Terminators VS Agressors

[domsto]

Hello fellow Space Marine players.

 

The title gives it away already, i just wonder what is better for my soon to be Black Templar speartip force.

Statwise the Agressor seems to be way superior compared to the Terminators.

But the Terminators have a Invul safe, the option for a Stormshield and can Deepstrike.

Pointcosts of the Stock Variants of both units is almost the same, so that's that

 

The Plan is to have a Unit up front to bring preasure on the Emeny and draw some Fire.

Also to kill some things in CC

 

Which Unit is now better for bringing the Emperors Fury right into the enemys Face?

 

 

 

[Panzer]

Well, Aggressors are more durable and have higher damage output

 

Normally I'd say Terminators are the better spear head due their deep strike ability, however they only arrive turn 2 the earliest and Aggressors could be a target from turn 1 on already. That being said stuff deployed via Drop Pods and Impulsors are right in the opponents face turn 1 to pressure them much more than Aggressors so those are probably the most fitting options describing a spear head. Aggressors are "Fire Support" after all.

[domsto]

Well, Aggressors are more durable and have higher damage output

 

Normally I'd say Terminators are the better spear head due their deep strike ability, however they only arrive turn 2 the earliest and Aggressors could be a target from turn 1 on already. That being said stuff deployed via Drop Pods and Impulsors are right in the opponents face turn 1 to pressure them much more than Aggressors so those are probably the most fitting options describing a spear head. Aggressors are "Fire Support" after all.

Yeah that's the thing that bothers me the most with Agressors. they are supossed to be Fire Support Lorewise, but are clearly Assault Units Rulewise.

So delivering Aggressors via Impulsor seems to be a good choice then?

[mika_angelus]

It would be if they could be transported in an Impulsor.

Sadly they can't

[Halandaar]

So delivering Aggressors via Impulsor seems to be a good choice then?

 

The Impulsor is specifically unable to transport MK X GRAVIS models, so your only means of moving them around is one of the Repulsor variants unfortunately.

[Volt]

The problem with Terminators is that the best Terminators are locked behind non SM codices, namely Dark Angels and Death Guard. Vanilla terminators kinda suck in melee unless you get a captain for re-rolls (or a librarian). And they attack different targets now, with terminators being more suited for tank hunting while Aggressor's main use after the buff is just sawing any infantry unit you don't like in half.

[Closet Skeleton]

 

Yeah that's the thing that bothers me the most with Agressors. they are supossed to be Fire Support Lorewise, but are clearly Assault Units Rulewise.

So delivering Aggressors via Impulsor seems to be a good choice then?

 

 

There's no assault tactical role, Attack Bikes are fire support but have the close support marking because they're fast.

[Ishagu]

Agressors are better (a very solid unit by any standard), but to get the most of them they need transport support - A Repulsor.

 

There might be further strats that improve them in the other supplements too.

[domsto]

It would be if they could be transported in an Impulsor.

Sadly they can't

Ohhh

That's new to me

I thought i would be like the Repulsor where every Agressor counts double.

[Deadman Wade]

Overall, agressors are easier to use and have more firepower. They are also one of the most cost-effecient units in new codex.

To get the most value from agressors they need to stay stationaty and fire twice, while terminators can move and shoot without any drawbacks (except heavy weapon penalty). Agressors are better counter-charge 'cause they have more attacks. Durability-wise they are about the same - 3+ save T5 3 wounds vs 2+ save 5+ invulnerable with agressors being slightly tougher, especailly against Damage 2 weapons. Terminators can take heavy weapon for some versatility and anti-vehicle shooting, but their overall firepower is lower. Terminators have the advantage of bigger squad size, so they can take an hold objectives better than agressors, especially with deep strike and teleport homer. Terminators are less vulnerable if you go second, cause they can stay in reserve to avoid enemy fire.

Thunder hammer terminators are tougher and good in CC, but still have the same old problem of getting into combat.

Terminators are quite weak, even though I realy like cataphractii with that 4++ save and lightning claws on sergeant. For terminators to be useful they need to both shoot and fight in close combat as well as use deep strike, while agressors can just stand and unleash tons of shots.

[domsto]

The problem with Terminators is that the best Terminators are locked behind non SM codices, namely Dark Angels and Death Guard. Vanilla terminators kinda suck in melee unless you get a captain for re-rolls (or a librarian). And they attack different targets now, with terminators being more suited for tank hunting while Aggressor's main use after the buff is just sawing any infantry unit you don't like in half.

Yes as a former Dark Angels Player i can support that Statment^^

Deathwing Knights are really great. One of the few good Units DA have.

 

But thanks to GWs stupid Rulewriting you can't mix Non Codex Marines anymore with Codex Marines, without losing the Doctrins which are way to powerfull to lose them.

[Kallas]

But thanks to GWs stupid Rulewriting you can't mix Non Codex Marines anymore with Codex Marines, without losing the Doctrins which are way to powerfull to lose them.

No, that isn't stupid, it's sensible.

 

There has been a lot of talk over the past two years about how powerful Soup is and ways to combat it.

 

The best way has always been to promote and improve mono-Codex, not nerfing Soup (well, maybe nerfing some of it). Doctrines and the Supplement 'Super Doctrines' are exactly the right way to do it. They aren't actually huge benefits - oh for sure they can be built around too make an army much more efficient, but they don't define the faction to the point where they're crippled without it - but they're enough of a benefit to make it worth going money-Codex for, where previously that has never been a factor.

 

So no, it's not stupid rules writing, it's very good rules writing.

[domsto]

 

But thanks to GWs stupid Rulewriting you can't mix Non Codex Marines anymore with Codex Marines, without losing the Doctrins which are way to powerfull to lose them.

No, that isn't stupid, it's sensible.

 

There has been a lot of talk over the past two years about how powerful Soup is and ways to combat it.

 

The best way has always been to promote and improve mono-Codex, not nerfing Soup (well, maybe nerfing some of it). Doctrines and the Supplement 'Super Doctrines' are exactly the right way to do it. They aren't actually huge benefits - oh for sure they can be built around too make an army much more efficient, but they don't define the faction to the point where they're crippled without it - but they're enough of a benefit to make it worth going money-Codex for, where previously that has never been a factor.

 

So no, it's not stupid rules writing, it's very good rules writing.

Don't get me wrong

The Angles of Death mechanic is good yes.

Marines now work when played solo.

Stupid Rulewritting is that they didn't grand this to the Non Codex Marines.

They made a division where no division should be.

Aren't Dark Angles also Angles of Death?

But thats not to topic here^^

[Kallas]

They are Angels of Death: they have that rule. What they don't have is Combat Doctrines, which are something that is in the Codex Astartes. Dark Angels are ostensibly a Codex Chapter, but in reality they're divergent, same for the Blood Angels.

 

Also note, you can't mix Codex Chapters and benefit from the 'Super Doctrines' - eg, you can't have two Ultramarines Successors (and mix Successor Tactics, for example) in the same army and benefit from Scions of Guilliman.

 

Also also, we haven't finished this cycle of Marine releases: we know for a fact that there are four more Supplements for Codex: Space Marines coming in the next few months. While it's not certain if the non-Codex Chapters will get a revised Codex to bring them up to speed, it seems that there's certainly the possibility.

[domsto]

They are Angels of Death: they have that rule. What they don't have is Combat Doctrines, which are something that is in the Codex Astartes. Dark Angels are ostensibly a Codex Chapter, but in reality they're divergent, same for the Blood Angels.

 

Also note, you can't mix Codex Chapters and benefit from the 'Super Doctrines' - eg, you can't have two Ultramarines Successors (and mix Successor Tactics, for example) in the same army and benefit from Scions of Guilliman.

 

Also also, we haven't finished this cycle of Marine releases: we know for a fact that there are four more Supplements for Codex: Space Marines coming in the next few months. While it's not certain if the non-Codex Chapters will get a revised Codex to bring them up to speed, it seems that there's certainly the possibility.

No they didn't got the Rule

And the Combat Doctrins are part of that Rule

[Kallas]

No they didn't got the Rule

And the Combat Doctrins are part of that Rule

 

Ah no, you're right, they don't have Angels of Death, they gave them Shock Assault.

 

And that makes my point for me: they are Codex divergent Chapters. They don't get Combat Doctrines because a doctrine is something you follow (Doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group) and they don't.

[zero88]

Thunder Hammer/Storm Shield Terminators are really the only ones you could make an argument for, especially with the Strategem in combat. In every other way possible, Aggressors are flat out better.

[Acebaur]

I don't think Aggressors are flat out better at all honestly.  They aren't more durable for one thing, except against D2 weapons possibly. Against D1 or D3+ weapons though they aren't.  If you take bolters as a baseline, a Terminator requires 18 shots to deal one wound on average. An Aggressor you only need 14 shots to deal a wound. TDA also have an invul save which Aggressors do not which helps against AP3 and 4 weapons. If we ramp it up to a S8 weapon with AP-3, three shots will cause 1.178 wounds to each unit. If it's AP-4 Terminators Invul helps them stay alive while Aggressors just die. 

 

Aggressors can pump out more shots with their boltstorms especially if they stand still, but they have a 6" shorter range and can't teleport so require an additional investment of a transport to get them in range. Sure Terminators can't drop till turn 2 but that's perfect timing to give them the tactical doctrine and pop their strat (which aggressors don't have either) and have 4 bolter shots per model hitting on 2's at AP-1. 

 

Terminators also have access to a variety of weapons that Aggressors don't including heavy weapons that increase their damage output and go after other targets like vehicles. Terminators also can be better in melee thanks to their strat. 

 

I'm not saying Aggressors are bad by any means, but Terminators are a lot better than people are giving them credit for. Personally I think both units are about on par with each other and each serve a purpose in the army. 

[mika_angelus]

I very much disaggre.

 

I play a lot of termies since the new codex dropped and they are very good now.

 

I use the white scars supplement and do everything I can to help termies get those charges after deep strike.

So yes, you got to build for it.

But when you do, they can really do a lot of damage.

An extreme example :

Played a 1500 points game against very shooty admech. I had 800 in primaris and characters on the table, and 700 points of termies in reserve. 4 squads.

Long story short my ground forces (except 2 characters) were all death after my opponents turn two. Then termies dropped.

60 storm bolter shoots with ap-1 finished all of admech infantry, and then 4 charges took care of vehicles and robots.

So 700 points won a game against 1500 points.

 

I know the example is extreme and singular, but I was surprised myself how much termies benefit from the new rules.

I think they are stellar now.

 

Aggressors are great, don't get me wrong. I like and use them too. And on paper they are better then termies.

But now, with all the new tricks that help termies get those charges after deep strike I find them more flexible then agressors.

[casb1965]

I think they serve different roles and dependent upon your Chapter will have completely different results.

 

Aggressors in an Imperial Fist army will have different success than in say a White Scars list whereas terminators will benefit from a more CC based army than Aggressors would.

 

It's horses for courses and both have their pros and cons, neither are bad but neither are game changers. 

[Kallas]

I don't think Aggressors are flat out better at all honestly.  They aren't more durable for one thing, except against D2 weapons possibly. Against D1 or D3+ weapons though they aren't.  If you take bolters as a baseline, a Terminator requires 18 shots to deal one wound on average. An Aggressor you only need 14 shots to deal a wound. TDA also have an invul save which Aggressors do not which helps against AP3 and 4 weapons. If we ramp it up to a S8 weapon with AP-3, three shots will cause 1.178 wounds to each unit. If it's AP-4 Terminators Invul helps them stay alive while Aggressors just die. 

 

I have a couple of points about this:

 

1. You use Bolter shots as an example of how Terminators are tougher: but look at how much it takes to remove an equivalent amount of points/models (1 Terminator is 34pts, 1 Boltstorm Aggressor is 37pts) - it's 36 shots to kill a Terminator, but 42 to kill an Aggressor (using your own maths). That's clearly in favour of the Aggressor, simply due to the extra wound they have.

 

Terminators are tougher vs S3, as the improved Toughness of the Aggressors is irrelevant here (Lasguns: 73 to kill a Terminator; 55 to kill an Aggressor).

 

2. Against S8, which you mentioned, let's have a look. Overcharged Plasma is the most common, so let's use that: 8/-3/2:

vs Terminators: 1*.66*.833*.66 = 0.363/0.725 damage per shot

vs Aggressors: 1*.66*.66*.833 = 0.363/0.725 damage per shot

Identical, as the higher T5 of the Aggressors cancels out the better save of the Terminator - but then we factor in that it takes a single failed save to kill a Terminator vs two to kill an Aggressor:

 

To kill a Terminator: 1/.66/.833/.66 = 2.76 shots

To kill an Aggressor: 1/.833/.66/.66 = 5.51 shots

That's an almost 100% increase in shots required to kill an Aggressor over a Terminator

 

3. Invulnerables: This has been an issue with Terminators since the beginning of 8th Edition. Put simply, their Invulnerable save makes basically not at all - generally speaking, they're getting hit by AP-2/-3 weapons that don't 'trigger' the Invulnerable save, since AP-3 is still a 5+ Save off their base 2+, meaning it needs to be AP-4 or greater for the Invulnerable to actually matter.

 

Where do this actually come into play? Um, I guess Melta spam? Is that even a thing?

 

What kills MEQs? Generally it's S5-8, AP-1 to AP-3, D1-2. Disintegrators, Plasma, Assault Cannons, etc.

 

Actually, here's a unit that could make it important: Genestealers. Assuming, say, 15 get into either unit (after Overwatch or somehow escaping the Marine players' guns before), that's 60 attacks:

vs Terminators: 60*.66 = 39.6 hits *.5 = 19.8 wounds, of which 6.6 are AP-4, 13.2 AP-1: 8.7 failed AP-1, and 4.4 failed AP-4 = 13.1 damage (or 6 dead Terminators)

vs Aggressors: 60*.66 = 39.6 hits *.33 = 13.1 wounds, of which 6.5 each are AP-4/-1; 6.5 failed AP-4, and 3.25 failed AP-1 = 9.75 damage (or 3 dead Aggressors)

 

That's hugely in favour of the Aggressors there, with an equivalent unit (6 Terminators = approximately 6 Aggressors) the Terminators are wiped out, while the Aggressors - badly mauled - are able to punch back and at least do something. In this instance, the 3W is of far more important than the Sv2+/5++.

 

4. Aggressors pack in more melee potential than an equivalently costed Terminator squad (due to their base 3A to the Terminator's 2A) and far greater ranged firepower (6+d6 Bolter shots vs 4 Bolter shots). But let's look at some maths, including the Fury of the First Stratagem:

 

Ranged, vs GEQs, assuming Tactical Doctrine (as Terminator Deep Strike was mentioned, so we'll assume T2):

Aggressors (6+3.5): 9.5*.66*.66*.833 = 3.45 damage

Terminators (4): 4*.66*.66*.833 = 1.45 damage

Terminator (FotF): 4*.833*.66*.833 = 1.83 damage

 

Aggressors are clear winners here, inflicting almost twice as much damage as the FotF-buffed Terminators, and more than twice that of the baseline Terminators.

 

Melee, vs T7/3+ (assuming no Assault Doctrine/other buff):

Aggressors (3A+1 from Shock Assault: -1, 8/-3/2): 4*.5*.66*.833*2 = 2.2 damage

Terminators (2A+1 from Shock Assault: -1, 8/-3/2): 3*.5*.66*.833*2 = 1.65 damage

Terminators (with FotF): 3*.66*.66*.833 = 2.18 damage

 

Here it's much closer when FotF is factored in, but the Terminators are still behind and with FotF they have an additional CP cost, and an opportunity cost (ie, only one unit can benefit in Matched Play).

 

5. Cost - while Terminator bodies are cheaper (and the Sergeant is cheaper still), an Aggressor unit is less of a sunk cost: 111pts for three vs 165 for five (equivalent Aggressor/Terminator costs would be 6 Aggressors [222pts]/6 Terminators [233pts]). Terminators are not enough fewer points compared to an Aggressor to be viable, in my opinion, unless the point below is enough of a factor;

 

6. Terminators do have Deep Strike. I think this is the biggest advantage that they have over Aggressors; they can be held back, completely immune to enemy action until they get brought in. A decently sized unit can potentially make a difference, and with their resilience against small arms fire they could realistically hold an objective for quite some time. Further, they do have another advantage over Aggressors: range. Their guns are, simply, longer ranged; it's not an enormous benefit, but it's not entirely useless either.

 

+++

 

Personally, I think Aggressors are, generally speaking, a far superior option to Terminators. Pound for pound, they kick out more damage and take more to bring down.

[The_son_of_Dorn]

In the lore though isn't the terminator armour still tougher than aggressor? Just less mobile.

[Kallas]

In the lore though isn't the terminator armour still tougher than aggressor? Just less mobile.

 

In the Lore? Sure!

 

That's not the case on the tabletop at the moment, however, which I consider to be a damn shame, since I love Terminators. I just can't bring myself to use them, since they're just so...bleh. Whenever I've tried they die like they're nothing. The only time I've had success with Terminator models is in a Deathwatch Veteran unit, and that's only because they can play to their strengths with the Storm Shields of the other Marines shoring up their weakness(es).

[ThatOneMarshal]

Even the 5++ isn’t all that great for termies unless you come across ap -4 guns, which aren’t all that common anyways outside of hell blasters and such.

 

Also there’s so much dmg 2 out there that I feel like defense wise aggressors are much much better.

 

Only thing you probably should look at is if you value deep strike on normal tactical terminators.

 

Assault terminators are a slightly different beast but have a problem with actually getting to their target, with land raiders being too expensive and deep striking too unreliable.

[Deadman Wade]

Land Raiders aren't too expensive. Crusader comes at 260-ish points with good dakka, huge transport capacity and 2+ save. Redeemer and Phobos are slightly more expensive. It's problem is the same as it always was - it's too obvious threat when it contains a full terminator squad.

If anything, I think Agressors are under-costed by 15-20 pts per model, they are so effective that are almost auto-include like older edition grav centurions.