First born vs primaris, truly comparable?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Another thread had an argument about what was better aggressors or terminators?

Both people went back and forth, one criticism of the aggressors was that you have to use strats and thus spend CP to make them perform like terminators in some situations.

 

This got me to thinking, primaris and their datasheets were designed specifically with stratagems in mind, where as firstborn were not.

 

CP is a core part of the game, and trying to rewrite the rules and datasheets of beloved firstborn units would cause issues among the player base, and just add extra headaches for the game designers.

 

So can you fairly compare units intended to use stratagems with units not intended for stratagems without factoring them in?

[XeonDragon]

Well, to be fair, there are firstborn units that have specific stratagems as well. Terminators have fury of the first, for example. In terms of you question about whether you can "fairly" compare units intended to operate (at least some of the time) with stratagems and those without, I think the answer is yes. The reason why I think the answer is yes is because of the following. 

 

First, CP is a finite resource. Players will have to choose if and when to spend CP. It is not uncommon for CP to be spent on relics, extra warlord traits or even extra detachments. Second, even if CP is available, there might not be enough available to spend on the particular stratagem, or a player make think what is available is better spent on another stratagem on another unit, for example choosing to spend CP on either transhuman, fury of the first, or a command-point re-roll for a result of 1 on a D6 damage weapon result, but not all three. Third, CP can run out. 

 

The combination of those three factors to my mind suggest that comparing units on the assumption that CP will be both available and will be selected and then used at any given point in a game in relation to one that is in competition with another similar unit that doesn't have a stratagem introduces an inherent degree of complexity built to too many assumptions. Put bluntly, I think it is fair enough to say that a unit with an effective stratagem is likely to use it at least once a game, but is also likely to not use it at all in at least 1 or more turns. There are just too many variables to base a comparison on the unit using it or not using it to be able to confidently say "this unit will always use this stratagem, and therefore any comparison to this unit must be made on that basis". I think the opposite is almost as likely to be true.

 

As such, I think the 'fairest' comparison between such units is just a bare-bones comparison without factoring the effect of a stratagem, whilst noting what that potential impact could be. For example, a tactical squad with a grav cannon and amp has better shooting damage (even if it moved) than a basic intercessor squad against a broad range of targets. However, intercessors can access a shoot-twice stratagem which then tips them to being well and truly better. They can also access transuman. But tacticals have melta-bomb keyword. 

 

So, to my mind, a bare-bones comparison tells you want unit is going to be best when you either have no CP left, or need to ration what CP  you have for a more effective use and thus choose not to use it on that unit at that time. In my experience, that state of affairs (low or no CP) is slightly more common than having CP and no restraints on the ability to spend it in a game, so I feel that a bare-bones comparison is likely to give you a better guide of how the unit performs "when the chips are down", so to speak.

 

But, again, playstyle comes into it. I do regularly play against people who start the games with 10+ cp, others with <5. So that is also a factor. I usually start a 2k game with between 7 and 9, so CP is very valuable hence, for me at least, non-CP boosted performance is very important, as in most turns, for most units, CP will either not be available, or will be better spent somewhere else. Classic example: You have 4CP, do you spend 1CP on smokescreen on your incursors, 1CP on your terminators to shoot better, or 1CP on your aggressors for trans-human to survive a counter-fight from a big nasty unit they charged last turn but didn't kill? Do you do all three? Is 1CP enough of a buffer to re-roll your clutch saves or damage rolls later in the turn? Is 2CP enough?

 

It's situations like that that make me think you compare on the basis of no CP being available because, at the end of the day, that is the baseline performance you can rely upon turn after turn.

Edited June 7, 2021 by XeonDragon

[Lord_Ikka]

This got me to thinking, primaris and their datasheets were designed specifically with stratagems in mind, where as firstborn were not.

 

CP is a core part of the game, and trying to rewrite the rules and datasheets of beloved firstborn units would cause issues among the player base, and just add extra headaches for the game designers.

I would argue that as of 8th edition, both Firstborn and Primaris rules were specifically designed to work with stratagems, but on a army-wide or specific unit type keyword (Character, Infantry, Vehicle, etc...) basis rather than specific unit basis. Now we are seeing Primaris edge out Firstborn in specific unit keywords, which makes sense from a business standpoint; GW wants to sell Primaris so they are targeting them to get the strats. 

[XeonDragon]

 

This got me to thinking, primaris and their datasheets were designed specifically with stratagems in mind, where as firstborn were not.

 

CP is a core part of the game, and trying to rewrite the rules and datasheets of beloved firstborn units would cause issues among the player base, and just add extra headaches for the game designers.

I would argue that as of 8th edition, both Firstborn and Primaris rules were specifically designed to work with stratagems, but on a army-wide or specific unit type keyword (Character, Infantry, Vehicle, etc...) basis rather than specific unit basis. Now we are seeing Primaris edge out Firstborn in specific unit keywords, which makes sense from a business standpoint; GW wants to sell Primaris so they are targeting them to get the strats. 

 

 

I think that is a very good observation. I haven't got time today, but I think if you went through the 8th and 9th edition core SM codexes and did up a table, the proportion of stratagems that apply to unit-based keywords rather than unit-type based keywords have probably increased. A prime example is transhuman, which went from unit-type (not vehicle or servitor, so all infantry and characters) to unit-type (primaris) based. 

[MegaVolt87]

Combination of eventual obsolescence of firstborn and inconsistent design + incompetence from the game devs. It cracks me up they took away double shooting from aggressors, then introduce eradicators with double shooting, a far more busted unit than aggressors were with a shoot twice rule. If there were anyone with some sense, there would be double shooting stratagems at 2 or 3 CP cost based on the amount of models in the unit for aggressors and eradicators. Watch in 10th edition as eradicators lose the shoot twice rule. 

[XeonDragon]

Agreed. I also think it is hilarious that intercessors and eradicators can shoot twice (one via stratagem, one built-in if conditions are met) but tactical marines can't, aggressors can't (anymore) and terminators can't. Same for fight-twice. Assault intercessors can (via stratagem) but VGV, BGV, assault terminators and assault marines (also melee beat sticks) can't? 

[INKS]

Here is a question: How long until 1st born are no longer a thing?

[MegaVolt87]

Here is a question: How long until 1st born are no longer a thing?

 

Reality- 

How it will go is primaris will get better chapter uniques than firstborn, sales will plummet, move to legends for firstborn chapter uniques, discontinue kits. Less stratagem support + unit rules, higher points on firstborn, sales plummet, move to legends for the remaining firstborn, discontinue kits. GW kicking that can down the road until it disintegrates.  

 

How I wish it went-

Separate firstborn + primaris codexes, integration of FW SM units into codexes + FW kits to plastics.Ditto for CSM.

 

Best case- 

Firstborn move to a seperate specialist game that integrates 40k post HH up till 13th black crusade. 

[Lord_Ikka]

 

Here is a question: How long until 1st born are no longer a thing?

 

Reality- 

How it will go is primaris will get better chapter uniques than firstborn, sales will plummet, move to legends for firstborn chapter uniques, discontinue kits. Less stratagem support + unit rules, higher points on firstborn, sales plummet, move to legends for the remaining firstborn, discontinue kits. GW kicking that can down the road until it disintegrates.  

 

How I wish it went-

Separate firstborn + primaris codexes, integration of FW SM units into codexes + FW kits to plastics.Ditto for CSM.

 

Best case- 

Firstborn move to a seperate specialist game that integrates 40k post HH up till 13th black crusade. 

 

You reality option is the most likely option. 10th Edition we'll see Primaris Sanguinary Guard, Primaris Deathwing Knights, etc... of some stripe or the other. GW may continue to push Firstborn units, but realistically it is a dwindling model line for them- aside from nostalgia and specific HH stuff, GW has no business need to continue Firstborn and freeing up their production lines by removing a major section (or moving Firstborn to FW) frees up space for newer models and that leads to profit.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Lord_Ikka

[Captain Idaho]

Hey, argument was a harsh interpretation. Respectful discussion I'd say. ;)

 

Moving back to the topic at hand, I too noticed Primaris receiving Strategum support over that of Firstborn. Not exclusively of course, but there's far more for the Primaris.

 

This to me seemed fairly obvious though - many Primaris units just don't quite compare with internal balance of their Firstborn rivals and the units which perform best don't need Strategums.

 

Before this triggers folk, hear it out! Infiltrators, Inceptors and Eradicators are staples in competitive environments and do not require or use Strategum support often.

 

Bladeguard are an odd exception - they have solid competitive rules yet also stack really well with Strategums support as well.

 

I'm not saying Primaris aren't competitive, far from it. What I'm saying is they match up fairly poorly alongside their Firstborn counterparts when doing a like for like comparison. Intercessors for example, are a solid workhorse unit, but now Firstborn have 2 wounds if it weren't for Strategum support why would you ever take them over Infiltrators or Tactical squads?

 

Even Bladeguard, who are great melee troops, lose out to Vanguard who have better weapons, mobility and larger squads. But add in Strategum support and blam they're really good.

 

The aforementioned Aggressors I find to be fairly limited in scope but they too can receive plenty of CP support to boost them up and thus be more effective. I think they still struggle in a truly competitive sense, as cost and efficiency of Terminators is far and away more effective, but the Strategum support that is there can boost them up nicely.

 

I feel like it's a really positive thing to use Strategums to assist with internal balance. Units that would potentially come out weak on a stat by stat comparison can have a role in a different manner because you built your army with a view to use Strategums to bolster their performance.

 

Note, we do not talk of Reivers as they do not exist ;)

Edited June 7, 2021 by Captain Idaho

[Valkyrion]

Here is a question: How long until 1st born are no longer a thing?

 

 

next edition, IMO. 

I think 2022 will see a second wave of primaris kits, probably allied to a campaign of some sort (gathering storm, psychic awakening etc) that will segue primaris into currently only firstborn roles (e.g, jump pack melee infantry, chapter specific primaris units etc) and maybe ruffle some feathers by killing off Azrael, or Njal, or Lemartes et al so that when 10th rolls round in 2023 people will already be using these new units/discarding the old units.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Here is a question: How long until 1st born are no longer a thing?

I think first born will always be a thing. The entire range won't be there but I'm sure we will see upscaled terminators at some point. GW has put a ton of effort into keeping first born relevant and have avoided direct replacements, if they wanted to get rid of firstborn on a timeline they wouldn't have bothered.

[Lord_Ikka]

Hey, argument was a harsh interpretation. Respectful discussion I'd say.

 

Moving back to the topic at hand, I too noticed Primaris receiving Strategum support over that of Firstborn. Not exclusively of course, but there's far more for the Primaris.

 

This to me seemed fairly obvious though - many Primaris units just don't quite compare with internal balance of their Firstborn rivals and the units which perform best don't need Strategums.

 

Before this triggers folk, hear it out! Infiltrators, Inceptors and Eradicators are staples in competitive environments and do not require or use Strategum support often.

 

Bladeguard are an odd exception - they have solid competitive rules yet also stack really well with Strategums support as well.

 

I'm not saying Primaris aren't competitive, far from it. What I'm saying is they match up fairly poorly alongside their Firstborn counterparts when doing a like for like comparison. Intercessors for example, are a solid workhorse unit, but now Firstborn have 2 wounds if it weren't for Strategum support why would you ever take them over Infiltrators or Tactical squads?

 

Range/AP, volume of fire, and mobility is the main reason to take Intercessors over Tac squads. The Tac squad is ok, and has the edge in variety with the ability to take a special/heavy weapon, but generally you will be splitting fire to take advantage of the special/heavy weapon. If you compare just a base Tac squad (90 points) to a base bolt rifle Intercessor squad (100 points), the Intercessors are better at range, given that they have longer range weapons and better AP, while still having an extra attack in melee to help out. Switch the Intercessors to auto bolt rifles and now the Intercessors are shooting 50% more shots than the Tac squad at rapid fire range and triple at 12+ inches, while still being able to move faster via Advancing. For 2 points more per model I will gladly take the extra melee attack and the better base weaponry. 

Not super sold on the Stalker bolt rifle Intercessor squad as being better than a Tac squad for rear-line objective holding, but I suppose you could lay out a case for having 36 inch "semi-sniper" rifles being better than a Tac squad with a heavy weapon- more of a personal choice there IMO.

 

 

Here is a question: How long until 1st born are no longer a thing?

I think first born will always be a thing. The entire range won't be there but I'm sure we will see upscaled terminators at some point. GW has put a ton of effort into keeping first born relevant and have avoided direct replacements, if they wanted to get rid of firstborn on a timeline they wouldn't have bothered.

 

They didn't put a lot of effort into making Firstborn relevant, their only real concession was to give them an extra wound which happened after an entire edition of complaints. Other than that, Firstborn have received no real support at all- not a single new Firstborn unit has been dropped since 8th edition (I'm excluding the limited-edition models and stuff like DA's Talonmaster/Deathwing Strikemaster that are just authorized kit-bashes) while the Primaris range has expanded exponentially to cover almost every unit type/role in the SM range, barring flyers and specialty tanks. One to one replacement hasn't happened yet due to the possibility of player complaints, but it is just a matter of time before enough of the playerbase is basically inured to the idea of Primaris-only and you start seeing Primaris versions of Chapter specific units.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Lord_Ikka

[Captain Idaho]

Regardless of the Intercessors vs Tactical squad debate, the point is the same - most Primaris units that stand alone don't need the Strategum support. Infiltrators compared to Intercessors, for example don't require any Strategum support for their function.

 

When discussing Tactical Marines and Intercessors comparatively, it's a case of taking into consideration their correct usage. Sure, Tactical Marines without additional weapons are going to tally up poorly against Intercessors for just 2pts, but you wouldn't take them like that. You'll use the weapons to bolster your firepower whilst holding an objective.

 

With Strategum support, a large unit of Intercessors works nicely in the centre of the board. Without Strategums they're still going to work, but many people get more out of minimum sized Troops and investing elsewhere (especially in a competitive environment). This is why we often see Infiltrators and Incursors in Primaris lists, or Tactical Marines in Firstborn lists. Often we see larger units of Assault Intercessors which love Strategum support.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Captain Idaho

[Ishagu]

In response to TC's original post:

 

I'll just briefly say that whilst CP is indeed a finite resource, the game also has a finite length and number of turns.

 

You only need a unit to deal key damage or survive a key turn once or twice. A unit can be CP reliant for it's optimum durability, let's say, but that doesn't mean it needs the highest level of durability for an entire game.

 

Usually by turn 4 and 5 the offensive output of armies is diminished. The same applies to damage dealing - you need to deliver damage at key points in the game against key units the opponent has deployed.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Ishagu

[Mandragola]

At first I thought this comparison was a bit nonsensical. There are tons of strats for firstborn units, not to mention that most other armies have units that existed long before strats, and they do of course have strats.

 

That said, in the 9e codex a number of the old firstborn strats disappeared. I think it's arguably now fair to say that strats are more likely to affect Primaris units than Firstborn. There are of course key strats, notably transhuman, that only work on Primaris.

 

Anyway, yes. You can compare units that have lots of strat support (and need it) with those that don't. That's just one of many variables you can compare. There are lots of factors beyond a unit's own datasheet to compare and this is just one of them. Another example might be whether the unit has access to a suitable transport, for example.

[Blindhamster]

Regardless of the Intercessors vs Tactical squad debate, the point is the same - most Primaris units that stand alone don't need the Strategum support. Infiltrators compared to Intercessors, for example don't require any Strategum support for their function.

 

When discussing Tactical Marines and Intercessors comparatively, it's a case of taking into consideration their correct usage. Sure, Tactical Marines without additional weapons are going to tally up poorly against Intercessors for just 2pts, but you wouldn't take them like that. You'll use the weapons to bolster your firepower whilst holding an objective.

 

With Strategum support, a large unit of Intercessors works nicely in the centre of the board. Without Strategums they're still going to work, but many people get more out of minimum sized Troops and investing elsewhere (especially in a competitive environment). This is why we often see Infiltrators and Incursors in Primaris lists, or Tactical Marines in Firstborn lists. Often we see larger units of Assault Intercessors which love Strategum support.

I think the Tactical vs Intercessor debate also largely depends on chapter. The boys in red for example will get better mileage out of intercessors as every extra attack stacks well with the chapter tactic, particularly on the sergeant. Plus Auto Bolt rifles play into preferred more in your face approach for them. As an example. Where more shooting orientated chapters will get better mileage out of the heavy weapon in a tactical squad. We've seen successful competitive Blood Angel lists that used a lot of intercessors precisely because of that sort of thing.

 

But generally yeah, a lot of the top units for marines remain firstborn ones. I don't think that'll change for a while and I'm still not convinced firstborn will be phased out any time soon :)

 

Ultimately, I think if you are looking at comparing unit to unit, you should compare it properly, this means stratagem support is a consideration, it's not exactly difficult to have a lot of CP these days which means you really can build a list around having strats for key units at key points.

[Captain Idaho]

Yeah can't argue with Blood Angels having a much different focus for their army. I can't remember a time where Blood Angels did prefer Tactical Marines to be honest!

 

I also agree that Strategum support is part of the game and crucial and thus we must compare units including their access to this part of the game.

[INKS]

Some good replies. Lore wise the 1st born are likely to die off eventually or be converted. Another 1-2 thousand years? Maybe less, who knows.

 

Model wise: 11th ed maybe. I base this on nothing really but I appreciate the responses. 

[Ishagu]

Some good replies. Lore wise the 1st born are likely to die off eventually or be converted. Another 1-2 thousand years? Maybe less, who knows.

 

Model wise: 11th ed maybe. I base this on nothing really but I appreciate the responses.

After reading Godblight, any Marine that lives past 100 has done a great job.

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

 

Some good replies. Lore wise the 1st born are likely to die off eventually or be converted. Another 1-2 thousand years? Maybe less, who knows.

 

Model wise: 11th ed maybe. I base this on nothing really but I appreciate the responses.

After reading Godblight, any Marine that lives past 100 has done a great job.

 

What does that make Dante?

[Schlitzaf]

I did math ages ago and albeit I need to update it now but basically, firstborn and primaris are ultimately pretty much on par with each other.

[Ishagu]

 

 

 

Some good replies. Lore wise the 1st born are likely to die off eventually or be converted. Another 1-2 thousand years? Maybe less, who knows.

 

Model wise: 11th ed maybe. I base this on nothing really but I appreciate the responses.

After reading Godblight, any Marine that lives past 100 has done a great job.

What does that make Dante?

A great hero of unparalleled talent.

[Blindhamster]

 

 

Some good replies. Lore wise the 1st born are likely to die off eventually or be converted. Another 1-2 thousand years? Maybe less, who knows.

 

Model wise: 11th ed maybe. I base this on nothing really but I appreciate the responses.

After reading Godblight, any Marine that lives past 100 has done a great job.

 

What does that make Dante?

 

quite a few blood angels are noted as being multiple hundred years old, however thats also noted as being pretty unusual. Cassius is about 400 iirc (i guess 5-600 now after time skip) and he is considered ancient in non blood angel geneseed chapters.

[Ishagu]

To clarify, my comment was in regards to how dangerous the galaxy has become. The turnover of Astartes is higher, hence the lower lifespan.

 

I was saying that it wouldn't take a millennia for most living "firstborn" to be replaced.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Ishagu