One is none, two is one...death of a thesis?

[Shadow Captain Vyper]

So, for some time, the competitive Warhammer community has held firm to the concept of "One is none, two is one" (and sometimes "3 is a plan"). Meaning its harder for your opponents to counter your hammers if you have two of each of them in your list. Many competitive lists show 3x X Unit on their army roster for that exact reason.

 

It can keep your tools in play longer, and less susceptible to being blown off the board.

 

So now I am asking myself: Is this theory dead with 9e Space Marines?

 

I ask because I am seeing lots of tools that make me feel like that is the case. Barring troops (and even them to a degree), we are seeing multiple things change in the new Space Marine codex alongside 9th Edition that make playing Space Marines (and Raven Guard to a further extent) allow for a more varied and diverse list. Some points:

 

1. Terrain: 9th Edition is now the furthest along in terms of defined terrain rules as well as the sheer quantity of terrain. What does this mean? It means it is harder to eliminate your opponents threats, and in turn it is harder to have your threats eliminated. This means its easier to protect units you only field one of. Likewise, you will likely have some great cover, but if you spam units (especially those with our bigger base sized Primaris brethren) you may find yourself having to deploy one of the three copies of said squad in a more vulnerable position.
2. Stratagems: Many game-winning abilities are being moved into Stratagem form. Couple this with the diminishing returns inherently worked into some abilities as part of their rebalancing, and it feels like some units become less effective beyond taking one copy.
3. Decisions: Changes like the Chapter Master ability now force you to make choices - which is a great thing for the game. There are two costs to this. The first (and obvious one) is that "Take good units in multiples, group up, shoot/fight better lads" style gameplay is dead. Between the way objectives work in 9th Edition and the way buffs are changing, you are forced to divide your army and make choices. Well, if you are locked into only being able to buff (or use) certain things, it becomes advantageous to bring a wide varietal of units and apply them (swiss-army-knife-style) to the best possible situation. These permutations change between tables, objectives, and opponents. Rather than 3 Captains (or 2 Captains and an LT) we are more likely to see 1 Chapter Master, 1 Apothecary, and 1 Chaplain, for example.
4. Another concept of multiplicative units was target denial: If you take lots of X (Infantry for example) you give your opponent less targets for their AT (or vice versa). Now, with the new units available to us, there are an insane number of infantry options for a RG player. This plus the change of +1 on First Born, incentivizes infantry-first gameplay heavily. 

 

What's this mean?

 

Before 9th (and the SM Codex), I was running something like this: (Ignore the points, I deleted all my 8th lists from Battlescribe for cleanup)

 

Double Battalion - 2k

 

2x Smash Captain (One CM)

1x Jump Chaplain

1x LT w/ Ex T

 

3x 5 Scouts

2x Infiltrators

1x Big Blob of Interecessors

 

6-12 Aggressors (Boltstorm)

 

3x3 Eliminators

 

2-3 Ven Dreads (Twin Las/ML)

 

2x TFC

 

Now I want to run something like:

 

Shrike

Captain

Primaris Chaplain on Bike

Apothecary (Or Libby)

 

5 Heavy Intercessors

10 Assault Intercessors

10 Bolt Rifle Intercessors

5 Incursors

 

6 Aggressors

10 Vanguard Veterans w/ JP and a spread of LC/SS

1 Redemptor

1 Venerable with Twin Las/Dread CC

 

6 Eradicators

1 Whirlwind

Devastators in a Pod

 

3 Outriders

5 ASMs for objective nabbing 

 

 

Anyone else feel the same way? Kinda a "revolver full of silver bullets" approach rather than "take everything in multiples" approach.

 

Show me your lists you are toying with!

[War of the Eagle]

Well ill weigh in even tho i havent played competitive in 10 years.

 

My for fun list will go something like this once i have all the points and models.

 

Shrike

Primaris tech marine.

 

5x vangaurd vets with lightning claws

Redemptor dread

Redemptor dread

Relic Deredeo dread with missles.

 

10x infiltratos

5x assault bolter intercessors

5x stalker bolter intercessors

 

Suppressor squad

 

Storm talon with missiles

Storm talon with missiles

 

3x eliminators heavy melta rifle + Mm

3x elimimators heavy melta rifle + Mm

 

Hold backfield with derodeo, techmarine, Supressors, and stalker intercessors.

 

Harass/counter with shrike, vangaurd and Storm taloms.

 

Push center with everything else.

 

Thinking of trying to get some ATVs

[Lukoi]

My current "all-comers" list for TTS tournaments, as I painstakingly build the real life version of the Army.

 

Culexes

Primaris Lieutenant (Indomitus)

Primaris Chaplain on Bike

 

Infiltrator 

4 x 5-man Intercessors with auto bolt rifles, power fists

 

Primaris Apothecary

5-man Blade Guard Vets

 

2 x 4-man Inceptors

 

1 x 5-man Eradicator (ablative wounds, anything over 4 shooters is wasted firing if you're double tapping usually)

2 x 4-man Eradicator

 

edited: reduced CPT to LT (RR 1 HR = RR 1 WR statistically)

Edited October 14, 2020 by Lukoi

[Jacques Corbin]

See, now I am thinking of the Primaris Techmarine too, but, with Master of Ambush, and taking a unit of Assault Intercessors with him, and sitting them next to an Invictor Warsuit with the Autocannons. Imagine that moving up on your deployment zone. I love the Awaken the Machine Spirits ability the PTM has to grant +1 to hit to a vehicle within 3". That is a lot of shots hitting on a 2+.

 

Plus, he has that power axe, which means a fist of hammer on the Assault Intercessor Sergeant would be a bit overkill, maybe just go with the sword.

 

I also want to have at least one unit of Incursors to mop up after my Whirlwind(s) since the TFC got nerfed hard. Infiltrators are best used to just camp a spot in the midfield and deny deep strikes.

 

Clear a drop zone on my opponent's flank, and drop in Inceptors, Suppressors, and the Phobos Lieutenant with Ex Tenebris. I got a lot of push back about, well they can just fly off, and he will be stuck there. Nope! GUERILLA TACTICS like a boss!

[War of the Eagle]

I like the techmarine and invictor idea.

 

Tho i worry about flanking and back lime droping to much of my army and not putting pressure on the mid. I figured the Redemptors backed by the troop could make a decent push. But my luck my redemptors will get meltaed in the face.

[MajorNese]

1. Terrain: 9th Edition is now the furthest along in terms of defined terrain rules as well as the sheer quantity of terrain. What does this mean? It means it is harder to eliminate your opponents threats, and in turn it is harder to have your threats eliminated. This means its easier to protect units you only field one of. Likewise, you will likely have some great cover, but if you spam units (especially those with our bigger base sized Primaris brethren) you may find yourself having to deploy one of the three copies of said squad in a more vulnerable position.

That depends - if it's a unit that should inflict damage while requiring LoS, then protecting it only works marginally better than before. LoS might be a bit more restricted, and the unit might hide behind obscuring terrain before firing, but once it moves into position to actually kill something, it can be killed right back. Terrain rules mean we can protect vulnerable units easier until they get where they need to get, but not our firebase.

 

 

Another concept of multiplicative units was target denial: If you take lots of X (Infantry for example) you give your opponent less targets for their AT (or vice versa). Now, with the new units available to us, there are an insane number of infantry options for a RG player. This plus the change of +1 on First Born, incentivizes infantry-first gameplay heavily.

That already worked before. I got tired of bringing X vehicles so some would survive for 1-2 rounds, and switched to infantry only.

 

What might actually stop us from spamming units would be the insane number of different units we have available, filling roles with different units for maximum versatility. Well, until we see what Eradicators do, and get 3 squads of those instead...

[Dracos]

I build an army based on a battlegroup concept. Each battlegroup has a role in the overall plan of how the army works in the game.

 

Battlegroup Alpha: Designed to hold the backfield. Routinely is also capable of being split into two smaller groups designed to hold two Objectives in my own DZ. Depending on mission, terrain and OpFor elements of the Aloha group should be able to provide firesupport for the Bravo and Charlie groups

 

Battlegroup Bravo and Charlie: This is the bulk of the army. They are designed to hold the midfield objectives through use of two twin builds that force the opponent to either split their forces or go all in on one. These two groups are twins, each assigned with two different ObSec Troops (Infiltrator/Incursors and a second ObSec wave Assault Intercessors. Each group has a reserve unit designed for a counter attack. It use to be Aggressors and/or Inceptors. I am currently re l-adjusting but have two 5 man units each of Bladeguard and Eradicators in my painting queue. Much depends on points. As you might see I’m big on repetition and pushing out as many effective infantry bodies on the field has possible.

 

Battlegroup Delta: is designed as a multi-purpose reserve. To potentially grab an objective in my opponents DZ, to counter attack if needed other o be gives in play of to pull off secondaries if possible. They preferably are units that innately deep strike but SftS is the straw that stirs the Raven Guard drink. I regularly use 2 CP for groups Bravo and Charlie and more than willing to use more in Delta if needed.

 

 

Even though I own two Invictors and a Xipbon and I don’t use vehicles, if I did I would definitely run Impulsors and Gladiators in twos. With all the damage dealing capability out there I don’t see a single vehicle living long. Unless your plan is for it to be a distraction unit (which is fine) I can’t see vehicles being of much use pass T1/2 unless your army can strike fast and hard at the units that can take them out.

[Shadow Captain Vyper]

I build an army based on a battlegroup concept. Each battlegroup has a role in the overall plan of how the army works in the game.

<snip>

 

Makes sense. So something like this?

 

Alpha: DZ objective campers

Bravo & Charlie: 5-Man BGV + 5-Man Eradicators + 2x Obsec Troops

Delta: Deep Striking/SFTS units or Jump Infantry/Bikes?

 

Kinda agree on the vehicles. I can see Aircraft being a little more viable with the baked-in mitigation to incoming fire, but Space Marine tanks just feel....bad. Overpriced and too easy to kill, imo. Especially with Eradicators in the meta.

 

I can't argue with multiple units of BGV as midfield objective holders, they are just...very strong. As far as Eradicators go, I don't disagree that two units of 5 is justified, I just personally think they will get mega-nerfed like what happened to Aggressors, and then I will be sad that I purchased them :(

[Dracos]

I expect the nerf and my long term expectations are that they won't be shooting twice after a while. Thus I'm building the army with that in mind, Therefore the two units of 5. Like the Aggressors it will be overkill for a while.

 

I expected this on the Aggressors a long time ago though. Not that it mattered much. I can count on one hand maybe the times I had the Aggressors stand and shoot. Probably against a Nid army lol. I want my Aggressors moving, shooting, (soon to be flaming) and then punching asap.

 

Bladeguard and AI's are going to be interesting. I've never tried to build an army with this many assault elements before .... should be fun learning experience for me.

[Alcyon]

If you're talking about the most competitive lists, almost all we're seeing right now are still using "one is none, two is one". Now these are pre-new codex of course, but things like 3 units of Serberys Raiders, 2x Aggressors, 2x Bladeguard, 2x Eradicators in Daniel Hesselberg’s BA/Mechanicus soup list from Fantasia Fanatic XXXVIII, though Henrik Lampén’s Salamanders in 2nd at the same event was a bit more diverse (Scout Bikes!) John Lennon’s White Scars at Iron Halo GT, 2x Bladeguard, 2x Outriders, 2x Grav Devs, etc. etc.

 

There is some variation, lots of 2nd place and lower marine lists with more 1-of units and more diversity. I think the reality is tournament competitive lists are always going to have multiples of the best units. But I agree that I think the new edition, new codex, and new points changes have created situations where it's more advantageous to have a range of silver bullets. I think this makes armies look cooler and more diverse, and makes games more fun to play, so I'm all for it. I would just be leery of giving the idea too much credence on top tables or giving GW quite as much credit for fully balancing the game as much as it could be.

 

I am seriously warming to one of Jacques' wild schemes for the first time. Running Assault Intercessors + MoA Techmarine + Invictor as package to hem an enemy in their DZ on turn 1 with cheap, fast ObSec and character support is pretty compelling and not a ton of points. I could bring my Aggressors and Librarian/Chaplain in on a later turn with SftS and fire, then get a charge off with Commanding Oratory. Really depends how critical Outriders are for objective grabbing on the larger table size once I hit 1500; I suspect they actually aren't that necessary at 2k because your larger army just naturally covers more of the board.

[Jacques Corbin]

If you're talking about the most competitive lists, almost all we're seeing right now are still using "one is none, two is one". Now these are pre-new codex of course, but things like 3 units of Serberys Raiders, 2x Aggressors, 2x Bladeguard, 2x Eradicators in Daniel Hesselberg’s BA/Mechanicus soup list from Fantasia Fanatic XXXVIII, though Henrik Lampén’s Salamanders in 2nd at the same event was a bit more diverse (Scout Bikes!) John Lennon’s White Scars at Iron Halo GT, 2x Bladeguard, 2x Outriders, 2x Grav Devs, etc. etc.

 

There is some variation, lots of 2nd place and lower marine lists with more 1-of units and more diversity. I think the reality is tournament competitive lists are always going to have multiples of the best units. But I agree that I think the new edition, new codex, and new points changes have created situations where it's more advantageous to have a range of silver bullets. I think this makes armies look cooler and more diverse, and makes games more fun to play, so I'm all for it. I would just be leery of giving the idea too much credence on top tables or giving GW quite as much credit for fully balancing the game as much as it could be.

 

I am seriously warming to one of Jacques' wild schemes for the first time. Running Assault Intercessors + MoA Techmarine + Invictor as package to hem an enemy in their DZ on turn 1 with cheap, fast ObSec and character support is pretty compelling and not a ton of points. I could bring my Aggressors and Librarian/Chaplain in on a later turn with SftS and fire, then get a charge off with Commanding Oratory. Really depends how critical Outriders are for objective grabbing on the larger table size once I hit 1500; I suspect they actually aren't that necessary at 2k because your larger army just naturally covers more of the board.

Wild schemes?! I happen to be quite adept at Asymmetrical Warfare. Real world military experience. I just hope that when I debut this list at Gigabites, that the same thing does not happen like it did at Battlegrounds in Virginia. Some :cuss spectator accused me of net-listing my own list. I had put it up on B&C a few days before, got some good feedback, then brought it to the table. Oh, and I am sure you know this particular type of spectator. Plenty of opinions and comments, shows off by doing math hammer, but no army of his own. He would not drop it, so I had to show him my phone and how I was logged into B&C. I truly despise those types! Just get a decent job, move out of your parent's house, buy a car, and then build a 40K army.

 

But back on topic. I am definitely taking 2 of the Storm Speeder Hammerstrike for antitank, and adding a Gladiator Lancer to make sure things die. I really want to do all infantry, but I want my opponent to shoot at something besides my Invictor.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Jacques Corbin

[Mandragola]

I think the marine army can be a bit deceptive here because there are loads of very similar units that do comparable work. So instead of taking 3 units of bladeguard you might take one, a unit of aggressors and some hammernators. So there's no duplication but there are still three units performing a roughly equivalent role.

 

I do also think the new missions and detachments will have changed things a bit. We need units that can do more things, like perform actions and score engage on all fronts. We can't just have as many heavy support slots (or whatever) as we want any more. Our armies need to be able to do more things, so we'll tend to have to make different choices.

[Lukoi]

Luckily for SM players, we have the largest inventory of options available. Truly the swiss army knife of factions.

[Dracos]

I agree with ^this^ (Mandragola)

It’s one reason I still think Aggressors (and now Terminators) are our best units. They shoot ... they fight ... and they are durable. Each also have strats the enhance those abilities.

Taking multiples of one or one of each of these kind of units is our best approach to dominating the meta

Edited October 22, 2020 by Dracos

[Alcyon]

On the other hand there is the issue of CP limitations and some units being especially thirsty. That, on top of needing more units for objective holding and performing actions like Mandragola says, means that we're still/more in the position of wanting 1-2 deathstar units that absorb the majority of CP instead of spreading our spend out throughout the army. 

 

It's broken a bit by being unable to use Fight Again on everything, but a big unit of Aggressors is going to want the new +1 to save strat, Transhuman, and maybe even Adaptive Strategy for AP1 on their flamers pretty much every turn if a lot of fire is coming in. 

 

 

Wild schemes?! I happen to be quite adept at Asymmetrical Warfare. Real world military experience. I just hope that when I debut this list at Gigabites, that the same thing does not happen like it did at Battlegrounds in Virginia. Some  spectator accused me of net-listing my own list. I had put it up on B&C a few days before, got some good feedback, then brought it to the table. Oh, and I am sure you know this particular type of spectator. Plenty of opinions and comments, shows off by doing math hammer, but no army of his own. He would not drop it, so I had to show him my phone and how I was logged into B&C. I truly despise those types! Just get a decent job, move out of your parent's house, buy a car, and then build a 40K army.

But back on topic. I am definitely taking 2 of the Storm Speeder Hammerstrike for antitank, and adding a Gladiator Lancer to make sure things die. I really want to do all infantry, but I want my opponent to shoot at something besides my Invictor.

 

Unbelievable. Some people have zero respect!

 

I think the Hammerstrike is very cool-looking (besides the guy peeking out of the turret mount), but I do feel it's underpowered and vulnerable versus other anti-tank options. Eradicators and even Attack Bikes, not to mention the ATV are stronger for the points I think. I'm protecting my Invictor by spreading the fire out to a Redemptor and maybe an Impulsor, but even that gives it up to Bring It Down and the Impulsor got pretty heavily nerfed. 

 

I was thinking more about Assault Intercessors and I realized I think I forgot some of the math we'd done back when the datasheet dropped. It's interesting to compare them to regular Intercessors again because of the three shots of the ABR, and the fact that they both have a 2 CP stratagem to double their output. Generally in 9th more shots are at least equal if not better than AP-1, but the gap is narrow enough that Assaults still edge out their brothers in pure damage output.

 

By my math, 10 Assault Intercessors get 10 pistol shots at AP-1 followed by 41 chainsword attacks at AP-1 (2 plus chainsword, Shock Assault and 1 for the Sergeant) for a total of 19 dead guardsmen or 4.25 marines on average out of 51 shots. With Honour the Chapter they get another 41 attacks (92 total) raising the death toll to 34 and 7.6 respectively. 

 

In contrast, normal Intercessors with ABRs get 30 bolter shots at AP0 followed by 31 close combat attacks (2 plus Shock Assault and 1 for the Sergeant) for a total of 18 dead guardsmen or 3.38 Space Marines out of 61 shots. With the Rapid Fire stratagem they get another 30 Auto Bolt Rifle shots (91 total) resulting in 26.9 GEQ or 5 marines dead. 

 

Accordingly I think I'll actually be running a bloc of 10 normal Intercessors in cases where I want to be able to SftS or MoA them to seize an objective. They'll have no problem wiping guardsmen off a point, and if necessary I can use Rapid Fire to take down marines or something like Necron Warriors. They also get the majority of their attacks buffed earlier in the game via Tactical Doctrine, which actually makes them able to kill 5 marines on average without Rapid Fire, and they can actually put up some solid Overwatch before being charged. I also have Bolter Fusillades locked in for the rest of the crusade which I think cinches it.

 

The Assault Intercessors' output is either extra insurance or overkill depending on how you look at it. With 4 CP(!) of stratagem support they can reliably wipe a squad of 10 2w marines, whereas normal Intercessors can do about 7.5 on average but only spend 2 CP. For me, I think Assault Intercessors, cool as they are, are still the domain of Blood Angels and successors which get extra attacks, AP or re-rolls on the charge. 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Alcyon

[Mandragola]

I think I agree on the assault intercessors. I was looking at them for MoA because they’re obsec but really it looks like aggressors are the top pick there, kind of unarguably. Nothing else does comparable damage in both the shooting and assault phases. Crucially, they’re good against pretty much any target you come across, from hordes all the way up to knights.

 

A unit of 10 ABR Intercessors seems like a really solid pick. Lots of the time you’re probably going to combat squad them to just hold objectives, and that’s fine. The option to fire 60 shots is very useful, and they’ve got great firepower in the 18”+ range band where RG traits are at their best.

 

One major point in favour of assault intercessors though is about taking objectives. If the enemy are on an objective you might be able to shoot them dead with normal intercessors - unless they’re behind a wall or something. But then your guys are still X” away from the objective. Charge in with assault guys though, and you take it for yourself.

 

However, normal intercessors aren’t hopeless in assault and they’re far better at shooting. I guess maybe it comes down to whether you think you’ll need to shoot or fight more often. With aggressors, vanguard vets and whoever else going up field, maybe you have the assault side of things covered.

[Lukoi]

I dont think units are contingent on the CP driven strategems. Dont get me wrong, love to have options, but the fact is, we have plenty of choices.

 

Sometimes, I think people confuse that veritable buffet of choice, as being things we must always be able to triggerx or something isnt as effective. That's the stance I disagree with.

 

From a game balance perspective, we shouldnt be able to always maximize units, the majority of the time. Being forced to make trade offs, to decide between pros and cons is key to playing the matches.

 

In my particular case, as a RG-S chapter, I feel the area we lack organically is defense/durability. We are decent at melee (not optimal for it like BA, BT, WS, or SW for example), and probably better than average amongst SM at shooting (but not as good as UM/SAL and IF), but we seem particularly underserved in terms of defense/durability in my ingame experience.

 

Some SM do it natively with auras, or strategems etc, and we have to tackle it largely through strategems, and the flexibility inherent to our best in class deepstrike.

 

So, on my CP "schedule," for example, I plan for a smoke screen to get popped for my infiltrators, five turns of transhuman on some unit (usually gravis vs S10 arty or similar situations, where wounding on 2 is about to occur on a key unit), unyielding to ignore weaker shooters on a key positioned MSU, and that accounts for approximately 9-10 of the 12 CP I earn in a game.

 

I spend one on Ambush fire in turn 2 or 3, and that leaves usually 1-2 for key rerolls. That's it. I'm leaning hard into durability since it's the area I feel my list is natively weakest.

 

Some might forgo that entirely, and lean even harder into the areas we are better at, which is certainly a valid option.

 

But ultimately, we still have the best options in many ways, truly flexible. If one felt their Army isnt effective because they cannot stack enough strategems onto key units turn after turn, I'd argue their might be some gaps to the list itself, or how they are employing it potentially.

[Link2edition]

I think the theory of "spamming" one datasheet is pretty much dead. Good riddance too.

9th is going to be about bringing lots of varied datasheets with overlapping coverage of roles to make better use of stratagems.

So you might still bring 3 units that are say, really good at killing big nasty things, but they probably won't all be the same datasheet.

[Mandragola]

I threw together a list to see if this theory checks out. This is my first go at a RG list so I'm not at all sure it's any good.

 

I found that, as expected, there are barely any duplicates here. Two units of heavy intercessors are the only pair.

 

I've attempted to produce a list that's fairly resilient to going second. The Inceptors and Eradicators deep strike. The Apothecary goes around with the aggressors, which seemed a bit odd at first to me, but oh well. You want the Apothecary to be up there and this is a way to achieve that. Not sure the Chaplain has the right warlord trait. He's in a hurry to reach melee and it's cool that he can make Shrike, the VVs, Aggressors and even the Intercessors advance and charge if needed - as well as doing a 20" move and charge himself.

 

I'm not sure if the VVs should be 2x5. It's cheaper in CPs to get them moving like this though, and they'd be seriously difficult to remove if the Apothecary is nearby. Even going second I might infiltrate them forward to join the Apothecaty and Aggressors in some games. They'd take a serious amount of shooting to remove, hopefully.

 

The broad idea is to have multiple different ways to attack the enemy, and I think that's correct for RG. You want to pull the teeth from the enemy army by eliminating threats.

 

Kayvaan Shrike 135

Warlord

 

Primaris Chaplain on Bike 150

Master of Sanctity

Benediction of Fury

Swift and Deadly

Mantra of Strength

Canticle of Hate

 

10 Intercessors 220

Auto Bolt Rifles

Power Fist

2 Auxiliary Grenade Launchers

 

5 Heavy Intercessors 150

Heavy Bolt Rifles

Heavy Bolter

 

5 Heavy Intercessors 150

Heavy Bolt Rifles

Heavy Bolter

 

5 Infiltrators 115

Infiltrator Comms Array

 

Primaris Apothecary 80

Master of Ambush

 

5 Aggressors 200

 

10 Vanguard Veterans 289

Jump Packs

Storm Shields

9 Lightning Claws

Thunder Hammer

 

5 Inceptors 250

Plasma Exterminators

 

6 Eradicators 260

2 Multimeltas

[Lukoi]

I think the theory of "spamming" one datasheet is pretty much dead. Good riddance too.

 

9th is going to be about bringing lots of varied datasheets with overlapping coverage of roles to make better use of stratagems.

 

So you might still bring 3 units that are say, really good at killing big nasty things, but they probably won't all be the same datasheet.

 

I'm literally running the opposite of this statement basically.

 

I run four intercessor squads with PF.

 

I run 3 eradicators, 2 inceptors.  Duplicates abound.

[Dracos]

 

I threw together a list to see if this theory checks out. This is my first go at a RG list so I'm not at all sure it's any good.

 

Kayvaan Shrike 135

Warlord

 

Primaris Chaplain on Bike 150

Master of Sanctity

Benediction of Fury

Swift and Deadly

Mantra of Strength

Canticle of Hate

 

Maneuverable, buffs, Invuls, good start.

 

 

 

 

10 Intercessors 220

Auto Bolt Rifles

Power Fist

2 Auxiliary Grenade Launchers

 

5 Heavy Intercessors 150

Heavy Bolt Rifles

Heavy Bolter

 

5 Heavy Intercessors 150

Heavy Bolt Rifles

Heavy Bolter

 

5 Infiltrators 115

Infiltrator Comms Array

 

I want to like the heavies for DZ work but points are at a premium. Just not sure they are worth 100 (50x2) points over regular Intercessors for guarding the DZ. I have come to prefer Incursors being forward deployed to grab midfield objectives early. That means having to units of 5 though with another ObSec unit close behind (Assault Intercessors with power fist for me) to reinforce those objectives. I'm really anxious for BattleScribe to add all the new goodies so I can start testing the Heavies on the board with proxies at first. I'll end of with 10 for Rule of Cool but they may be keeping my Stalker Intercessors company on the display case.

 

 

 

Primaris Apothecary 80

Master of Ambush

 

5 Aggressors 200

 

10 Vanguard Veterans 289

Jump Packs

Storm Shields

9 Lightning Claws

Thunder Hammer

 

I don't do Firstborn but these look like great choices when applied tot he correct targets.  Love Lightning claws. wish they had a Primaris version of Vanguard.

 

 

 

5 Inceptors 250

Plasma Exterminators

 

6 Eradicators 260

2 Multimeltas

 

Love the Plasma with Shrike and Eradicators don't need much buffing if any. 

 

It's a good list. I wouldn't be using ABR Intercessors regardless of the math, mainly because I would want a second unit of Incursors/Infiltrators and the Reiver Lieutenant or a couple units of Eliminators.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Dracos

[Alcyon]

Mandragola, on 22 Oct 2020 - 12:16 PM, said:

 

One major point in favour of assault intercessors though is about taking objectives. If the enemy are on an objective you might be able to shoot them dead with normal intercessors - unless they’re behind a wall or something. But then your guys are still X” away from the objective. Charge in with assault guys though, and you take it for yourself.

 

However, normal intercessors aren’t hopeless in assault and they’re far better at shooting. I guess maybe it comes down to whether you think you’ll need to shoot or fight more often. With aggressors, vanguard vets and whoever else going up field, maybe you have the assault side of things covered.

 

Yeah, my thinking was you're going to charge in both cases regardless so you can take over that objective, but there's no need to prioritize the Fight phase when nothing stops you from shooting ABRs before charging in. The specific case of the victim unit being behind cover does strongly support Assault Intercessors but I feel like you can set up to avoid that issue if you take ABRs.

 

But ultimately, we still have the best options in many ways, truly flexible. If one felt their Army isnt effective because they cannot stack enough strategems onto key units turn after turn, I'd argue their might be some gaps to the list itself, or how they are employing it potentially.

 

My argument is more that lists tend to be designed so that stratagems can be used on a few key units, so that you can maximize the value of your CP. I think your example of Smokescreen and Transhuman goes to show that RG lists are in a way designed to be built a certain way. We are vulnerable to shooting within 18" and the best value out of our CP is often to make 1-2 units more resilient against the strongest threats our opponents send at them. This means we're likely to play a few strong key units we can buff with stratagems as opposed to running multiple small squads of VVs, for example, as I recall people did back before stratagems.

 

The fact that you can pick between Aggressors, TH+SS Terminators etc. doesn't change the fact that you're probably running one big squad of them and using most of your CP on those units. That is an effective way to play marines, and I think the reality is that many of the datasheets we have access to are underpowered in comparison to the strongest units in the codex; we have so many options you need to run some form of triage to decide which units are worth it. I do see your point in that you have options between using CP to buff aggressive output or defensive, but for RG as you said the best use of CP is improving resiliency, as we have plenty of other ways to maximize unit output through relics, character auras and WLTs that don't require CP.

 

I think the theory of "spamming" one datasheet is pretty much dead. Good riddance too.

 

9th is going to be about bringing lots of varied datasheets with overlapping coverage of roles to make better use of stratagems.

 

So you might still bring 3 units that are say, really good at killing big nasty things, but they probably won't all be the same datasheet.

 

Like I said, we were seeing 3x Bladeguard 3x Eradicators in competitive lists all last month before the codex dropped, so I think this strategy is far from dead. I think there is something to be said for the fact that you can now do things like spent CP to make 3w Terminators re-roll 1s to hit, while instead paying points for an Ancient to make your Bladeguard re-roll 1s to hit, but at the end of the day I think there is unequivocally a better unit in most cases. Plus, the more streamlined into those units the meta gets, the clearer it is which units are best against those units. I do think there's always fluffier choices and more fun options to have and explore outside of competitive play, but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that our homebrew ideas about unit diversity are necessarily top-table quality.

 

 

5 Heavy Intercessors 150

Heavy Bolt Rifles

Heavy Bolter

 

5 Heavy Intercessors 150

Heavy Bolt Rifles

Heavy Bolter

 

I agree with Dracos that I think these are too expensive. I wouldn't say they're overcosted, but for me they join a coterie of Space Marine datasheets that provide redundant options or slightly different ways to approach a problem. I think in many case in 9th you'll have no LoS to units far enough away to benefit from the range of these guys' guns, and little pressure reaching your DZ to threaten these guys as objective holders. I might try running one squad to anchor an objective in an area further away from where I'm making a push, but 300pts of units with minimal offensive output in most cases is I think too much to pay when Necron players run Scarabs and Tyranids have Rippers, etc.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Alcyon

[Dracos]

 .... but I want so badly for Heavy Intercessors to work :(

 

 

I know that commonly one tries to mini-max CP as much as any other resource, but so far in 9th it's my experience that I am using more CP on my Troop choices than I am my Aggressors or Inceptors. Those two units usually are buffed by a character or have enough firepower on their own to be effective offensively and the Toughness 5 means that Transhuman is usually wasted on them imo.

 

At least so far I find the meta bringing more Strength 5 weapons to bear than I do  strength 6+ weapons. So I find I am using Transhuman more on my Intercessors or Infiltrators (Toughness 4) in order to make it harder for my opponent to oppose the objectives they are holding.

[Lukoi]

Halcyon, I dont disagree with you really, but the difference in our approaches is I'm not making a block of termies, or aggressors, or cents etc., the focus point of my strategems, nor does any one unit need to get multi stacked with effects for the army to be effective.

 

Going in hard on a centerpiece formation is absolutely valid, but alot of players imply that its needed to get the most bang for the buck out of our armies. That part I fundamentally think is incorrect and self limiting.

 

Stacking into "bomb," units or similar techniques is absolutely a valid thing, and for some factions its damned near the only way they have to be truly, top tier conpetitive.

 

I just dont think that's the case in SM play. They have the option to play that way, but it's not even remotely close to mandatory. Again, harkens to the innate flexibility of the faction.

[Jacques Corbin]

I remember that being a thing before I moved. There were a lot of players at the flgs who were heavily invested in having a "win condition" when list building. As if their army was a machine with only one function. The problem with that is that there are key units, and the rest are just tax to fill out the detachment(s). They have no planor real purpose for those filler units, beyond some vague notion of a support role.

 

Now, to be fair, there is a lot of that in real world military commanders. There is a main effort, and there is support, but it is not as extreme as it is in 40K. Like, in your battalion, if bravo company is the main effort, alpha company comes up behind them to support, and charlie company flanks, that is great if all goes according to plan, but if not, Charlie or Alpha are expected to step up if Bravo falls or if the enemy is weaker where they engage.