Marines and flexibility

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

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.

How does the math hammer work out against the other marine heavy infantry units that don’t have invulns.

 

 

I think we are all aware that massed firepower is better against tough targets than 1 or AT weapons, so i guess if you want to pour massive amounts of bolt shots into tough targets vs a single squad likely doing much more damage to the tough unit.

 

can’t believe I didn’t think of this before lol. There’s a reason they’re called tactical squads. Because they’re tactically flexible lol

[Karhedron]

Just now, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

How does the math hammer work out against the other marine heavy infantry units that don’t have invulns.

 

That does shift the maths slightly in favour of the Tacticals but not enough to overtake the Intercessors. Centurions still get a 5+ vs lascannons. 

 

What has a bigger effect actually is cover. That is enough to negate the AP of the Intercessors Bolt Rifles while not affecting the bolters of the Tacs. Also the Lascannon gets saved on a 4+ whether the Termies are in cover or not.

 

Overall both units have pros and cons. But given the numbers I don't think it is fair to claim Tacticals as being more flexible, just on the basis that they can take 1 heavy and 1 special weapon. Yes they can spike higher with lucky rolls but the Intercessors deal more damage on average, even vs armoured targets. And as noted previously, having both Heavy and Assault gives them more flexibility in terms of mobility (if not in terms of optimum targets).

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

That does shift the maths slightly in favour of the Tacticals but not enough to overtake the Intercessors. Centurions still get a 5+ vs lascannons. 

 

What has a bigger effect actually is cover. That is enough to negate the AP of the Intercessors Bolt Rifles while not affecting the bolters of the Tacs. Also the Lascannon gets saved on a 4+ whether the Termies are in cover or not.

 

Overall both units have pros and cons. But given the numbers I don't think it is fair to claim Tacticals as being more flexible, just on the basis that they can take 1 heavy and 1 special weapon. Yes they can spike higher with lucky rolls but the Intercessors deal more damage on average, even vs armoured targets. And as noted previously, having both Heavy and Assault gives them more flexibility in terms of mobility (if not in terms of optimum targets).

Don’t forget sgt gets a special pistol and a combi weapon (currently) which also shifts the math significantly in every edition.

 

so the tacs essentially get 2 special weapons and a heavy at range, and get 2 special weapons in melee (special pistol and special melee weapon)

Edited July 31, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Blindhamster]

19 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

so the tacs essentially get 2 special weapons and a heavy at range, and get 2 special weapons in melee (special pistol and special melee weapon

the intercessors get two krak shots that are arguably better than any of the tactical special weapons except maybe the melta gun, but the grenade launcher has the range advantage there so is more flexible in terms of picking targets. Grenade launcher is also able to frag meaning it’s got the flexibility there too right?

 

melee options on the tactical vs intercessor is in favour of the intercessors because the intercessors simply have more attacks, and the same options for weapons. 
 

combi weapons are iffy right now, but it’s still for sure an advantage to the tacticals. Honestly to me it just seems like the reason to pick tacticals over intercessors is a lascannon, and the fact they’re a bit cheaper.

 

intercessors are more flexible in movement, being able to move, advance and shoot means they can play the objective game better, plus they don’t have to remain on one to continue scoring it. 

 

intercessors are more accurate if they stand still, with their basic guns being better, averaging more damage vs just about any target.

 

intercessors are better in melee (though neither are exactly great)

 

intercessors are more flexible in targets because their “special” weapons can pick firing modes on a given turn, they’re at least as good as two specials from the tacticals.

 

tacticals are able to spike higher for damage thanks to sergeant option and lascannon (don’t think any other heavy weapon has them come out on top)

 

tacticals are cheaper, meaning more points for things you actually want

 

tacticals can fall back and shoot (this is potentially clutch, so cannot be overlooked)

[Karhedron]

Well if you are going to get down into the nitty gritty then Intercessors get more melee attacks and the Intercessor Serg gets twice as many PF/TH attacks as the Tactical squad Serg.

 

Neither squad is optimised for melee but if you are talking about tactical flexibility in those terms then Intercessors are a more dangerous prospect in melee. Also if you take 2x5-man squads you get 2 Sergents for double melee special weapons.

 

 

In most settings, Intercessors outperform Tacs in terms of damage dealt. It is only the real edge cases where the Tactical squad takes the lead.

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 minute ago, Karhedron said:

Well if you are going to get down into the nitty gritty then Intercessors get more melee attacks and the Intercessor Serg gets twice as many PF/TH attacks as the Tactical squad Serg.

 

Neither squad is optimised for melee but if you are talking about tactical flexibility in those terms then Intercessors are a more dangerous prospect in melee. Also if you take 2x5-man squads you get 2 Sergents for double melee special weapons.

 

 

In most settings, Intercessors outperform Tacs in terms of damage dealt. It is only the real edge cases where the Tactical squad takes the lead.

 

That’s extremely disappointing.

im terrible at math so I don’t try to math anything that gets too complicated out for myself.

[Blindhamster]

Tactical squads still have their uses, they’re never going to get stuck fighting in melee if they don’t want to, intercessors can’t say the same 

[Dracos]

Tangentially … Is it better for Marines to focus on Flexibility per unit or as Specialist units working as a pseudo-combined arms task force?

 

Is it better to spend 1050 on 6 - 10 man Tactical Squads kitted out with Las/Plas etc or 1040 of 2x 5 Desolators, 2x 5 Hellblasters, 5x 5 Heavy Intercessor squads?

 

I remember pushing the idea across the internet of min-maxing six 5 man squads of Tactical squads back at the birth of 3rd edition(?) and stayed with that until I left the game for a while half way through 5th. Those days are gone

 

In My Opinion

 

Tactical squads lack the juice even when spammed to take you to the finish line against all comers ….

 

….. and Take All Comers is the litmus test of what works and what doesn’t when it comes down to judging flexibility in my opinion. (assuming unit point values are within acceptable margins of course )

 

As much as the very Old School Guard in me wants the Tacticals to be competitive against all comers it isn’t working in the modern meta and if Marine Players want to be successful they have to be able to adapt and overcome in the new environment 

 

In My Opinion

[Karhedron]

11 minutes ago, Dracos said:

Is it better to spend 1050 on 6 - 10 man Tactical Squads kitted out with Las/Plas etc or 1040 of 2x 5 Desolators, 2x 5 Hellblasters, 5x 5 Heavy Intercessor squads?

 

You get 10 Krak missile shots as opposed to 6 Lascannons. Better against light and heavy tanks/monsters but slightlky worse vs T11. You also get some indirect fire capability which FB Infantry don't have access to.

 

10 plasma Incinerators which are much better than 6 plasma guns on all stats.

 

Fewer bodies but the HInts are much better than the Tacs. The Tacs will have a slight edge in melee due to the special melee weapons on the Sergeants but none of those squads really want to be in melee.

 

I would definitely be looking to take the more specialised Primaris rather than the 6 Tactical squads in this case although I ackknowledge that taking out the Desolators will degrade my anti-tank shooting faster than chewing through the Tacs to reach my Lascannons.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

But in the end, the primaris didn’t add any new flexibility to the army.

they added specialization which is the opposite of flexibility 

Edited July 31, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Karhedron]

15 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

But in the end, the primaris didn’t add any new flexibility to the army.

 

I guess it depends entirely on your definition of flexibility. Most of the individual units were less flexible than FB units but they offered the possibility to specialise in a way that Marines had not really been able to do before (e.g. Hellblaster squads for all plasma). They did add flexibility to the army in the sense that they offered capabilities that had not existed previously, even though the units themselves were often less flexible.

[Kallas]

It's also worth noting, there's a difference between role and performance. Units have certain roles (including 'jack of all trades') and whether they perform well at them is separate (though related).

 

So while units might not perform well on a 40k tabletop because of points efficiency, that doesn't mean that a unit that does a particular role better is adding any additional flexibility. Devastators are far more efficient at anti-tank (with Lascannons) than four units of Tacticals, but they're both flexible units because they can be equipped to deal with whatever threat you want but they do so in different manners (Devastators concentrate heavy weapons in relative mass; Tacticals spread it out and make it harder to remove).

 

This applies, as has been kind of touched upon in the thread, to Primaris: you can concentrate your firepower in a given unit, and they will perform better at that given role, but they are less flexible because they are (like the Devastators) limited in where they can be and how they can be countered.

 

Also, points efficiency is something that swings wildly with GW's balancing. In one dataslate, a unit could go from awful efficiency to being the most efficiency at a given role, or vice versa.

[Orange Knight]

@Inquisitor_Lensoven

 

From what I've read you seem to place the title of "Tactically Flexible" on any unit that has generalist wargear. 

 

They aren't the same thing.

Let's consider these two units:

 

1: Intercessors

2: Tactical Squad 

 

The Intercessors offer more Tactical flexibility out of the two despite having more limited wargear. They have a very strategic Objective Control rule, they can move, advance and shoot or become more accurate when standing still. From a Tactical point of view, they offer a lot more play via their movement and Objective rules.

 

The Tactical Squad can potentially engage a bigger variety of units in shooting, but not effectively so. They have slightly more shooting flexibility, but far less movement flexibility. 

 

The weapons a unit is equipped with are only one part of what makes them effective or flexible.

[Kallas]

8 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

They have slightly more shooting flexibility, but far less movement flexibility. 

Completely ignoring the value of being able to Fall Back, Shoot and Charge? How is that not great movement flexibility? Intercessors can get 'stuck' on units, where the Tactical Squad can choose how they engage and can choose to actively engage enemies in melee to force bad enemy decisions with the knowledge that they themselves won't suffer from the same issue.

 

Yes, the Intercessors have better bolt shots because they have AP-1 and can choose to use Heavy or Assault, yet they still lack any kind of ranged anti-high armour capabilities. Their role is very firmly in the anti-infantry objective take/holder; Tacticals are the same, except they can introduce additional variety by equipping anti-other weaponry (eg, Lascannon, Melta), or increase their anti-infantry capabilities further (eg, Heavy Bolter, Flamer)

 

You're pro-Primaris, we get it. Ignoring things to make Primaris look better doesn't make your argument sound.

 

Edit: And just to cut off the obvious retort: yes, Tacticals are not very effective when equipping weapons for other targets, but this is a case of performance being problematic, not the role.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Kallas
Role vs Performance

[Minsc]

3 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

But in the end, the primaris didn’t add any new flexibility to the army.

they added specialization which is the opposite of flexibility 

 
Why do you make this sound like it's something bad?

 

If you wanna bring up SM pre-primaris then that means pre-8th.

 

Pre-8th most likely means no split-fire (unless you had the SRS), i.e your tacticals with las-plas just wasted their bolters if they shot at a hard target or did some very points-inefficient shooting with their lascannon at some ork boyz. (That was the price you paid for flexibility.)

 

All other forms of FB infantry (Devs, Cents, AMs, SternG, HonorG, Scouts, Termies) usually wanted to shoot or punch either a soft or hard target. 

 

With that said, I'm not really sure what we're supposed to discuss in this thread anymore, its starting to feel like a generic "Primaris bad!"-thread. 

 

I guess we can enjoy ourselves by trying to deduce what factors actually weigh in when determining a units "tactical flexibility". 

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by Minsc

[Blindhamster]

56 minutes ago, Kallas said:

yet they still lack any kind of ranged anti-high armour capabilities

Totally agree with most of what you said man, I'd said much the same earlier on too; Tactical Squads don't need character support to be able to be well... tactical, which is potentially huge for tactical flexibility, being able to pick and choose when to melee and when to shoot (they almost never want to melee though).

 

But I did want to note the point about lacking any kind of ranged anti-high armour is less true than it used to be because the astartes grenade launcher got a glow up and the unit can take two now (and they still dont replace the actual bolt rifle, so it gets to shoot with both). It's now strength 9, AP -2 and damage d3 for the krak. Don't get me wrong, its not as good as a lascannon, but nothing is, a krak rocket is also still better, but its better than any of the tactical squads special weapons except melta guns at 6" and probably about as good as many of the other heavy weapons. It also hits on 3s regardless of if the unit moves, where the tacticals heavy weapons only hit on 4s. Figured it was worth noting as I think its an easily overlooked improvement to the intercessor squads basic capabilities (much like the tactical squads "tactical flexibility").

 

It's also worth noting that there are stratagems to get out of melee available in most detachments, and that lieutenants enable it too - but both of those come with opportunity costs and of course you'd then be looking at which character would best lead the tactical squad too (in blood angels its Tycho - for rapid fire lascannons lmao)

 

I actually think they did a pretty good job of balancing Intercessors and Tactical marines against eachother in the index honestly. Both are meant to be your "bread and butter" marine unit, both give you some interesting flexibility in how they're used, but in different sections of a turn, both have some, but limited combat potential, and both can take objectives fairly well thanks to OC 2. I'd say the role of both units is objective capture and holding, realistically. They then have the opportunity to do other things whilst carrying that out.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Blindhamster

[Berzul]

Again, it seems clear and agreed that:

 

Firstborn Infantry are more versatile and adaptable than the Primaris Infantry. They are "flexible" in the sense that the unit can do a lot of things, and adjust to the situation at hand.

 

Primaris Infantry are more speciali,ed and focused than Firstborn Infantrtly. While less flexible on the unit to unit basis, they add options to the codex in a way that makes it, itself, more flexible.

 

Primaris have the issue that comes naturally with over specialization. If you have one squad that can do one job and that squad dies, you cannot do that job anymore.

 

Firstborn have the issue that cames naturally with diversity in tactical roles. One squad alone does little on each role, and needs the combined effort of other units to achieve the results an over specialized unit can achieve on its own.

 

Finally,

 

Firstborn have the plus that, when losing a squad, the army itself loses effectiveness in a more gradual way. However, the Firstborn have very, very poor weaponry, stats, abilities, and cost efficiency, when compared to the Primaris units. 

 

So, more often than not, Primaris will be the way to go. Regardless of flexibility, and whether you actually find them flexible or not. Because the alternative is just not strong enough to carry a list.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

@Inquisitor_Lensoven

 

From what I've read you seem to place the title of "Tactically Flexible" on any unit that has generalist wargear. 

 

They aren't the same thing.

Let's consider these two units:

 

1: Intercessors

2: Tactical Squad 

 

The Intercessors offer more Tactical flexibility out of the two despite having more limited wargear. They have a very strategic Objective Control rule, they can move, advance and shoot or become more accurate when standing still. From a Tactical point of view, they offer a lot more play via their movement and Objective rules.

 

The Tactical Squad can potentially engage a bigger variety of units in shooting, but not effectively so. They have slightly more shooting flexibility, but far less movement flexibility. 

 

The weapons a unit is equipped with are only one part of what makes them effective or flexible.

Im not taking (so far) one off special rules into consideration atm because things like that change every edition, and may even change when the codex is released. Where as model stats and weapon stats seem much less likely to change edition to edition or when the new codex drops.

 

when I say flexibility I mean both pregame (building your army) and in game.

you can specialize a tactical squad to decimate GEQs, or build them to be a threat to MEQs, or armor/monsters, or you could have something of a middle ground sgt w/ hand flamer/chainsword, plasma gun, and lascannon (flexible but probably not a very effective build)

Edited August 1, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Minsc said:

 And this is...bad? 

 

If you wanna bring up pre-primaris then that means pre-8th.

 

Pre-8th most likely means no split-fire (unless you had the SRS), i.e your tacticals with las-plas just wasted their bolters if they shot at a hard target or did some very points-inefficient shooting with their lascannon at some ork boyz. (That was the price you paid for flexibility.)

 

All other forms of FB infantry (Devs, Cents, AMs, SternG, HonorG, Scouts, Termies) usually wanted to shoot or punch either a soft or hard target. 

 

With that said, I'm not really sure what we're supposed to discuss in this thread anymore, its starting to feel like a generic "Primaris bad!"-thread. 

 

I guess we can enjoy ourselves by trying to deduce what factors actually weigh in when determining a units "tactical flexibility". 

 

I never said it was bad, just starting a new discussion to keep the other thread on topic. 
And in that other thread someone said something about how primaris brought much need flexibility to the army.

[Minsc]

14 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I never said it was bad, just starting a new discussion to keep the other thread on topic. 
And in that other thread someone said something about how primaris brought much need flexibility to the army.

Ahh your OP makes more sense now. 

I'll echo what some fraters have said then, and say that while the flexibility of individual Primaris-units can be discussed to no end (Eradicators aren't flexible, they only do one thing but hella good - meanwhile Intercessors are fairly flexible, etc), the flexibility of the army itself has indeed gone up, simply because the army as a whole has been given tools that it previously might have lacked.

More options (even if those options might not be flexible in themselves) will always lead to more flexible listbuilding. 

Edited August 1, 2023 by Minsc

[Orion]

2 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Ahh your OP makes more sense now. 

I'll echo what some fraters have said then, and say that while the flexibility of individual Primaris-units can be discussed to no end (Eradicators aren't very flexible, they do one thing but hella good - meanwhile Intercessors are fairly flexible, etc), the flexibility of the army itself has indeed gone up, simply because the army as a whole has been given tools that it previously might have lacked. More options (even if those options might not be flexible in themselves) will always lead to a more flexible listbuilding. 

So strategic flexibility over tactical flexibility.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Ahh your OP makes more sense now. 

I'll echo what some fraters have said then, and say that while the flexibility of individual Primaris-units can be discussed to no end (Eradicators aren't very flexible, they do one thing but hella good - meanwhile Intercessors are fairly flexible, etc), the flexibility of the army itself has indeed gone up, simply because the army as a whole has been given tools that it previously might have lacked. More options (even if those options might not be flexible in themselves) will always lead to a more flexible listbuilding. 

I also used inceptors because that was one of the examples they used, claiming they filled a role that was already filled by two units, 3 if you’re a BA player.

 

variation does create more pregame flexibility for sure.

[Dracos]

3 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

But in the end, the primaris didn’t add any new flexibility to the army.

they added specialization which is the opposite of flexibility 

I would agree with Karhedron it depends on how and where you describe flexibility. Even accepting your definition of Flexibility should t the real question be is said flexibility a boon or a detriment to a Marine list?

 

Maybe when we think of Flexibility it should be in the context of unit choices as opposed to choices within the units, less micro tactical decisions and more macro. Not how complimenting pieces of equipment make a unit better but how complimenting units make the army better. 
 

While my list above wasn’t suppose to be an actual army build, I would say it had an addition feature Karhedron touched upon but didn’t point out specifically in that 9 x5 man squads are easier to move around and can be in more places than six Tactical squads giving them a Flexibility of Maneuver 

 

[Dracos]

1 hour ago, Minsc said:

 
Why do you make this sound like it's something bad?

 

If you wanna bring up SM pre-primaris then that means pre-8th.

 

Pre-8th most likely means no split-fire (unless you had the SRS), i.e your tacticals with las-plas just wasted their bolters if they shot at a hard target or did some very points-inefficient shooting with their lascannon at some ork boyz. (That was the price you paid for flexibility.)

 

All other forms of FB infantry (Devs, Cents, AMs, SternG, HonorG, Scouts, Termies) usually wanted to shoot or punch either a soft or hard target. 

 

With that said, I'm not really sure what we're supposed to discuss in this thread anymore, its starting to feel like a generic "Primaris bad!"-thread. 

 

I guess we can enjoy ourselves by trying to deduce what factors actually weigh in when determining a units "tactical flexibility". 

 

it’s just my opinion but I think it’s easy to confuse more flexible with better tactically. Equipment choice and assignment on the ToE chart is only one factor of a tactical mind set. More importantly we can see what performs on the table top looking g at competitive data. 
 

More importantly … is flexibility worth it if it degrades your army performance?  It would be like using World War I tactics in World War II … in my opinion. 

[spessmarine]

4 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

But in the end, the primaris didn’t add any new flexibility to the army.

they added specialization which is the opposite of flexibility 

 

Some of these come down to it's just how GW did it because reasons like no model, no rules.

There is no reason tacticals can't use new bolters, and no reason why intecessors can't pocket a boomstick for later use.

 

Maybe we'll see a sort of merger of tacticals and intercessors down the line, more a replacement of the former by the latter maybe.