Marines and flexibility

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

The other thread got pretty detailed by ‘tactical flexibility’ so let’s discuss that here.

 

I saw inceptors cited as an example, because they’re a shooty jump infantry unit. I don’t think they added any flexibility to the army. The RAS could already be geared towards more of a shooty unit having 2 special weapons and a special pistol. However the RAS is tactically more flexible however because they get 2 special melee weapons and an extra chainsword.

 

The inceptors are better at the job of flying fire support, but they don’t add tactical flexibility.

 

monorole units don’t make an army more tactically flexible. It makes the army less so.

in short if you have to bring an entire unit to cover all bases in a ‘take all comers’ style list, the army isn’t tactically flexible.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Orange Knight]

Inceptors do add Tactical flexibility because they offer capabilities not found in other units.

 

Deep Strike

Durability 

Fast Movement 

Flight

Impressive Firepower 

 

No other infantry unit in the Marine book offers all 5 of the above.

 

Mono-units individually don't offer more flexibility, but what they do offer is better performance when applied to a specific task. When you have a big variety of these units, all able to perform something to a high degree, it makes the army more flexible than having a bunch of identical units with some token weapon customisation.

 

Look at the Primaris line. Your army can now be themed in ways the old range could not.

You can have an entire "Sneaky" force or an entire "Durable Force" or something balanced that takes choices from everything on offer.

 

Customisation of units has been decreased, whilst army flexibility as a whole has been increased.

[NovemberIX]

Vanguard Vets did, especially if kitted out correctly. I'd argue that mono-units are only better in performance if they are against the specific thing they're supposed to counter. As it stands, I can run grav and melta on my vets that the inceptors can't.  Here's a task, what Primaris unit can replace my Thunderhammer Jump Vets? Or my Flamer/Grav Pistol Vets? Grav and Storm Shield Vets?

 

I've always been able to run a sneaky or durable, or fast, or heavy or whatever idea someone comes up with as an army before primaris was ever an idea in someones head. The only thing that has changed is the aesthetics and now the unit selection is bloated with mono-task esoterically named units. If the rules have changed to reflect the corporate desire to sell me more models that's not on the model, that's on the rules set.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

43 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Inceptors do add Tactical flexibility because they offer capabilities not found in other units.

 

Deep Strike

Durability 

Fast Movement 

Flight

Impressive Firepower 

 

No other infantry unit in the Marine book offers all 5 of the above.

 

Mono-units individually don't offer more flexibility, but what they do offer is better performance when applied to a specific task. When you have a big variety of these units, all able to perform something to a high degree, it makes the army more flexible than having a bunch of identical units with some token weapon customisation.

 

Look at the Primaris line. Your army can now be themed in ways the old range could not.

You can have an entire "Sneaky" force or an entire "Durable Force" or something balanced that takes choices from everything on offer.

 

Customisation of units has been decreased, whilst army flexibility as a whole has been increased.

 

both RAS and VGV offer everything you listed*
 

*VGV’s firepower gets slightly downgraded for durability.

 

do inceptors provide more firepower than RAS yes, but not super significantly more firepower

 

do inceptors provide more durability than VGV? If they had shields I would say no they don’t.

 

the same things you would use inceptors for you can use RAS for.

 

the whole short range shooting with no real melee ability is very contradictory.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Berzul]

I'd say that the unit range for marines, as it stands, is quite flexible in terms of overall strategy, but rigid in terms of actual tactics. With a wide array of choices for every single purpose you can think of, but with a more limited application of said options once they are on the list. Which means that, at its base, you can pretty much make a counterlist to any other list you can think of, using the Space Marines range. Once you get to the actual table, though, your units are more limited in what they can actually achieve, as they are very single-focused in their usefulness.

 

The challenge then, being, that you have to somehow make a list that is able to face anything and everything thrown at it, while using units that (for the most part) serve a single and specific purpose, each. Which is a tough balancing act, and one that can make our bloated array of options somewhat less benefitial than what one might originally think it to be.

 

EDIT:
To be clear, I understand that all armies have units that serve specific purposes. My point is not to say that only Space Marines have this issue. My point is that, while Space Marines are, by lore, supposed to be very flexible, and they are in terms of options, they do not play as a flexible force overall, and for a codex that is THIS bloated with options, the reality is that making a list that can, in fact, adapt to an opponent, is not as easy as one would assume it to be. Again, given the lore behind the army and the great number of options we have in terms of units.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Berzul

[Minsc]

*Laughs in Meteoric Descent*

 

"Remove that Lone Operative please."

 

Give Inceptors powerswords and there would be nothing they couldn't do. Just because there are units that does certain things better than them doesn't in any way invalidate them.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

56 minutes ago, Berzul said:

I'd say that the unit range for marines, as it stands, is quite flexible in terms of overall strategy, but rigid in terms of actual tactics. With a wide array of choices for every single purpose you can think of, but with a more limited application of said options once they are on the list. Which means that, at its base, you can pretty much make a counterlist to any other list you can think of, using the Space Marines range. Once you get to the actual table, though, your units are more limited in what they can actually achieve, as they are very single-focused in their usefulness.

 

The challenge then, being, that you have to somehow make a list that is able to face anything and everything thrown at it, while using units that (for the most part) serve a single and specific purpose, each. Which is a tough balancing act, and one that can make our bloated array of options somewhat less benefitial than what one might originally think it to be.

 

EDIT:
To be clear, I understand that all armies have units that serve specific purposes. My point is not to say that only Space Marines have this issue. My point is that, while Space Marines are, by lore, supposed to be very flexible, and they are in terms of options, they do not play as a flexible force overall, and for a codex that is THIS bloated with options, the reality is that making a list that can, in fact, adapt to an opponent, is not as easy as one would assume it to be. Again, given the lore behind the army and the great number of options we have in terms of units.

I kinda disagree on the FB side(let’s not turn this into a flame war).

Building an army in the traditional pre-10th style marines could easily be well rounded.

 

captain-loaded as you like

3x tacticals- plasma pistol/power sword, melta, lascannon

 

devastators- HBs

 

landraider- HBs/LCs

 

speeder- armed to counter whatever is most common in your local meta.

 

this list would provide 7 lascannons, up to 7 HBs, possibly 4 meltas, and a bunch of bolter shots.

 

this list could feasibly handle hoardes, and armor heavy lists!fairly easily. 
 

4 lascannons on a durable vehicle, 3 spread out amongst squads that can still reliably chew up GEQ.

 

building a similarly flexible list with primaris only is nearly impossible.

 

the FB list I came up with here is 1120 pts. 
I don’t think primaris can get that much coverage in 1120 points or less.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

8 minutes ago, Minsc said:

*Laughs in Meteoric Descent*

 

"Remove that Lone Operative please."

 

Give Inceptors powerswords and there would be nothing they couldn't do. Just because there are units that does certain things better than them doesn't in any way invalidate them.

No one said inceptors were invalid, just that they don’t add any actual flexibility. 
they like most primaris units fill specific niches where they outshine every other competitor for that niche.

if that niche isn’t present in a game, they’re likely to do very little for you.

 

example you’re at a 10th Ed tournament and your opponent is a guard armored company. Your inceptors won’t do a whole lot for you.

[Karhedron]

There is flexibility at the unit level and then there is flexibility at the army level. You can build a tactically flexible army out of mono-tasked units, Eldar have been doing it for years.

 

Marines as an army are as tactically flexible as they ever were. You can build a shooty army or a melee army or anything in between by selecting the appropriate blend of units. Inceptors are a nice unit and I enjoy running them but I don't think that they add a new niche to Marine lists as Attack Bikes and Lansdpeeders have performed a similar role of mobile fire support for a long time.

 

It does look like GW have been trying to clamp down on units that can threaten all opponents. VanVets were the classic TAC unit in that they could be customised to deal with almost any threat in previous editions (although not anymore unfortunately).

 

Ultimately if you had two shooty RAS units compared to a melee RAS and Inceptor combo, you have pretty much the same blend of mobility, melee and shooting, it is just distributed slightly differently between units. I do not think that either option makes the army as a whole more or less tactically flexible. It just depends on whether you want your units with blended capabilities or specialised. The tactical flexibility of the army is the sum of its parts. If you prefer to run a bunch of specialised units, that does not make the army inflexible, just the units. Multi-role units are more flexible individually but come with the problem that they may lack the hitting power to properly neutralise specific threats. There are pros and cons to both approaches but neither makes an army more tactically flexible overall.

[Minsc]

21 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

No one said inceptors were invalid, just that they don’t add any actual flexibility. 
they like most primaris units fill specific niches where they outshine every other competitor for that niche.

if that niche isn’t present in a game, they’re likely to do very little for you.

 

example you’re at a 10th Ed tournament and your opponent is a guard armored company. Your inceptors won’t do a whole lot for you.

 

But...with that logic, can't the same be said about most units, and in every faction no less?

 

Being tactically flexible means you can do alot of things - it doesn't mean you can do everything.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Minsc

[Lemondish]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I saw inceptors cited as an example, because they’re a shooty jump infantry unit. I don’t think they added any flexibility to the army. The RAS could already be geared towards more of a shooty unit having 2 special weapons and a special pistol. However the RAS is tactically more flexible however because they get 2 special melee weapons and an extra chainsword.

 

Just to understand the assignment here, from this description, would you then agree that the Primaris Repulsors are great examples of units with great tactical flexibility?

[Dracos]

41 minutes ago, Minsc said:

*Laughs in Meteoric Descent*

 

"Remove that Lone Operative please."

 

Give Inceptors powerswords and there would be nothing they couldn't do. Just because there are units that does certain things better than them doesn't in any way invalidate them.

Big Inceptor fan but I haven’t played 10e yet. Don’t those big guns of theirs also count as pistols so pretty nice in melee also aren’t they?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

20 minutes ago, Minsc said:

 

But...with that logic, can't the same be said about most units, and in every faction no less?

 

Being tactically flexible means you can do alot of things - it doesn't mean you can do everything.

The primaris units didn’t add any flexibility.

they added specialization.

 

primaris units can’t do a lot of things. They can essentially each do 1 thing.

 

id say in 9th hellblasters we’re the most flexible unit in the primaris range.

 

my point being for a certain number of points you can’t get as much flexibility out of primaris as you can FB in a specific army.

4 minutes ago, Dracos said:

Big Inceptor fan but I haven’t played 10e yet. Don’t those big guns of theirs also count as pistols so pretty nice in melee also aren’t they?

They did get pistol in the index.

we’ll see if they keep it in the codex or if it’s a one off.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

21 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

 

Just to understand the assignment here, from this description, would you then agree that the Primaris Repulsors are great examples of units with great tactical flexibility?

Repulsors yes, lord of options, points make it hard to fit too many of them into a 1k or 2k list

 

id say the repulsors are about as flexible as the land raider, but generally the primaris range particularly the infantry have far less flexibility within their units.

[Dracos]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

Inceptors do add Tactical flexibility because they offer capabilities not found in other units.

 

Deep Strike

Durability 

Fast Movement 

Flight

Impressive Firepower 

 

No other infantry unit in the Marine book offers all 5 of the above.

 

Mono-units individually don't offer more flexibility, but what they do offer is better performance when applied to a specific task. When you have a big variety of these units, all able to perform something to a high degree, it makes the army more flexible than having a bunch of identical units with some token weapon customisation.

 

Look at the Primaris line. Your army can now be themed in ways the old range could not.

You can have an entire "Sneaky" force or an entire "Durable Force" or something balanced that takes choices from everything on offer.

 

Customisation of units has been decreased, whilst army flexibility as a whole has been increased.

Nice analysis. My own thought is two fold on flexible units. Either a) mixed equipment loads make a unit a nice Jack of all Trades but Master of None that lacks the Mass of Force to get the job done … or … b) you either have to magnetize, remodel, or own multiple builds of models which for some of us just isn’t going to happen. Especially those of us who don’t metachase or enjoy the modeling aspect of the hobby that much. 
 

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by Dracos

[Berzul]

1 minute ago, Dracos said:

Nice analysis. My own thought is two fold on flexible units. Either a) mixed equipment loads make a unit a nice Jack of all Trades but Master of None that lacks the Mass of Force to get the job done … or … b) you either have to magnetize, remodel, or own multiple builds if models which for some of us just isn’t going to happen. Especially those of us who’d not metachase or enjoy the modeling aspect of the hobby that much. 

 

To consider:

 

When you make a force that has units that serve multiple purposes but excel at none, it is true that no one unit can have an easy time at accomplishing an objective. However, it also suffers less in terms of efficiency and effectiveness when one unit is taken out. Multiple units that do more than one thing means might, in unison, allow you to do each thing well, and as you lose bodies on the table, your effectiveness as a force drops in a more gradual manner. Unlike when your army has more specific units, which could leave you far more weakened as these units get taken out.

 

As a broad and very facetious example:

 

If you have three tactical squads with special and heavy weapons on each, versus if you have a squad of intercessors, one of hellblasters, and one of erradicators, upon losing one tactical squad you can still perform the same tasks on the board, albeit worse than before. If you lose your erradicators, you are stuck in a situation in which you are now unable to punch through armor. 

 

Again, it is a facetious example, and this is all just theorycrafting on the subject of flexibility itself. Personal experience will vary.

 

In fact, so far, in 10th, my experience with my Firstborn has been ATROCIOUS. I've been tabled in every game I've played so far. Often before the end of round three.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

39 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

There is flexibility at the unit level and then there is flexibility at the army level. You can build a tactically flexible army out of mono-tasked units, Eldar have been doing it for years.

 

Marines as an army are as tactically flexible as they ever were. You can build a shooty army or a melee army or anything in between by selecting the appropriate blend of units. Inceptors are a nice unit and I enjoy running them but I don't think that they add a new niche to Marine lists as Attack Bikes and Lansdpeeders have performed a similar role of mobile fire support for a long time.

 

It does look like GW have been trying to clamp down on units that can threaten all opponents. VanVets were the classic TAC unit in that they could be customised to deal with almost any threat in previous editions (although not anymore unfortunately).

 

Ultimately if you had two shooty RAS units compared to a melee RAS and Inceptor combo, you have pretty much the same blend of mobility, melee and shooting, it is just distributed slightly differently between units. I do not think that either option makes the army as a whole more or less tactically flexible. It just depends on whether you want your units with blended capabilities or specialised. The tactical flexibility of the army is the sum of its parts. If you prefer to run a bunch of specialised units, that does not make the army inflexible, just the units. Multi-role units are more flexible individually but come with the problem that they may lack the hitting power to properly neutralise specific threats. There are pros and cons to both approaches but neither makes an army more tactically flexible overall.

I edited my above post to include points cost for the example army.

 

can you build a similarly flexible primaris only army without exceeding 1120 points?

obviously mixing both is the best answer, but my point was that primaris didn’t add flexibility, just specialization.

 

id also so that if an army is relying on only 1-2 units to do a specific job that makes the whole army very rigid, and easily crippled.

 

take out the two units of eradicators in an army and an armored company is likely pretty safe.

 

For an armored company if you take out all 3 tactical squads you still have 4 lascannons to deal with, along with MM and HKM. Possibly 2 MM

 

for hoardes there really isn’t any combination of 2-3 units you can take out and be fairly safe.

[Minsc]

1 minute ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

The primaris units didn’t add any flexibility.

they added specialization.

 

primaris units can’t do a lot of things. They can essentially each do 1 thing.

 

id say in 9th hellblasters we’re the most flexible unit in the primaris range.

 

my point being for a certain number of points you can’t get as much flexibility out of primaris as you can FB in a specific army.

 

But judging by your earlier post with the FB-list, it seems that your view of flexibility boils down to "Can unit (list) X handle both small and large targets? If 'yes' then its flexible" - and while I wouldn't say that it's entirely wrong, I do think that this is a pretty narrow view of what flexibility means in this context.

 

Things like movement, durability, deploymentshenanigans, utility-rules, etc. all add to a units flexibility - not just damageoutput against a certain target.

 

While "Primaris"-units often are quite specialized in terms of preferred targets, once you take the above mentioned factors into account, I do think that they are very flexible, and that if nothibg else the the sum of all the parts (i.e the armylist as a whole) can be about as flexible as a FB-list. 

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

20 minutes ago, Minsc said:

 

But judging by your earlier post with the FB-list, it seems that your view of flexibility boils down to "Can unit (list) X handle both small and large targets? If 'yes' then its flexible" - and while I wouldn't say that it's entirely wrong, I do think that this is a pretty narrow view of what flexibility means in this context.

 

Things like movement, durability, deploymentshenanigans, utility-rules, etc. all add to a units flexibility - not just damageoutput against a certain target.

 

While "Primaris"-units often are quite specialized in terms of preferred targets, once you take the above mentioned factors into account, I do think that they are very flexible, and that if nothibg else the the sum of all the parts (i.e the armylist as a whole) can be about as flexible as a FB-list. 

 

 

Not necessarily large, but tough or tanky units.

 

intercessors and HIs will really struggle against terminators, gravis, and centurions.

not particularly large models but all with their own version of tough and tanky.

 

meanwhile a tac squad with a bunch of plasma, or melta and just about any heavy weapon except a HB will allow the tactical squad to deal with said tanky target quite easily.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I guess for me, flexibility means destroying a few specific units in an army doesn’t absolutely cripple you in either of the two primary gameplay types. (Hoard, tough/armored)

[Berzul]

 

10 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I guess for me, flexibility means destroying a few specific units in an army doesn’t absolutely cripple you in either of the two primary gameplay types. (Hoard, tough/armored)

 

I think I'd agree.

 

An army that can lose a unit and still maintain some functionality in every aspect of the mission would be one I'd consider more flexible than one that can be crippled by losing that unit. 

[Minsc]

3 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

meanwhile a tac squad with a bunch of plasma, or melta and just about any heavy weapon except a HB will allow the tactical squad to deal with said tanky target quite easily.

True, at least on paper.

Plasma is good against Terminators/Gravis and Lascannons are good against tanks.

 

The problem (for the Tacticals) is rate of fire, or rather the lack of it:

The squad of Terminators over there isn't afraid of that one plasmagun, nor is that Landraider afraid of one single Lascannon.

 

You'd need several squads of Tacticals before you have enough plasmaguns and lascannons to actually pose a serious threat to those Terminators/the Landraider and even with 3 squads (525 pts) its still just 3 plasmaguns/lascannons. With some luck you might kill the Landraider in a turn or two, but the Terminators wont be dead anytime soon.

 

Now, for the same 525 pts you can get a squad of Hellblasters and a squad of Eradicators, who will deal with those Terminators and that Landraider much more efficiently, despite not being as "tactically flexible". 

 

There's a reason why Tacticals are being considered so weak right now in 10th. Even 10 tactical squads @ 2000 pts, for all their flexibility will struggle against an IG armored company-list. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 minute ago, Minsc said:

True, at least on paper.

Plasma is good against Terminators/Gravis and Lascannons are good against tanks.

 

The problem (for the Tacticals) is rate of fire, or rather the lack of it:

The squad of Terminators over there isn't afraid of that one plasmagun, nor is that Landraider afraid of one single Lascannon.

 

You'd need several squads of Tacticals before you have enough plasmaguns and lascannons to actually pose a serious threat to those Terminators/the Landraider and even with 3 squads (525 pts) its still just 3 plasmaguns/lascannons. With some luck you might kill the Landraider in a turn or two, but the Terminators wont be dead anytime soon.

 

Now, for the same 525 pts you can get a squad of Hellblasters and a squad of Eradicators, who will deal with those Terminators and that Landraider much more efficiently, despite not being as "tactically flexible". 

 

There's a reason why Tacticals are being considered so weak right now in 10th. Even 10 tactical squads @ 2000 pts, for all their flexibility will struggle against an IG armored company-list. 

I am aware of the the weaknessses of spreading the firepower around.

 

however while a landraider isn’t afraid of 1 lascannon in 1 tactical squad, 3 lascannons, in 3 tactical squads is enough to make a landraider sweat. Especially if any of those squads are in range of melta weapons, even more so if in melta range.(not as scary as they were though)

[Berzul]

3 minutes ago, Minsc said:

True, at least on paper.

Plasma is good against Terminators/Gravis and Lascannons are good against tanks.

 

The problem (for the Tacticals) is rate of fire, or rather the lack of it:

The squad of Terminators over there isn't afraid of that one plasmagun, nor is that Landraider afraid of one single Lascannon.

 

You'd need several squads of Tacticals before you have enough plasmaguns and lascannons to actually pose a serious threat to those Terminators/the Landraider and even with 3 squads (525 pts) its still just 3 plasmaguns/lascannons. With some luck you might kill the Landraider in a turn or two, but the Terminators wont be dead anytime soon.

 

Now, for the same 525 pts you can get a squad of Hellblasters and a squad of Eradicators, who will deal with those Terminators and that Landraider much more efficiently, despite not being as "tactically flexible". 

 

There's a reason why Tacticals are being considered so weak right now in 10th. Even 10 tactical squads @ 2000 pts, for all their flexibility will struggle against an IG armored company-list. 

 

I think, in this case, two things can be true at once.

 

Overspecialized units does not really create flexibility. You are limited to what those units an do, and losing one means being crippled in the role covered by that one unit. 

 

At the same time, Firstborn, while more flexible than the Primaris in principle, suck in terms of actual rules, profiles, abilities, and cost. As such, while flexible, they are so underpowered that their flexibility is irrelevant.

 

So, in order to actually do well in a game, you NEED to go with the Primaris specialized approach. Then try and not get any one squad killed, and without a spare in its place, so that you are not left crippled on the board.  You cannot offset this with Firstborn, not because their flexibility is not real or there, but because... well, they suck. 

 

 

[Karhedron]

25 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

intercessors and HIs will really struggle against terminators, gravis, and centurions.

not particularly large models but all with their own version of tough and tanky.

 

meanwhile a tac squad with a bunch of plasma, or melta and just about any heavy weapon except a HB will allow the tactical squad to deal with said tanky target quite easily.

 

I am not so sure about that. Ints and HInts both get AP-1 on all their shots. Tactical Marines get AP0 and 2 shots with higher AP. Lets math hammer a 10-man tactical squad with Las + melta and 10 Intercessors with 2 AGL. The points aren't quite perfect but they are close at 175 vs 190 but they are not too bad.

 

At any range, The Intercessors get 20 bolt rifle shots which against most of the above will hit on 3s, wound on 5s and the targets will save on 3s which will average 1-2 wounds. The AGLs will then average another 1-2 wounds so about 3 on average.

 

At 12-24" range, the bolters on the Tactical squad will average only 0.3 wounds and 0.6 at <12". The Melta gun won't do anything at long range. At closer range the Meltagun and Lascannon both stand decent chances of one-shotting a target but have to hit, wound and fail a save (invulnerable in the case of Terminators). On average, each gun has about a 20% chance of killing a Terminator but also an 80% chance of doing nothing. This means that they can push through higher spike damage but are less reliable and more swingy. The chances improve against vehicles as both weapons can potentially do 8 wounds under ideal circumstance but this is very much an edge case.

 

So Tacticals can spike higher than Intercessors but will do considerably less damage on average. Then there are other factors. The Intercessors get both Assault and Heavy meaning they can be either faster or more accurate than the Tacs. The Intercessors can also be fielded in 2 squads whereas the Tactical cannot which is another point of flexibility in their favour.

 

Intercessors only get less variety of firepower but get more tactical flexibility from their better bolt rifles. A hot roll for the Tactical squad is more likely to see more Termies go down but an average roll will see the Intercessors do more damage overall. A single Lascannon or special weapon is not actually going to let the Tacticals deal with Terminators easily. On average, a Lascannon or melta gun will only kill a single Terminator apiece over the course of a 5-turn game. On average, the bolters at close range will only kill another 1 Terminator over 5 turns.

 

The Intercessors on the other hand will kill 5 Terminators on average over the course of a 5 turn game. They can also do it from a safer distance as their shooting is equally good out to 24". They can also improve their kill rate by standing still or Advance without compromising their shooting. There is a good case to make that the Intercessors are actually more tactically flexible.