived via transport and are paying more for a jump or term captain comparatively.  The wounds per point is far from as advertised at that stage.  Its a useful tool, just I don't like the idea of blanket claiming x is better than x or would win vs x based on vacuum data.  To many variables.  I think your data should show plasma tacs  to be a very reasonable alternative to hellblasters though.

 

In any case I think you were reading a bit to much into what I was saying :)

 

Edit: also regarding the comment on the math, "estimating" makes it sound like I was way off lol its quite close I don't know how many decimals you took yours out to but the hundredths is fine for d6s.  I broke it out because the 2 damage matters, in your data you have 6.39 wounds (which is roughly what I got) but if we took your data we would say 3 primaris die, which would be wrong as 3 of those came from 2d plasma meaning 3 die from that and 1 more from boltgun fire meaning 4 dead primaris with ~70% chance for 1 more.  Did the primaris 1 because I just wanted to use more normal battle scenario, which would be 10 intercessors, hindsight yes I could have just divided your wounds by 9 then multiplied by 10, not really that much different in terms of math work.

[MajorNese]

Whilst the math is good for a Tac squad in terms of their investments, the Strat support and range of Intercessors pushed them over the edge.

 

It's that sweet 40 shots with at least Ap-1 at 30" range, or those 30 shot auto rifles that make them so potent.

Amongst other factors, yes. What I found particularly useful was to get stuck in CC with midfield objective claimers - without 2D CC weaponry, intercessors count as 2 tacs each, with twice the wounds and twice the attacks (not counting the new +1A).

 

Also the case for 2D weaponry being around everywhere is a bit overestimated. Once there are higher priority targets for all those overcharged plasmas or autocannons (like vehicles posing immediate threat) there will only be anti-chaff weaponry left to deal with those annoying-but-harmless troops. Then it shifts massively in favor of the intercessors.

 

Which might be a case for fielding either 1W or 2W models, not both. You only field 1W, and 2D weaponry will be wasted/overkill. You only field 2W, and 1D weaponry is ineffective. You field both, you present the ideal targets for both.

[Captain Idaho]

2 CPs of course for the Intercessor boost for 10 men. Strategum support is important of course but the way I see it, Intercessors get better stock weapons and Strategum support, but the Tactical Marines are get more out of the Doctrines thanks to their special and heavy weapons.

 

They aren't to be used in the same way really.

 

I get that the topic title and premise here leads to a discussion of what is better, but that's definitely not the angle I'm coming from.

[Blindhamster]

Tacticals can be loaded out for any job, this always has been their biggest benefit, the addition of doctrines coupled with the points drop absolutely makes them more useful. I'd use intercessors for objectives and tacticals for going after medium threat targets personally

[Captain Idaho]

That's the beauty of all this - If I used Primaris Intercessors I'd use them as my front line infantry - large units to soak damage and make a nuisance of themselves, whilst my Tacticals (if I mixed) would be supporting fire units from a distance.

 

It's a case of different ways of using the same units and it still working (more or less).

[MrZakalwe]

Tacs with a single heavy weapon are still rather good in a Salamanders list (and with most Sally builds I've been thinking of I'd probably never move from Devastator doctrine) as full rerolls for a single shot make Lascannons and missile launchers quite tasty. 

 

Intercessors seem to benefit a great deal more from some of the other chapter tactics so it looks vary by chapter. 

 

Whitescars intercessors with auto-boltrifles and a decent CC weapon on the sergeant look pretty damned nifty from turn 2 onward (tactical and assault doctrines are both great for them).

[Ishagu]

Tacs with a single heavy weapon are still rather good in a Salamanders list (and with most Sally builds I've been thinking of I'd probably never move from Devastator doctrine) as full rerolls for a single shot make Lascannons and missile launchers quite tasty.

 

Intercessors seem to benefit a great deal more from some of the other chapter tactics so it looks vary by chapter.

 

Whitescars intercessors with auto-boltrifles and a decent CC weapon on the sergeant look pretty damned nifty from turn 2 onward (tactical and assault doctrines are both great for them).

I think Salamanders are more attractive now than ever.

 

Take the humble Quad Las Predator. The efficiency of a unit like this is tremendous with the free re-rolls of any hit and wound.

 

Any unit built around high power, low volume weapons is far better.

[Dracos]

That's the beauty of all this - If I used Primaris Intercessors I'd use them as my front line infantry - large units to soak damage and make a nuisance of themselves, whilst my Tacticals (if I mixed) would be supporting fire units from a distance.

 

It's a case of different ways of using the same units and it still working (more or less).

 

This combined arms approach works with Hellblasters and or Aggressors also. Limited rounds in a game mean the opponent needs to choose between the unit that will kill his unuts or the Objective grabber. If he's smart (and thus has a level or redundancy in his unit) he'll go for the Objective grabbers .... but 9/10 (imo) will find the supporting units to juicy nott to shoot down or assault.

[MrZakalwe]

I think Salamanders are more attractive now than ever.

Take the humble Quad Las Predator. The efficiency of a unit like this is tremendous with the free re-rolls of any hit and wound.

 

Any unit built around high power, low volume weapons is far better.

 

The vehicle that's been getting my interest for that is the relic contemptor with twin heavy bolter and twin lascannon- if you are staying in Dev doctrine it's just a fantastic general purpose combat unit at a great price. 

[Panzer]

That's the beauty of all this - If I used Primaris Intercessors I'd use them as my front line infantry - large units to soak damage and make a nuisance of themselves, whilst my Tacticals (if I mixed) would be supporting fire units from a distance.

 

 

How is that different from the usual Troops + Heavy/Special weapon unit though? Your opponent would just shoot at the one that does more damage just as always. ^^

[Captain Idaho]

Which one is that, the one up close and moving to charge, taking central objectives, or the flanking unit or one at the back?

 

40K isn't so binary that you can just line up and trade shots. Cover, line of sight, range, immediate threat, redundancy... All things you can't ignore.

[Disruptor_fe404]

 

I think Salamanders are more attractive now than ever.

Take the humble Quad Las Predator. The efficiency of a unit like this is tremendous with the free re-rolls of any hit and wound.

 

Any unit built around high power, low volume weapons is far better.

 

The vehicle that's been getting my interest for that is the relic contemptor with twin heavy bolter and twin lascannon- if you are staying in Dev doctrine it's just a fantastic general purpose combat unit at a great price. 

 

 

You're assuming Forge World units are getting Angels of Death and thus not excluding you from using Doctrines. I'm hoping that they are (and that various Index units are getting it too), but I think it's far from a given.

[Panzer]

Which one is that, the one up close and moving to charge, taking central objectives, or the flanking unit or one at the back?

 

40K isn't so binary that you can just line up and trade shots. Cover, line of sight, range, immediate threat, redundancy... All things you can't ignore.

 

I never claimed it to be binary. It obviously depends on the situation. However what you described with Intercessors and Tacticals is the same people have been doing since forever with Tacticals/Scouts+Devastators or now with Intercessors/Infiltrators+Hellblasters. Just a budget version of it.

 

Not to mention that until Intercessors are close enough to charge the enemy should have had plenty of chance to deal with something else first as it has always been the problem of foot slogging melee units in 40k.

[Blindhamster]

I've always liked and used tacticals, I've switched to pure primaris mostly because they look and play more how I imagine marines. But I'm very pleased that tacticals seem to have benefited nicely from the rules updates.

 

I hate terminators though. Lol.

[Trevak Dal]

I've always liked and used tacticals, I've switched to pure primaris mostly because they look and play more how I imagine marines. But I'm very pleased that tacticals seem to have benefited nicely from the rules updates.

 

I hate terminators though. Lol.

Totally agree with you about the Primaris. If I could have 1:1 enough Primaris to the betrayal at calth boxes I got, I'd run them as "count as" Firstborn Marines because they look better.

 

I don't like terminators besides Grey Knights and tantaros (which pair up way better with mk4 than the cataphractii :( )

[Captain Idaho]

 

Which one is that, the one up close and moving to charge, taking central objectives, or the flanking unit or one at the back?

40K isn't so binary that you can just line up and trade shots. Cover, line of sight, range, immediate threat, redundancy... All things you can't ignore.

 

I never claimed it to be binary. It obviously depends on the situation. However what you described with Intercessors and Tacticals is the same people have been doing since forever with Tacticals/Scouts+Devastators or now with Intercessors/Infiltrators+Hellblasters. Just a budget version of it.

 

Not to mention that until Intercessors are close enough to charge the enemy should have had plenty of chance to deal with something else first as it has always been the problem of foot slogging melee units in 40k.

Well I'll leave that puzzle for those who might take such units.

 

My 30K themed Ultramarines will be utilising Tacticals, Scouts and other stuff with Heavy weapons and Veterans.

[MegaVolt87]

Tactical's big weakness for loyalists is the 10 man cap. Ten is too few to foot slog, my long CSM experience since 3rd ed- you need minimum 12 guys if you are walking CSM tactical troopers. In 8th, rhino's are over-costed, its more efficient/ effective to take 70pts more CSM troopers and walk instead. Drop pod cheese will be FAQ'd fast don't go rushing for drop pods to cheese it lol. Intercessors are an amazing troop unit for what they can do. Rhino's need to go back to 50 points, they are not a 60-70 point model. New primaris transport is like a flying razorback more than a rhino IMO, not a bad thing. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

The rules explicitly written to allow you to drop turn 1 contrary to normal will be faqd to disallow that? Doubtful

[MegaVolt87]

The rules explicitly written to allow you to drop turn 1 contrary to normal will be faqd to disallow that? Doubtful

 

I was more thinking LOS blocking, mvt blocking some have mentioned here with open/closed doors I have heard mention on here. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The only way I see tacticals being useful is spending more points for transports.

[War Angel]

The only way I see tacticals being useful is spending more points for transports.

They are cheap and that’s nice, but it really looks like their advantage over intercessors is the special and/or heavy weapons increased performance against non infantry units. While I get what others are saying, I just feel like for those targets I would pick a unit from a different part of the force organization chart. Hellblasters or devastators for example. The only reason to stick with tacticals when you could have either of those would again be that they are cheaper, so we’re back at the start.

 

That hidden lascannon in a five man tac squad is cool, and allows the squad to take advantage of the devastator doctrine, but the rest of the unit isn’t functioning at the same distance as intercessors, and personally I enjoy the added survivability.

 

It’s nice that everything in the codex can be useful now, it means we can each have our preferred way of how to tackle each goal. For me, intercessors can clear the infantry while I use other stuff against the big toys. While you prefer the tactical flexibility of tactical squads.