the BIG 9th edition room

[Blindhamster]

Guys what do you all think about a 5 man unit of veteran intercessors armed with auto bolt rifles and the Sergeant carrying the Sword of Judgement?

 

That's 5 attacks on the charge, he's supported by 8 ablative wounds, can advance and shoot, small footprint, etc.  Veterans are only 2 points more than regular intercessors, so 120 pts all in including power sword and grenade launcher.

 

Oh, speaking of the Grenade Launcher....it's listed as an assault weapon.  Since that and the rifle are not pistols, could the model carrying the grenade launcher fire both his grenade launcher and his auto bolt rifle on his turn?

yes they can now fire both.

[Marshal Reinhard]

that is pretty smexy

[Segismundo]

Perhaps better with chainswords.

[Medjugorje]

 

Guys what do you all think about a 5 man unit of veteran intercessors armed with auto bolt rifles and the Sergeant carrying the Sword of Judgement?

 

That's 5 attacks on the charge, he's supported by 8 ablative wounds, can advance and shoot, small footprint, etc.  Veterans are only 2 points more than regular intercessors, so 120 pts all in including power sword and grenade launcher.

 

Oh, speaking of the Grenade Launcher....it's listed as an assault weapon.  Since that and the rifle are not pistols, could the model carrying the grenade launcher fire both his grenade launcher and his auto bolt rifle on his turn?

yes they can now fire both.

 

main point here is that a bladeguard squad will cost less and no CP for more attacks with -3ap.

[9x19 Parabellum]

The main reason I'm shying away from BGV is because-

 

-they have MC Power Swords already that do 2 damage. Not as big a damage jump to Sword of Judgment.

-they have big targets painted on them.

-vet intercessors are more flexible overall.  With auto bolt rifles they have 30" threat range + advance.  BGV dont

-5 vet ints have 16 soft melee attacks + 5 hard melee attacks + 15 soft shooting +1 grenade = 37 attacks.  3 BGV have 13 hard melee attacks + 3 shooting = 16 attacks.

-EDIT: oh also, I already have a unit of BGV done from the Indomitus set and i want to do something new.

 

vet ints also have the option to shoot twice with the stratagem, that's 30 horde clearing shots +2x grenade launcher profile. 

 

I see them in 2 different roles. BGV go in Impulsor along with Judiciar for round 1 Devout Push bomb. I see the Vet Ints as more on a midfield objective, shooting things up, with a nasty surprise countercharge for midfield TEQs/elites that try to push you off.

Edited December 1, 2020 by 9x19 Parabellum

[Acebaur]

The main reason I'm shying away from BGV is because-

 

-they have MC Power Swords already that do 2 damage. Not as big a damage jump to Sword of Judgment.

-they have big targets painted on them.

-vet intercessors are more flexible overall.  With auto bolt rifles they have 30" threat range + advance.  BGV dont

-5 vet ints have 16 soft melee attacks + 5 hard melee attacks + 15 soft shooting +1 grenade = 37 attacks.  3 BGV have 13 hard melee attacks + 3 shooting = 16 attacks.

-EDIT: oh also, I already have a unit of BGV done from the Indomitus set and i want to do something new.

 

vet ints also have the option to shoot twice with the stratagem, that's 30 horde clearing shots +2x grenade launcher profile. 

 

I see them in 2 different roles. BGV go in Impulsor along with Judiciar for round 1 Devout Push bomb. I see the Vet Ints as more on a midfield objective, shooting things up, with a nasty surprise countercharge for midfield TEQs/elites that try to push you off.

 

Vet Intercessors just aren't worth it. They aren't much better than standard Assault intercessors and cost 3 PPM more than they do. They are also Elites which is a very crowded slot full of units that are simply much better than they are at what they do, like Vandguard, Terminators and Bladeguard, all of which have combinations of more durabilty, more options and more power weapons. 

 

If you take them with rifles, you waste their extra attack because a few extra S4 AP0 D1 attacks isn't going to do jack against most targets and regular intercessors shoot just as well and have ObSec. If you take chainswords on them, well then again 3ppm isn't worth 1 attack each on a non troop model that isn't more durable

[9x19 Parabellum]

 

The main reason I'm shying away from BGV is because-

 

-they have MC Power Swords already that do 2 damage. Not as big a damage jump to Sword of Judgment.

-they have big targets painted on them.

-vet intercessors are more flexible overall.  With auto bolt rifles they have 30" threat range + advance.  BGV dont

-5 vet ints have 16 soft melee attacks + 5 hard melee attacks + 15 soft shooting +1 grenade = 37 attacks.  3 BGV have 13 hard melee attacks + 3 shooting = 16 attacks.

-EDIT: oh also, I already have a unit of BGV done from the Indomitus set and i want to do something new.

 

vet ints also have the option to shoot twice with the stratagem, that's 30 horde clearing shots +2x grenade launcher profile. 

 

I see them in 2 different roles. BGV go in Impulsor along with Judiciar for round 1 Devout Push bomb. I see the Vet Ints as more on a midfield objective, shooting things up, with a nasty surprise countercharge for midfield TEQs/elites that try to push you off.

 

Vet Intercessors just aren't worth it. They aren't much better than standard Assault intercessors and cost 3 PPM more than they do. They are also Elites which is a very crowded slot full of units that are simply much better than they are at what they do, like Vandguard, Terminators and Bladeguard, all of which have combinations of more durabilty, more options and more power weapons. 

 

If you take them with rifles, you waste their extra attack because a few extra S4 AP0 D1 attacks isn't going to do jack against most targets and regular intercessors shoot just as well and have ObSec. If you take chainswords on them, well then again 3ppm isn't worth 1 attack each on a non troop model that isn't more durable

 

 

Ok let me ask this a better/different way; which unit Sgt is best candidate to carry the Sword of Judgment?

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Anyone see in Goonhammer today that apparently we currently have the best win rate of any Astartes faction?

[BitsHammer]

Anyone see in Goonhammer today that apparently we currently have the best win rate of any Astartes faction?

We also have the smallest competetive player base right now.

 

As for Veteran Intercessors: if you're doing a Primaris only Crusade they probably have more going for them than when they're competing with Firstborn. I don't know if I'd take them off hand (say, compared to BGV or Aggressors, the former who fights better, and the latter who can mow hordes better), but larger Crusade comp likely matters the most for them being worth using.

[Medjugorje]

goonhammers review just shows that we are underestimated.

I play tournaments since 2011 and what I have learned so far, is that the majority of people play a few armies and the sub-faction which is the strongest. And if there was a strong one before they fallow what other people said instead of making their own experiences. So we can see that just a few players saw the possiblities for another faction to play with, which wasnt that good in 8th edition. 

 

Its often really fun to see the enemy struggle with specific game mechanics from Black Templars because they didnt realize what this army can do. Especially in my last tournament there was a "anti-Marnes" list which dont had even a chance against our anti psychic power. It was nice to see our Marines were the counter to the Marines-counter.

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

In my experience, Medjugorje is right about people being unfamiliar with our rules. Nearly everyone knows about our 1 CP psychic deny strat, but very few players in my area know about Divine Push or Vicious Riposte. I've even taken some people by surprise by locking them in combat when they try to retreat. So on a local level we're super unknown, though on a tournament level I don't suspect that will last too long.

 

However, the Goonhammer math on our win rate is a touch Misleading. I urge people not to skip reading the breakdowns of what the numbers mean, because a large part of why our success rate is so high is we don't have a ton of people playing our army. If you have a small number of very skilled players, you'll have more wins than losses coming in and the numbers won't reflect reality. If BT had a broader spread of players, more losses would stack up and you'd see the strength of the army on average, not when piloted by someone who's really mastered how it works.

 

Not to say we don't have a lot of unique tools, we have some, but they're not difficult to counter. Once people start planning for us you'll see a sharp dip in our numbers. We're just generic space marines with slightly less access to buffs, but more movement shenanigans and better survivability against mortal wounds. 

[Sword Brother Adelard]

It's not misleading at all. It just states what it states. Regardless if sample size, it's still significant to have that good a win rate regardless of pool size.

 

It's very interesting to see us not only climb the stats, but be statistically significant at all, when jn recent years, competitive reviews would hardly ever include Templar stats because no one was playing them. I think last LVO only had two, maybe three lists, and I don't think one even played.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

It is misleading coz most people won’t read the entire article.

[BitsHammer]

It is misleading coz most people won’t read the entire article.

I'd argue it's clickbait at worst since it's accurate information, but it fails to show how many people are actively playing the army.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I think it is click bait as well which in a way is unfortunate .

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

It's not misleading at all. It just states what it states. Regardless if sample size, it's still significant to have that good a win rate regardless of pool size.

 

It's very interesting to see us not only climb the stats, but be statistically significant at all, when jn recent years, competitive reviews would hardly ever include Templar stats because no one was playing them. I think last LVO only had two, maybe three lists, and I don't think one even played.

 

 

Incorrect. If you give a seven year old the top meta list, and then proceed to beat them with a random hodge podge of models that don't even have strat or faction support, you aren't getting an accurate representation of either army. That is a very dramatic example of the point I'm trying to make. Sample size is absolutely important when you are gathering ANY kind of data, and should be kept in mind when making judgments based on said data. I believe Goonhammer does state this in their tier lists and breakdowns, but if so people have a habit of ignoring it. That's why I urge people to read how the data is broken down and what it means so they don't draw false conclusions from it. IE, avoid being misled by the final number. 

 

BT has potential, but it's probably a little high in the tier lists right now. I wouldn't be surprised if it creeps back down a bit once people adapt. And if a bunch of faction newbs flock to it thinking that it is the hot new meta, we're going to see BT numbers take a nose dive as they start losing games.

Edited December 6, 2020 by Marshal Valkenhayn

[BitsHammer]

I feel like it'd be nice if Goohammer said how many armies where being played and did a sort of weighted average to give a more 1:1 comparison, but I'm not even sure how to weight that average so that's just wishlisting for better data I guess.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

 

 

It's not misleading at all. It just states what it states. Regardless if sample size, it's still significant to have that good a win rate regardless of pool size.

 

It's very interesting to see us not only climb the stats, but be statistically significant at all, when jn recent years, competitive reviews would hardly ever include Templar stats because no one was playing them. I think last LVO only had two, maybe three lists, and I don't think one even played.

 

Incorrect. If you give a seven year old the top meta list, and then proceed to beat them with a random hodge podge of models that don't even have strat or faction support, you aren't getting an accurate representation of either army. That is a very dramatic example of the point I'm trying to make. Sample size is absolutely important when you are gathering ANY kind of data, and should be kept in mind when making judgments based on said data. I believe Goonhammer does state this in their tier lists and breakdowns, but if so people have a habit of ignoring it. That's why I urge people to read how the data is broken down and what it means so they don't draw false conclusions from it. IE, avoid being misled by the final number.

This is a silly example. Of course I'm not suggesting that sample size is completely unimportant. And obviously a sample size of one would be useless.

But, the sample we have is statistically significant. If it was a sample size less than ten, it wouldn't be.

 

Sometimes I feel like the Templar players around here have such an inferiority complex that they actively look for reasons not to believe food news, Let's be honest here, if we had the lowest win rate with the same sample size we wouldn't all be sitting here arguing that the sample size is statistically irrelevant. We would just be moaning about how it's our rules fault.

 

Of course this data isn't the be all and end all, but dismissing it utterly as some of you seem to be is silly.

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

Last I checked, it was a sample size of less than ten. In fact, glancing at 40K Stats now shows a sample size of 8 lists. The Goonhammer review only makes mention of one active player, and though there are no doubt more bouncing about, the numbers still aren't significant.

 

Could be that I'm unaware of where the rest of the data is stored, and I'll gladly take a look if you can direct me to it. But 40Kstats has been my go to for some time.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

 

 

It is misleading coz most people won’t read the entire article.

I'd argue it's clickbait at worst since it's accurate information, but it fails to show how many people are actively playing the army.

I'm not sure how an article entitled "The December 2020 Meta Review" could be described as "clickbait"?

 

If it was Spikey Bits running an article entitled "Surprise Black Power Armoured Army is taking the meta by storm!" I could understand, but this?

[Medjugorje]

Thats the data which includes half of the games with the old codex. And surely we arent winner with the new codex in comparison to other marines I think. The codex supports a lot of stuff (that other Space Marines can do too) and some of our key things doesnt work anymore.

 

With Helbrecht we had an (no CP - cost) multi buffer (nerfed)

With the Impulsor we had a really strong element (nerfed)

 

There are a few things which are nerfed but hit all Marines and some others way harder then us ( Ultramarines/ Salamander Aggressors for example) 

 

everything which is better now or will be seen in many lists:

 

- Terminators are buffed ( and Dark Angels are way stronger then ours, while a lot of other chapters can use them as good as we can. But being honest - we are on the upper third at least)

- Eradicators are extrem buffed ( all other chapters can buff them better then us)

- Bladeguard are buffed ( same as Terminators)

- Plasma Inceptors are extremly powerful and each other chapter is better in using them as we can.

- Incursors are great and I dont see any chapter which has an advantage on them

- Vanguard Veterans are great but things like first turn charges with Raven guard are brutal, although we have great stratagems and buffs for them there are some chapters which can make them even better.

 

 

If you compare that list, it seems we are not on a bad spot. But why we can be sure that other chapters still has advantages. Lets see compare some list concepts:

 

- Raven Guard is that strong because of their WL-Trait which gives them an almost an win if they have first round. With redeployment they can destroy you in first round and its very hard to prepare anything on the battlefield against it. And if you done so, you are so defensive then you have lost a lot of space to grap objectives. Thats the one game mechanic + a few stratagems which makes them so strong. Its not that much.

 

- White Scars are that powerful because their unbelievin OP superdoctrine which makes even normal units to absolut overkill monsters. Bladeguard Veterans with 3dmg weapons and normal assault intercessors for 105 point to 16 attacks with -2 2dmg + special weapon +1 dmg. Then they can make their heavy weapon into assault (eradicators) and with Khan they have easy access to +1 to wound. Can charge with Vanguard Veterns after advancing and after that fight falling back and still able to attack. Except a few things which makes our units more durable - it should be clear why they are the number 1 in close combat.

 

- Space Wolves. to be honest, I cannot say too much about them but in my mind, they have the best chapter tactic for special combat weapons like Hammers and fists which have the greatest impact for close combat marines. In addition they have a few very tricky things which makes it hard to contest objectives and one of the best Primaris characters in the game (Ragnar) I heard different opinions but in general I think they are just good against other melee armies in terms of the meta.

 

- Blood Angels have the best chaptertactic and an even fearsome superdoctrine. everything which makes them great is their own units like Death company which can be "redeployed" ( power is similar to Raven guard WL-Trait, maybe stronger). Their sanguard is really fearsome and they have insane characters like the sanguinor which gets an free -100percent "charge".

 

- Dark Angels. Where should I start? Terminators which ignore morale and have free Transhuman physiology. The perfect Chapter Master which gave them 2 CP + 4++ for all OP units like Eradicators, Plasma Inceptors). A chapter tactic which gave them +1 to hit so that they can reroll everything in addition to a superdoctrine which gives them more range. The OP apo which they can have on a bike.

Our strongest defensive option (litany of divine protection) as relic for all bladeguards and characters. The only thing we are far better is our mobility.

 

- Ultramarines can redeploy Invictors so that they are amazing. They can play the MSU game very good because their stratagems which gave them rerolls for units which just arrive the battlefield. Their heavy melter rifle Eradicators can be treated as stationary in the tactical doctrine which they have easy access to.  Its hard to compare them to us because we are better in close combat and they are superior in shooting and I didnt played them until yet.

 

- Salamanders are just straight. They have an brutal captain (which we can handle easy^^) but no chapter have better options for eradicators then them and their close range is also extremly powerful. I think its hard to compare them too.

 

- Imperial Fists, Crimson Fists, Iron Hands are not in that great spot I think - I would say we are better then them right now.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Thats the data which includes half of the games with the old codex. And surely we arent winner with the new codex in comparison to other marines I think. The codex supports a lot of stuff (that other Space Marines can do too) and some of our key things doesnt work anymore.

 

You're right, the full data set covers the period pre and post codex release. However, the article also looked at the change in performance for chapters after the codex dropped. According to that, (and it's a small pool for everyone mind,) our success rate increased:

 

Looking at Tournament Data

On that note, we can move to our other dataset. ITC Battles App gives us a great view of practice games and generally mirrors what we see in ITC events, but it’s worth taking a look at that data in its own right. We looked at 3+ round events with 8+ players in Best Coast Pairings and Down Under Pairings to examine how faction win rates changed from pre- to post-Codex releases.

 

*Picture I cant copy on my phone places our faction second overall for increase in success rate post October after Necrons*

 

As space marine chapters have been tracked in the ITC as factions for a longer period of time, we can do a comparison to pre- and post-codex win rates that includes them, and from this we can tell the following:

 

Black Templars got a big boost from Codex: Space Marines and their Index. My colleague James “One_Wing” Grover already talked about this in his Competitive Innovations in 9th column when he looked at Ben Cherwien’s list. The ability to go hard on damage-dealing melee units and shore up the army’s weaknesses with the Rites of War Warlord Trait saves them a lot of trouble and several key relics like the Ancient Breviary and the Crusader’s Helm give them a big boost.

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

Again. I believe the post release data is calculated off of the success of a single player, which should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Both myself and Medjugorje have stated multiple times that the BT do have tricks, but outside of Divine Push and our always on 5+ against mortals they aren't unique, and can be fiddly. The success of BT hinges almost entirely on the success of the base codex with very few exceptions.

 

As it stands, I've been playing BT under these new rules and feeling the army out. It's alright, but that's all. It's not an exciting army to play, it doesn't do anything super well. 2 wound Crusaders have been fun to have on the table, as it makes the wound assignment mini game a little more impactful than it was when the difference between an Initiate and Neophyte was +1 armor save. Other than that, the only stand out unit for me has been the EC with fight first, as that comes up surprisingly often.

[Medjugorje]

in my mind emperors will is the strongest stratagem. I use it every game until we can reroll the advance and the charge roll.

[Acebaur]

@9x19 I would put it on an assault intercessor sgt. if I were going to take it.