Went to a tournament, didn't get smashed

[XeonDragon]

So I went to a small (4-round) FLGS tournament on the weekend and didn't get smashed! I'll post my list at the end of the post. As it was at my FLGS, I decided to go BH/WOR instead of my usual BF/WOR that most people who in my area know and expect from me, and tweaked my list to reflect that change. Games were limited to 2 hours, so except for the first game, this meant that all my games wrapped up on turn 3. I turns out very few games went 5 rounds, with most going 3 or 4 rounds (mostly 3). 

 

Round 1: Custodes. Can't recall the mission. I took ROD, Engage and Oath as my secondaries. Lost 32-65 at the end of turn 4.

 

Hard game. My opponent was a friend who is really into the tournament scene, one of the top ranked players in the state and regularly makes the top tables at national events. We often play in team events at our FLGS. He won the roll-off.

 

In short, I couldn't shift him. He rolled hot on his 3++ and 4++ saves, and in melee he was brutal. His jet bike dudes carved things up and he did a great job of positioning his fast melee dudes in counter-charge range of my VGSs. This meant that when I charged in to clear units off an objective, the survivors were wiped out in the next turn.

 

Round 2: Blood Angels. Can't recall the mission. I again took ROD, Engage and Oath as my secondaries. Won 33-30 at the end of turn 3.

 

My opponent was another regular, and one of the top-2 BA players in our area. We've played about half a dozen times in casual games or FLGS league games. His list had two volkite contemptor dreadnoughts, some VGVs, Sanguinary guard, assault intercessors and BGVs. 

 

He won the roll-off. Very cagey game. Despite going second, I MOAed my Aggressors up into his grill, where the two survivors of his shooting (he rolled incredibly poorly with his dreadnoughts, splitting fire as well between the aggressors and my redemptor) promptly failed their charges against the volkite contemtpors even with re-rolls and were then shot off the table in his turn 2. Basically we both were very cagey with our movements, hiding our units, making sure we had counter-charge options. There were many instances where either of us would charge a unit on an objective, but the end result was the objective was contested, not flipped (hence the low score). In the end the difference was engage on all front points (we took identical secondaries). 

 

Whilst I won, he had more units on the table, including one uninjured dreadnought and another at the mid tier, and my redemptor was dead. If it had gone to 4 or 5 rounds, no doubt he would have won, and handily if it had gone to round 5. 

 

Round 3: Grey Knights. Mission was vital intelligence. I took assassinate, abhor the witch and oath as secondaries for the synergy against psychic characters. He took stranglehold and purifying ritual, but can't remember the other secondary. Won 77-69 in 3 rounds. 

 

My opponent was a really experienced (15 years+) dude, but it was only the 5th game he had played his sparkling new custom-painted Grey Knights and his list. Hard game. Opponent started with 11CP to my 7, but by the end of my turn 2 we had the same - be burned through it like nothing I've seen before. I honestly thought I would lose it. His list was not 'super meta' (i.e. he didn't have 4 or 5 dreadknights) but it wasn't off-meta either. He had a Grand Master in Nemesis Dreadknight, another Deadknight, Kaldor Draigo and another character I can't remember. Two interceptor squads, some terminator-things and the grey knight troops that have storm bolters and 3 attacks as base options. 

 

Cagey game. I used SFTS on the eradicators, and started all my VGVs and the Terminators off-board. He started 4 units off-board as well. 

 

I won the roll-off, for the first time in over 12 games. Hurrah! I MOAed my aggressors up his right flank, with the idea of charging the Grand Master in Nemesis Dreadknight. He had hidden things well, so nothing really to shoot. His turn 1 he wiped out my infiltrators set up in the middle for oath points (plan was to bring terminators down with them to dominate the middle), set up for some charges.

 

My turn 2 I brought everything onto the table, couldn't charge the aggressors without taking mortal wounds (so didn't), eradicators and redemptor plinked off a total of 5 wounds off the other Dreadknight. It wouldn't go down until turn 3. Careful positioning basically jammed him up in his half of the board, which meant I could hold 3 of the objectives whilst he only had 2. That would remain that way until the end of the game. 

 

VGVs set charged some stuff, killed some stuff. His turn 2, wipes out thunder hammer VGVs, takes out 2 of the LC VGVs. Bike captain, eradicators and LC VGVs finish off the Dreadknight. He kills my dreadnought with dead-striking infantry squads with volume of fire and then melee. My aggressors - free from the threat of taking mortals if they move or charge - charge the  Grand Master in Nemesis Dreadknight, who does some funky thing to teleport away... right into charge range of the terminators. They make the charge, mess it up. 

 

We played out 3 full turns. It felt really close. At the end, my terminators were alive, as were my aggressors. I think if we had time to do 4 rounds it would have come down to my aggressors vs his terminators on one objective, but I had more units and whilst he kept Draigo and another character alive (so that is 14 VP potential right there), they were stuck deep in their deployment zone and my eliminators had used guerrilla tactics to get onto central terrain for both Oath point and shooting lanes (they didn't get to fire once during the whole game, he screen and used the dense terrain that well). So I think it would have ended up either a marginal win for me, or a very narrow loss. 

 

 

Turn 4 was a "bye" - which was fine, when the TO told us that one player had pulled out and hence once player would only play 3 games I volunteered to take the "bye" (no points either way) - which pleased the wife as it meant I could cook dinner that night

 

So yeah, first tournament in a long time, and the first one in 9th where I won more games than I lost. I think BH/WOR is definitely more powerful than BF/WOR. As one opponent said, they played like "cautious and cagey blood Angels". I think the super-dense terrain helped me more than my opponents. I didn't play against any ad mech or DE lists, but my experience to date suggests I would have been hard-pressed to not get thumped by those lists, even with the terrain. Still, it was nice to get in some games where it felt I had a chance. Only in the first game did it feel like the game was "slipping away". 

 

Lessons learned:

 

1. VGVs are good. With BH the LC VGVs (hitting on 2s when they charge) and the bike captain are a good combo. Very efficient hitting on 2s, re-rolling 1s, exploding 6s and re-rolling wounds. Hammer VGVs do work, but are less reliable without spending CP on the chaplain to get off the litanies. The melta bomb stratagem is awesome
2. Terminators with chain fists are awesome, especially near an apothecary.
3. Aggressors are best used as a sacrificial carnifex-distraction unit jam up the opponent... they either deal with them, or risk getting charged. They take some serious shooting to remove. 
4. Using infiltrators to grab a mid-field objective but then (if you go second) re-deploying to screen out your deployment zone against fast armies or those with deep-striking units is good. Pre-measuring screens really, really helps. 
5. Sometime the correct answer is do nothing. Especially with infantry, sometimes staying put is best.
6. Redemptors really don't do that much compared to eradicators or volkite contemptors unless they shoot and successfully charge a unit. They are definitely a mixed melee/shooting unit, more than a shooting unit/platform. I think they are a bit overrated. Because of how I use them (shooting platform) I might go back to twin-las or MM venerable dreadnoughts, or look into volkite contemptors (but I'd rather not buy them, because they look silly in my opinion).  
7. Having wise orator and swift and deadly on the chaplain was an interesting comparison to my usual MOA and Selfless healer on an apothecary. I think the chaplain was more useful overall, especially when going second, but the MOA/selfless healer apothecary I think would really help maximise alpha-strikes. Whilst MOAing a unit with the Lt was good, I found it hard to get the most out of the apothecary without the mobility provided by MOA. I think, if I run this list again, I would use SFTS on the apothecary.  

List, for those who are interested. 

 

Born Heroes , Whirlwind of Rage, 2000 points, 7CP to start with. 

HQ

Captain on Bike: Astartes Chainsword, Storm shield, Teeth of Terra. No WL trait.

Primaris Lieutenant: Master of Ambush, Neo-volkite pistol, Master-crafted power sword and Storm Shield

Primaris Chaplain on Bike (Warlord): Adamantine Mantle, Master of Sanctity, Master of the Trifold Path, Swift and Deadly, Wise Orator

 

Troops

 

Incursor Squad (plain)

Infiltrator Squad (plain)

Intercessor Squad (Auto Bolt Rifle, Chainsword on the Sergeant) 

 

Elites

5 x Aggressors with boltstorm gauntlets for dakka. 

Apothecary with Artificer Armour, Astartes Chainsword, Chief Apothecary, Selfless Healer. Unlike previous games, the armour didn't make a difference this tournament.

Redemptor Dreadnought with 2x Storm Bolters, Icarus Rocket Pod, Macro Plasma Incinerator, Onslaught Gatling Cannon, crazy "buy primaris models" D3+3 claw. 

Terminator Squad 1 with power fist and CML, 3 with chainfists, sergeant with power sword (only took powerfist because I don't have CF model with CML)

5 VGVs with jump pack, LC+SS

5 VGVs with jump pack, TH+SS

 

Heavy

 

1 squad of eliminators with carbine on the sergeant. 

1 squad of 4 eradicators with normal melta rifle. 

Edited November 8, 2021 by XeonDragon

[duz_]

Good to see the chapter representing! Sounds like a tough weekend!

 

I have to admit only understood part of your write up though few too many TLA's for my layman's mind to figure out. ;)

[jpwyrm]

First of all, congrats on a very decent placing with RG Successors  I like your list and the way it works. I'm thrilled it did good against the new silver hotness in town! In fact, I'm pleasantly surprised you did so well without spamming the same unit over and over. In fact, I'm wondering if you felt like you could have used some more units to control the board, perform actions, etc.?

 

Regarding point 6 - you could make a case for two Invader ATV with MM. They add a lot of maneuverability to your list, decent firepower and are cheap enough that you shouldn't care if they get blown off as long as you can score another round of Engage or Oath or even just roadblock a scary unit(s). Another interesting option could be to replace the small Intercessor squad to a full 10-man Assault Intercessor squad with special weapon on the sergeant and make use of Fight Again strat when needed. With the extra points leftover, you could get another Eliminator Squad for more sniping options and disruption.

[XeonDragon]

Thanks Duz_ and jpwyrm

 

Duz_, yeah, I am big on three-letter-acronyms :) jpwyrm, that is an idea. I had thought of going 3 attack bikes with MM, as they are 180 points. The idea of assault intercessors and another squad of eliminators is interesting. In the past I didn't run a dreadnought, I ran extra incursors and eliminators and went for board control, but found it sometimes left me without enough answers to vehicles and monsters, especially highly mobile ones that can zoom around and wipe units out of quarters and off objectives.  

[Dracos]

Nice work XD. I admit I agree jpwyrm has some good ideas there. I'm a big fan of the 10 man Assault Intercessor fight twice strat. Been testing Aggressors in that role recently and it's coming down to Aggressors shooting power vs the AI's ObSec and tidal wave number of attacks. 

 

Okay a question . . . 

 

 

 and my eliminators had used guerrilla tactics to get onto central terrain

 

You didn't bring the Eliminators into middle of the board from Strategic Reserve did you? Just an ask.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Dracos

[XeonDragon]

Nope, I had them on the board from the start. They were set up in ruins with a line of sight towards I had where one of the dreadknights was hiding behind obscuring terrain, and also towards where he had some other characters and troops hiding behind obscuring terrain. I had planned to shoot them when the popped out.

 

The dreadknight didn't (it was the one that teleported away) and the others went behind over terrain so no LOS. So I used guerrilla tactics to move them to a better position (the one the infiltrators had been), which also would have scored oath secondary. 

 

So yeah, I always start eliminators on the board. I find their presence can be useful for early board control or to make opponent hide key characters = time and space to grab objectives, score engage etc. 

[Dracos]

Nice I've started using Las-fusil in place or Eradicators recently, especially in smaller games and come to the conclusion when it comes to deployment, Infiltrators (smokescreen strat) start on Objectives in the open and Eliminators (camo) in ruins to mess with opponents deployment. Usually Eliminators first. The Lord of Deceit saves them with redeploy when/if needed. 

 

The GT strat is a great way to earn those secondaries, especially when the bad guys get aggressive and think its safe to push out of their own backfield.

[XeonDragon]

Interesting ideas there, I've never taken Lord of Deceit, I usually take MOA, selfless healer, swift and deadly, wise orator. I might drop wise orator and give LOD a go if I run a phobos Lt in the future.  

[jpwyrm]

The issue I can foresee if you add the 10-man AI squad is making the right choice for MOA. With your list, you don't need to make that choice, the Aggressors are the ideal choice. With another suitable target for this Trait, you will have to decide who gets left behind or in the Shadows (costing you another CP). This will probably take some practice to master.

[Dracos]

Ive gone to MoA fro the AI and SftS for the Aggressors

[duz_]

Are aggressors even worth it any more?

With such a reduction in fire output there seems like there's better alternatives? Even with MOA

[Dracos]

Short answer is no. Maybe in smaller crusade games … which I’ve played way too many of this year

[XeonDragon]

Are aggressors even worth it any more?

With such a reduction in fire output there seems like there's better alternatives? Even with MOA

 

In my experience, yes, they are worth it. I agonised for ages about terminators vs relic terminators vs aggressors vs BGV, but through lots of games I've come to realise that for RG, the correct answer is one unit of Aggressors is just right, when used in the right way.

 

I think the best use is via MOA or SFTS. I take a squad of 5. An average of 47 or so bolter shots (30 from the gauntlets, 17 or so from the grenade launchers) is great for clearing screens and can do work even against tougher targets (e.g. 7-8 wounds against a redemptor dreadnought in shooting phase alone). They also represent a genuine melee threat. Flamestorm are even cheaper and can do similar work.

 

In my experience they work best as dedicated distraction carnifex/suicide squad. Drop them into your opponents face, shoot a screen and threaten to charge something valuable whilst daring them to ignore them. They will do more work in both shooting and melee than terminators or BGV. Yes, they lack a ++ and die under focused fire, but at T5 they take more than a little firepower to remove - firepower that is not hosing down other key units such as VGVs or troops holding objectives. I also find they work excellently in combination with terminators. For example, if you opponent has over-loaded one flank with some heavy targets, MOAing the aggressors and then teleporting in the terminators T2 will usually stem the flow, especially if the MOA-unit was an apothecary. Whilst terminators are tougher to remove, they lack the sheer dakka that aggressors bring. I find a unit of each makes for an excellent, durable and deadly road-block. 

 

I also find that if your opponent does ignore them (say, to target plasma inceptors or eradicators), then it opens up all sorts of opportunities via charging. They can also advance and shoot, meaning they can be more mobile than people suspect and can reach objectives quicker than might have been expected. I often find that the survivors are able to hustle onto objectives, get into unexpected table quarters for engage on all fronts etc. 

 

So at least in my experience, a unit of aggressors are very useful. I wouldn't take more than one squad, but that one squad can do an important job very well, trade well, and score VP. 

Edited November 15, 2021 by XeonDragon

[superwill]

Mmm, I dunno man. Personally I’m pretty ice cold on aggressors. Don’t want to offend, I just feel like the numbers aren’t kind to them.

Their shooting stinks. If 5 of them collectively are doing 47 bolter shots against that Redemptor you mentioned after MOA on turn one, that’s 31 hits, 10 wounds, 3 unsaved… (well, 3.4) Against infantry, it’s 13 guardsmen (their ideal target I guess, but only killing one guardsmen squad would a disastrous waste of the points +MOA) or 8 ork boys or 2 tactical marines. None of those outcomes is even close to worth the points, letalone the extra investment involved. Best case scenario I can think of from your example is that your opponent leaves that redemptor exposed at the edge of his deployment and unscreened, you get first turn, MOA up to him, walk over T1 to get in charge range, drop 3 wounds into him in shooting and then charge for another 4 wounds in combat (assuming no boosts to his defence from IH, BT etc) and get him down to 6 wounds… It's a lot just to half health a Redemptor, who cost less than your squad did anyway and will hit back harder than you hit him anyway. And that's IF you get first turn.

In terms of a distraction carnifex, aggressors melt like butter. Your opponent just needs to wink at them and they’re gone.

Gravis is decent for a unit like HI, where they’re a slight annoyance to remove and people probably won’t bother because they’re not a huge threat and are semi-cheap. But for aggressors/Eradicators/inceptors, even being in gravis, another army shouldn’t have to devote much of its shooting (let alone charging) units to knock out 5 little guys. If your best hope for them is that the enemy is too busy focusing on inceptors or terminators to shoot the aggressors that were dropped on their doorstep, it probably highlights just how impotent and non-threatening the aggressors are. If you’re going for threat overload, wouldn't more inceptors or termies just be a better options? (From a purely competitive POV I mean)

I just can’t imagine them ever trading well. Even in a scenario where you get turn one and get a successful MoA off - honestly what is an ideal target? A light vehicle or something that you’re punching? Feels like termies would just be way better. A screen? There are much more efficient ways of killing 13 guardsmen / 2 marines.

Edited November 15, 2021 by superwill

[XeonDragon]

No offence taken dude (remember that, offence is taken, not given ). When I plug the numbers in https://www.mathhammer8thed.com/web/ and the app on my phone for a unit of 5 bolt storm aggressors I get the following (very different) numbers for shooting:

 

1. Turn 1, 4.814 points of actual damage vs a redemptor, and 7.211 against tactical marines (4 dead marines), 19.259 against guard (19+ dead guardsmen). That is actual damage, i.e. unsaved wounds.

2. Turn 2 (e.g. SFTS), when tactical doctrine is active, 7.221 points of damage vs a Redemptor, and 10.834 against tactical marines (5 dead marines), 24.073 against guard (24 dead guardsmen).That is actual damage, i.e. unsaved wounds.

 

If the charge goes off it is 5.833 damage in melee (damn that -1 damage!) against a redemptor. So against a redemptor we are looking at between 9 and 13 points of damage, depending on the turn.

 

So, get first turn and use MOA you move to a couple of inches away, shoot that redemptor for 4 or 5 points of damages, charge and do another 5 or 6. It'll either be on the lowest bracket or, with a bit of luck, dead. Turn 2 you can shoot it for 7 points of damage (maybe bracket it with a bit of luck) and if the charge does off, do and 5 or 6 points of damage. Again, it'll either be on the lowest bracket or, with a bit of luck, dead - and that's before any other units pitch in with a bit of split fire if needed.

 

In contrast, terminators do 8.704 total shooting and melee damage turn 1 and 9.445 in turn 2 without a CML and fury of the first (assuming chain fists instead of power fists, so flat 2 damage). With a CML it is about 9-10 points total damage, depending on the phase and missile used. So the aggressors effectively get an extra 3-4 points of damage of a redemptor for similar cost (225 vs 190 or 215 with CML).

 

If there is a screen, the turn 1 shooting will dilute it substantially (in my experience enough to make charges against the screened unit viable). Turn 2/SFTS shooting will wipe most screens, freeing up the charge lane.   

 

In terms of durability, unless you are facing high AP weapons (melta, plasma), T5, 3+ is similar in terms of durability to T4, 2+, 5++ against many common weapon profiles, even before THP. If they are shooting those weapons at the aggressors, that's fine, because they aren't shooting it at other things I want to stay alive. 

 

Terminators do less shooting and less melee damage, unless you do fury of the first (in which case they are comparable to aggressors). They can be more durable than aggressors for sure, but in my experience the durability of terminators against certain weapon profiles doesn't fully offset the lower potential damage dealing difference, unless I drop CP on them for fury of the first.  

 

If aggressors don't/haven't worked for you, that's cool. They have (and do) work for me  Like I said, one squad is awesome, especially when paired with some terminators. Two squads of aggressors would be brutal lettuce that wilt in the sun, but two squads of terminators whilst durable, simply don't have enough killing power in my experience. One of each working together brings the best of both and reduces the worst aspects of each

In contrast, terminators do 8.704 total shooting and melee damage turn 1 and 9.445 in turn 2 without a CML and fury of the first (assuming chain fists instead of power fists, so flat 2 damage). With a CML it is about 9-10 points total damage, depending on the phase and missile used. So the aggressors effectively get an extra 3-4 points of damage of a redemptor for similar cost (225 vs 190 or 215 with CML).

Edited November 15, 2021 by XeonDragon

[Dracos]

That's a lot of numbers in isolation of one factor that I feel has to be taken into account when Aggressors (any unit actuallly) used as a Raven Guard.

 

How do they perform when in the vicinity of the HQ choice with MoA or/and SftS?

 

 

I often bring mine down in conjunction with either Plasma Inceptors or Eradicators.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Dracos

[XeonDragon]

Good point Dracos. In my experience, Aggressors do great work with a MOA apothecary. The 6+++ really helps them. I ran bolter fusillades / whirlwind of rage successor for yonks (have only recently started doing born heroes and whirlwind of rage) and found that the combination of re-rolling 1s to hit with the bolter shots and exploding 6s in melee made them absolute monsters. I usually was able to get a Lt within range, so when you are re-rolling 1s to hit with the bolters and 1s to wound with everything and exploding 6s in melee they were amazing.

 

Now with BH/WOR, they are melee monsters in the extreme. I don't always MOA them, sometimes I use SFTS instead. If I do bring them on in turn 2, like you it is usually alongside a shooting unit like eradicators or company veterans with combi-plasma or meltas, plasma inceptors. Positioning is key. I try and land them where they can shoot less-hard targets about 15-18" away (e.g. marines or genestealers) and then charge whatever the "harder" shooting unit doesn't kill (e.g. a DE raider). Sometimes it is just weight of dice time :D

 

If I go the MAO route, their job is to hurt something and slow it down until turn 2 when the terminators, eradicators, VGVs or whatever get there. They do that job really well. They hurt whatever they are hunting more than terminators, and usually survive to tell the tale.  

 

The thing about Aggressors as RG or RG successors is we can get them up in the grill of the opponent, which makes them that much more devastating and reduces the importance of their lack of a ++ save (also why assault centurions work for RG and basically no-one else! ). 

 

I ran them with a jump librarian and MOA apothecary in a few games. The combination of 5++, 6+++ made them true monsters and excellent oath secondary point scorers in the middle of the board, but I felt it was a lot of points. Now days it is just them, the apothecary and sometimes a Lt. They do work

Edited November 16, 2021 by XeonDragon

[superwill]

Good on you XD - iron sharpens iron. Love hearing your experiences.

I'm not quite sure what accounts for the discrepancy in the numbers. Are you counting buffs in there from bolter fusillades and/or a lt or something? Or have I just got a stat wrong somewhere for the aggressors? Granted I was just using a calculator and crunching the numbers myself in my earlier post, but I used that link you gave and it was turning up the same results:

 

  

 

I crunched some more numbers on assault termies (not using FotF) vs. aggressors. In combat the termies do 7 damage to a redemptor instead of the aggressor's 5, but that is only because the -1D obviously hurts the fists a lot more than it hurts the hammers. If they shoot the dreadnought first the aggressors pull slightly ahead in total damage (but if the termies did use FotF for 1CP it's roughly even again).

 

For durability, termies with TH/SS (how I run most of mine) are a lot tougher I think. Against a wide range of weapons including bolt rifles or meltas (where you're balancing the difference in Toughness vs the difference in Armour Save) the termies will take about half the losses of the aggressors (bolt rifles slightly less than half, meltas slighty more). Against a gun such as an autocannon the ratio is 10 dead aggressors per 3 dead termies. Obviously AP 0 isn't quite as favourable to the termies because their 1+ save doesn't help as much, but the termies will still be tankier in that scenario even if the T is relevant. I don't think there's any scenario that favours the aggressors for durability, unless you've got high AP and are ignoring invulns. I think it would be fair to say that across the board TH/SS termies are roughly twice as durable as aggressors. And even with TH/SS the termies are still slightly cheaper for a 5 man squad. And if you get second turn you can always throw them in reserve.

 

Aggressors slightly ahead in damage output, but termies probably further ahead in durabilty. But I guess the thing you get with aggressors is versatilty. Termies can't clear a squad of guardsmen standing in their way, aggressors can. Their fists are capable of dealing with tougher targets but also offer a good number of attacks for handling medium-heavy infantry. They're not particularly durable but will still absorb a portion of your enemies shooting, and there's definitely a case to be made that your MOA unit should be a more offensive unit rather than a defensive one. I do like that the aggressors are a bit more of a swiss army knife and are more capable of adapting to whatever your opponents' presenting. Personally my preference is to spend the points on plasmaceptors (my favourite), eradicators or termies for that MOA role, but I have to admit that I don't think I've ever used my aggressors in a competitive game (definitely not a tourney) so I have less experience than you or others who have actually fielded them in that setting.

 

Edit: Of course, if I've stuffed the stats on the aggressors shooting somewhere and their damage output actually is almost double what I had it at, then that would very much change my conclusions and I might have to bring them to my next game haha.

Edited November 16, 2021 by superwill

[XeonDragon]

Weird. I'll respond in detail later, but I was comparing ordinary terminators to aggressors, rather than assault. I think relic and ordinary terminators are the most comparable to aggressors, with BGV also being in the mix. Don't get we wrong, I love me some assault terminators

 

For some darn reason it's not letting me post images in my gallery, nor links to imgur, nor code into this post... nothing works - but I uploaded an image of mathhammer to my gallery, so check it out - we get different numbers. I suspect it is the 5D6 shots for the fragstorm doing something, as when I just put in 47.5 shots (as they have the same profile) I get your figures, but the 30 + 5D6 gets my figures. Weird. 

 

Anyways, you nailed the versatility of aggressors (compared to say assault terminators). Context is important, my list usually has a 5 man squad of bolt storm aggressors, a 5 man squad of ordinary terminators (3 with chain fists, 1 with power fist and CML, the sergeant with sword), two squads of VGVs with shields (one thunder hammers, one lightning claws). So I have dedicated anti-tank/monster in the TH VGVs and terminators and a anti-infantry/heavy infantry and other stuff in a pinch (lightning claw VGVs) running around.

 

I usually have some eradicators, plasma inceptors or company veterans with shields and combi plasma/melta on the board or (when they are built) attack bikes with MM. Sometimes a dreadnought (redemptor or venerable with twin las), sometimes not.

 

So what I often lack is chaff clearance and, if there is a very dreadnought or uber-monster heavy list, hardcore AT melee or firepower. That is why I take the CML on the terminators, and why I like aggressors - they can pitch in both against chaff and tanks/monsters. TL;DR: they are good "TAC" or "swiss army knife" units for a TAC list

Edited November 16, 2021 by XeonDragon