Marines and flexibility

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

19 minutes ago, Dracos said:

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. 

Well if GW could write rules in a way that made sense having more options available should never be worse than fewer options.

[MadGreek]

If they continue down the path they are taking, it would actually be a simple (to me) "fix" in the Codex. They could make some sort of "tactical flexibility" rule - if you have a squad of five Intercessors you can attach a squad of 5 (fill in the specialist squad here). As long as all are in the same armor  (tacticus with tacticus, gravis with gravis, etc.).  Sort of an ad hoc tactical or devastator squad. Ablative bolter rifle marines to get the special weapons to the target.  Requires 1, maybe two, new rules. 1 to allow the joining of the squads, 1 to deal with whether or not there would be a second sergeant or not. I'd like something like that. 

[Lemondish]

2 hours ago, MadGreek said:

If they continue down the path they are taking, it would actually be a simple (to me) "fix" in the Codex. They could make some sort of "tactical flexibility" rule - if you have a squad of five Intercessors you can attach a squad of 5 (fill in the specialist squad here). As long as all are in the same armor  (tacticus with tacticus, gravis with gravis, etc.).  Sort of an ad hoc tactical or devastator squad. Ablative bolter rifle marines to get the special weapons to the target.  Requires 1, maybe two, new rules. 1 to allow the joining of the squads, 1 to deal with whether or not there would be a second sergeant or not. I'd like something like that. 

You just described 10th edition Deathwatch. I'm not joking, that is exactly how the Primaris Kill Teams behave at unit selection.

 

Which is a perfect example of the value @Inquisitor_Lensoven places on unit customization providing tactical flexibility. Every single one of those Primaris Kill Teams are trash in comparison to the options and flexibility one can build into the Firstborn Deathwatch Veterans or Proteus Kill Teams.

 

Seriously, these guys are tactical squad+++.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by Lemondish

[Karhedron]

9 hours ago, Kallas said:

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)

 

That ability to pack in different weapons was very important in earlier editions and earlier where bolters literally could not scratch anything heavier than a Landspeeder and a single lascannon shot could take out a tank in 1 (lucky) hit.

 

8th edition onwards has changed all of that in that any weapon can wound any target on a 6. What that means in practice is that the firepower of 10 bolt rifles is actually not that different to the firepower of 8 bolters a plasma and a lascannon, even against heavy tanks. Let's consider 10 Intercessors and a Las/plas Tactical squad firing at a Land Raider.

 

At 12-24" Intercessors average 0.75 wounds from the bolter rifles and 0.44 from the 2 AGLs for ~1.2 wounds when moving or 1.5 wounds when stationary.

Las/Plas Tacs average only 0.15 wounds from the bolters, 0.1 from the Plasma gun and 1 wound from the Lascannon so 1.25 wounds on average. At < 12" The Tacticals go up to 1.75 thanks to the extra shots from the bolters and plasma gun.

 

So as you can see, even a tooled up Tactical squad does not significantly out perform Bolt rifles, even against armoured targets. They are slightly better at close range but worse at longer ranges. The idea that having a single lascannon embedded in a squad increases its armour-busting firepower has limits as it only averages 1 wound per turn. Yes sometimes you will roll high for the lascannon and dish out 6 or 7 wounds but 2/3 of the time it will either miss or fail to wound.

 

Even adding a lascannon does not allow Tactical Squads to significantly out-perform Intercessors against armoured targets.

[Captain Idaho]

Using the average of a 1 wound from a Lascannon undermines its use rather unfairly I believe.

 

The game doesn't work on averages. In fact, a Lascannon will never cause a single wound due to being damage D6+1.

 

The mono-role of Primaris is a thing. It's literally their thing and one of the reasons people have given for liking them.

 

Their kits aren't modular either, so they're very inflexible.

 

The most flexible unit of Primaris we have is Sternguard. They still have a single role, that of generating Mortal Wounds, but they're at least a unit with differing options.

 

I'd like to see more units with additional weapons options as I don't like this draw to an Eldar paradigm in 40K, but not sure we'll get that anymore folks.

[Kallas]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

[...]

Yes, the difference between role and performance.

 

GW has fundamentally changed the way the game works, making Tacticals substantially worse because everything can hurt everything, as well as now squeezing down infantry special/heavy weapons into a lower strength/AP range to ensure that vehicles are tougher - so now, much like early 8th and much of 9th, massed AP-1 firepower is king again.

 

But this is still fundamentally performance, rather than role. Intercessors perform better point for point against those hard targets because their Bolt Rifles do more work - but that is not the purpose of Bolters/Bolt Rifles, and is one of the oddities of moving so that every weapon can potentially hurt any target. 

 

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

Let's consider 10 Intercessors and a Las/plas Tactical squad firing at a Land Raider.

 

At 12-24" Intercessors average 0.75 wounds from the bolter rifles and 0.44 from the 2 AGLs for ~1.2 wounds when moving or 1.5 wounds when stationary.

Las/Plas Tacs average only 0.15 wounds from the bolters, 0.1 from the Plasma gun and 1 wound from the Lascannon so 1.25 wounds on average. At < 12" The Tacticals go up to 1.75 thanks to the extra shots from the bolters and plasma gun.

 

Assuming the Intercessors are benefiting from Heavy, they're dealing about 0.88 damage with the BRs (20x0.833x0.166x0.33=0.879) and 0.44 with the AGLs (2x0.66x0.33x0.5x2=0.436), so 1.32 total. Points-wise, this is about 144pts/damage.

 

Tacticals are dealing about 0.25 damage with their Bolters (14x0.66x0.166x0.166=0.255), 0.11 per standard Plasma (1x0.66x0.33x0.5=0.108)/0.29 per supercharged Plasma (1x0.66x0.33x0.66=0.287), doubled in Rapid Fire range (so 0.22/0.57), and add another for the Sergeant's Plasma Pistol if you like (or add another Bolter shot in), and the Lascannon is dealing about 0.58 (1x0.5x0.5x0.66x3.5=0.5775) 0.74 (1*0.5*0.5*0.66*4.5=0.7425), or 0.76 0.98 if they Remained Stationary (1x0.66x0.5x0.66x3.5=0.7623),(1*0.66*0.5*0.66*4.5=0.98) for a low end of 0.94 1.1 (moving, not in RF and not supercharged; about 186 159pts/damage), or a high end of 1.58 1.8 (stationary, in RF and supercharged, about 110 97pts/damage) - and up to 1.87 2.09 if we add in a supercharged Plasma Pistol shot (since the Sergeant wasn't actually included in the Bolters, so about 83pts/damage at maximum output).

 

These are still averages, which obviously makes the Lascannon very swingy: if it hits and wounds, it's likely to actually do a decent amount of wounds, but obviously it's not likely to do so if it's moving and vs T12 - but the high end of Lascannon damage is doing about as much work as the entire squad of Bolt Rifles (0.76 average vs the Heavy BRs 0.88). So if we want to compare the two units on their damage output (which is not the point: again, there is a significant difference between role and performance) then Tacticals are still competitive with Intercessors, (even assuming Intercessors benefit from Heavy as the baseline) simply because they included the Lascannon at all.

 

[Edit: Fixed some maths. I'd done the Lascannons at d6 damage (so 3.5 average) instead of their d6+1 (so 4.5 average). Everything is still there with strikethrough, in case someone wants to check the maths themselves.]

 

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

At < 12" The Tacticals go up to 1.75 thanks to the extra shots from the bolters and plasma gun.

Just to be clear, Bolters are 2A, not 1A/Rapid Fire 1. Not that it makes much of a difference, but figured I'd mention it.

 

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

does not significantly out perform

And this is still the main problem with this thread: many people are conflating role and performance. Yes, Intercessors do very well into a Land Raider-equivalent profile for their cost; but if they cost 300pts they wouldn't, and if they cost 50pts they'd be crazy good. Tacticals costing 175pts for 10 is not good; if they cost 50pts they'd be amazing, and if they cost 300pts they'd be garbage - performance, not role.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Kallas
Fixed some maths: Lascannons are d6+1, not d6

[Karhedron]

16 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Using the average of a 1 wound from a Lascannon undermines its use rather unfairly I believe.

 

The game doesn't work on averages. In fact, a Lascannon will never cause a single wound due to being damage D6+1.

 

 

The use of mathematical averages is very useful in comparing the points efficiency of units vs different targets. What it highlights is that overall, AP-1 across all the basic weapons in a squad is about as effective as including a single lascannon. It is the numbers that undermine the Lascannon, not my use of them.

 

On average, 1 Lascannon will only get a single wounding hit through the armour of a Land Raider in a 5 turn game, dealing D6+1 Wounds. The Bolt Rifles and AGLs on the Intercessors will strip off just over 1 wound per turn. The spike damage of the lascannon averages out close to the chip damage of the bolt rifles over time. 

[Karhedron]

9 minutes ago, Kallas said:

And this is still the main problem with this thread: many people are conflating role and performance. Yes, Intercessors do very well into a Land Raider-equivalent profile for their cost; but if they cost 300pts they wouldn't, and if they cost 50pts they'd be crazy good. Tacticals costing 175pts for 10 is not good; if they cost 50pts they'd be amazing, and if they cost 300pts they'd be garbage - performance, not role.

 

I would argue that performance dictates role. If you take Tactical squads as your primary source of anti-tank firepower, you will struggle to deal with armoured threats. There were editions where 6x5 Las/plas Tactical squads were an effective backbone of the army with decent AT capability but that is not true in 10th edition.

 

Performance is a measurable metric and depends on both rules and points costs. Role is a bit more vague. Do people define role to mean what they are supposed to do according to the lore, according to the design intent of the unit or according to what they are actually effectively used for on the battlefield? Most players pick roles for their units based on performance.

[Kallas]

2 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

I would argue that performance dictates role

Performance is based on cost efficiency, which changes from balance dataslate to munitorum field manual. Equipment (generally) does not. Equipment is generally what informs the role of a unit: a Lascannon is an anti-tank weapon; Bolt Rifles are anti-infantry weapons; Flamers are anti-infantry weapons, etc. Like I said, a unit of Intercessors costing 50pts is bonkers good into everything, and one costing 300pts is awful regardless of whether it technically outperforms a Tactical Squad (which it may or may not do depending on the relative costs).

 

People are not bringing Intercessors to deal with heavily armoured vehicles, even if they might be outperforming a Tactical Squad's Lascannon in some or many circumstances, because the role of the Intercessor is not anti-tank, it is anti-infantry and objective holding (either directly, or utilising their ability). Similarly, people aren't bringing Tacticals purely for their Lascannon(s)/anti-tank firepower, they are bringing them as objective holders with (the literal rule) tactical flexbility, with supplementary firepower against the targets they gear them with (either more anti-infantry weapons, or a smattering or anti-tank weapons).

 

9 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

Role is a bit more vague.

For tactically flexible units, yes. For many other units, it is not. A squad of Eradicators is not a flexible unit: they are definitively an anti-tank/monster unit; a Land Raider Crusader is definitely not an anti-tank vehicle (even with a Multi-melta and Hunter-killer!) as it is clearly geared up for en masse anti-infantry firepower; a Swooping Hawk squad is clearly an anti-infantry unit, even with Lethal Hits possibly letting them hurt vehicles.

 

These roles are clearly defined, regardless of how well, or not, they perform them - the only vagueness comes in when a unit is not specifically geared for one thing or another. They are tactically flexible.

 

A very good example of a flexible unit is the Eldar War Walker. Its role is entirely dependant on what weapons you equip it with: Bright Lances make it anti-tank; Scatter Lasers make it anti-light infantry; Shuriken Cannons and Starcannons make it anti-medium infantry. Its base rules and statline gives it a medium/light vehicle role, but what it can do on the table is determined by its equipment; this is much the same way for Tacticals, though to a far lesser defined degree, since they are still mostly equipped a certain way (anti-light infantry). Probably a better comparison would be Devastators: they are reasonably well defined by what heavy weapons they are equipped with - with Lascannons they are pretty definitively anti-tank; with Heavy Bolters they are anti-medium infantry; with Missile Launchers they are mostly anti-light infantry with some punch into light vehicles, and so on.

 

Equipment tends to define role more than efficiency.

[Minsc]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

 

The use of mathematical averages is very useful in comparing the points efficiency of units vs different targets. What it highlights is that overall, AP-1 across all the basic weapons in a squad is about as effective as including a single lascannon. It is the numbers that undermine the Lascannon, not my use of them.

 

On average, 1 Lascannon will only get a single wounding hit through the armour of a Land Raider in a 5 turn game, dealing D6+1 Wounds. The Bolt Rifles and AGLs on the Intercessors will strip off just over 1 wound per turn. The spike damage of the lascannon averages out close to the chip damage of the bolt rifles over time. 

 

Agreed. 
Mathematical averages can look wonky ("how can this weapon on average do 0,37 wounds? / How can this D2 attack average 1 wound?"), but it's the best thing we have to properly evaluate how efficient (or inefficient) something is on average, in a given scenario. 

In the end, dice will be dice and that can spike either way, but most of the time, dice-rolling comes pretty close to average over to course of a game (even if there are exceptions. I remember back in 7th Ed WFB when my DoC opponent quite literally averaged a 3++ on his 5++ wardsave. Due to... reasons I was writing down his rolls over the course of the game and could show him how good he rolled. Curse you Nurgle!)

Edit: Weird typo.

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by Minsc

[Arbedark]

47 minutes ago, Minsc said:

 

Agreed. 
Mathematical averages can look wonky ("how can this weapon on average do 0,37 wounds? / How can this D2 attack average 1 wound?"), but it's the best thing we have to properly evaluate how efficient (or inefficient) something is on average, in a given scenario. 

In the end, dice will be dice and that can spike either way, but most of the time, dice-rolling comes pretty close to average over to course of a game (even if there are exceptions. I remember back in 7th Ed WFB when my DoC opponent quite literally averaged a 3++ on his 5++ wardsave. Due to... reasons I was writing down his rolls over the course of the game and could show him how good he rolled. Curse you Nurgle!)

Edit: Weird typo.

 

 

For the record, I feel @Karhedron's use of averages was broadly fine in the circumstance, but an average value absolutely isn't the best way to evaluate efficiency in 40k. Much to my chagrin they are the default way we express numerical comparisons between units (given the relative simplicity of calculating them), but actual probabilities are far superior for the purposes of analysing unit performance. But that's getting off topic. 

[Captain Idaho]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

 

The use of mathematical averages is very useful in comparing the points efficiency of units vs different targets. What it highlights is that overall, AP-1 across all the basic weapons in a squad is about as effective as including a single lascannon. It is the numbers that undermine the Lascannon, not my use of them.

 

On average, 1 Lascannon will only get a single wounding hit through the armour of a Land Raider in a 5 turn game, dealing D6+1 Wounds. The Bolt Rifles and AGLs on the Intercessors will strip off just over 1 wound per turn. The spike damage of the lascannon averages out close to the chip damage of the bolt rifles over time. 

 

The problem with using averages is you wouldn't be firing the bolters at a Land Raider.

 

The reason you have a Lascannon in the Tactical squad is to fire it at tanks and monsters whilst your bolters fire at infantry.

 

When it's said that Tactical Marines are more flexible because they can deal with tanks and infantry, it is targeting 2 different units at the same time.

 

I'd look at it differently - you can fit multiple additional Lascannons into your list using 2 Tactical squads with Lascannons and all you had to give up was 2 bolter shots per lascannon.

[Blindhamster]

To me, flexibility means “do they do one thing or can they do multiple”.

 

and I don’t just mean “can they target just one unit type”

 

I mean “can they melee if they need to”, “can they shoot”, “can I switch targets if I need to”, “do I have choices in how and when to move”. Or more clearly… “do I have choices whilst using the unit or whilst building the unit”

 

clearly, when looking at intercessors, they’re less flexible when it comes to building the unit. They realistically have two choices:

- unit size

- special weapons on sergeant

 

tactical squads at build time have far more options. Ergo at build time, they’re more flexible.

 

once the game starts, it becomes “do I have meaningful choices I can make during play”.

 

some units, the answer is pretty much no. This is true of both firstborn and primaris,  it is absolutely true in more cases with primaris*
 

but, continuing the tacticals vs intercessors discussion, it’s not (in my opinion) a clear cut win for tacticals.

shooting

both units can put out fairly basic bolter fire (intercessor bolter fire is slightly better).

tacticals will typically have two low-medium threat ranged weapon and one medium to high threat ranged weapon**
intercessors have two weapons that sit somewhere between the tacticals, the AGL is better than tactical specials, but generally worse than tactical heavies.

Therefore both units targets are generally infantry, with opportunity targets of light-medium vehicles, you won’t usually move a tactical squad to actively hunt a heavy vehicle.

 

Melee
You don’t want to melee with tactical squads, even with the special sergeant weapon generally, it’s a deterrent but it does open up opportunity to bully an almost dead unit. Intercessors are pretty much the same, but they are better at melee, the sergeant weapon counts for more due to the extra attack and the rest of the squads weapons do too. In both cases, melee isn’t a priority, in the case of tacticals, it’s undesirable, for intercessors it’s more of an option still vs light infantry.

 

movement.

the intercessors are better here. No real competition. This is because they can move and advance and still shoot at no negative, this means they can cross the board to do their primary role of objective securing more easily, without the need for a transport. Or they can stand still and get much more effective with their bolt rifles - making their basic fire just that bit more deadly. That said, as we talked about earlier, the tacticals ability to fallback and still shoot/charge shouldn’t be overlooked, we talked about tacticals not wanting to be in melee, and thanks to that, they never have to be. It’s more situational, but intercessors need a character or a stratagem to achieve the same.

 

objective capturing

intercessors win this, but only barely and it’s debatable, but the option to move away from an objective and still score from it is flexible, opening up tactical options - this is undeniable.

transports

both have similar options for transports, it’s swings and roundabouts, intercessors can go in an impulsor as a 5 man squad with a character, so that’s a thing I guess. I wouldn’t say it’s any kind of win though, but it is a list building option for them that tactical squads lack for now (hopefully combat squading comes back for them though)

 

character support

tbh, I think generally neither squad is worth attaching a character to, but intercessors get slightly more benefit from lieutenants than tactical squads do. 
 

honestly, to me, intercessors feel more flexible once on the table, purely because of heavy/assault. They perform similarly against similar targets, but they have a slightly more acceptable melee proposition, certainly for my blood angels I find them to be the better melee option anyway. But it’s undeniable that tactical squads are more flexible at build time and can pull out some clutch moments with the option to risk a shot on a higher value target than intercessors can ever hope to tackle in a meaningful way.

 

*it’s also true that many firstborn units still have a single purpose after build time, such as devastators usually being all one heavy weapon.

**it could be argued that this Nader the new rules, tacticals don’t have more build options as basically, lascannon is king. But it’s reasonable to assume regardless that the heavy weapon is probably one of the high damage, good strength ones

Edited August 1, 2023 by Blindhamster
Forgot cliff notes lol

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

To me, flexibility means “do they do one thing or can they do multiple”.

 

and I don’t just mean “can they target just one unit type”

 

I mean “can they melee if they need to”, “can they shoot”, “can I switch targets if I need to”, “do I have choices in how and when to move”. Or more clearly… “do I have choices whilst using the unit or whilst building the unit”

 

clearly, when looking at intercessors, they’re less flexible when it comes to building the unit. They realistically have two choices:

- unit size

- special weapons on sergeant

 

tactical squads at build time have far more options. Ergo at build time, they’re more flexible.

 

once the game starts, it becomes “do I have meaningful choices I can make during play”.

 

some units, the answer is pretty much no. This is true of both firstborn and primaris,  it is absolutely true in more cases with primaris*
 

but, continuing the tacticals vs intercessors discussion, it’s not (in my opinion) a clear cut win for tacticals.

shooting

both units can put out fairly basic bolter fire (intercessor bolter fire is slightly better).

tacticals will typically have two low-medium threat ranged weapon and one medium to high threat ranged weapon**
intercessors have two weapons that sit somewhere between the tacticals, the AGL is better than tactical specials, but generally worse than tactical heavies.

Therefore both units targets are generally infantry, with opportunity targets of light-medium vehicles, you won’t usually move a tactical squad to actively hunt a heavy vehicle.

 

Melee
You don’t want to melee with tactical squads, even with the special sergeant weapon generally, it’s a deterrent but it does open up opportunity to bully an almost dead unit. Intercessors are pretty much the same, but they are better at melee, the sergeant weapon counts for more due to the extra attack and the rest of the squads weapons do too. In both cases, melee isn’t a priority, in the case of tacticals, it’s undesirable, for intercessors it’s more of an option still vs light infantry.

 

movement.

the intercessors are better here. No real competition. This is because they can move and advance and still shoot at no negative, this means they can cross the board to do their primary role of objective securing more easily, without the need for a transport. Or they can stand still and get much more effective with their bolt rifles - making their basic fire just that bit more deadly. That said, as we talked about earlier, the tacticals ability to fallback and still shoot/charge shouldn’t be overlooked, we talked about tacticals not wanting to be in melee, and thanks to that, they never have to be. It’s more situational, but intercessors need a character or a stratagem to achieve the same.

 

objective capturing

intercessors win this, but only barely and it’s debatable, but the option to move away from an objective and still score from it is flexible, opening up tactical options - this is undeniable.

transports

both have similar options for transports, it’s swings and roundabouts, intercessors can go in an impulsor as a 5 man squad with a character, so that’s a thing I guess. I wouldn’t say it’s any kind of win though, but it is a list building option for them that tactical squads lack for now (hopefully combat squading comes back for them though)

 

character support

tbh, I think generally neither squad is worth attaching a character to, but intercessors get slightly more benefit from lieutenants than tactical squads do. 
 

honestly, to me, intercessors feel more flexible once on the table, purely because of heavy/assault. They perform similarly against similar targets, but they have a slightly more acceptable melee proposition, certainly for my blood angels I find them to be the better melee option anyway. But it’s undeniable that tactical squads are more flexible at build time and can pull out some clutch moments with the option to risk a shot on a higher value target than intercessors can ever hope to tackle in a meaningful way.

 

*it’s also true that many firstborn units still have a single purpose after build time, such as devastators usually being all one heavy weapon.

**it could be argued that this Nader the new rules, tacticals don’t have more build options as basically, lascannon is king. But it’s reasonable to assume regardless that the heavy weapon is probably one of the high damage, good strength ones

I don’t think the movement is as cut and dry as you make it sound.

 

Tacticals can fall back, shoot and charge. That’s not nothing in regards to movement.

[Blindhamster]

I literally acknowledged that they can, and that its worth noting, but its reactive, where intercessors ability is proactive decisions. The tactical flexibility option can also be replicated via a lieutenant or stratagems if its legitimately important to do it. With Intercessors you are almost certainly standing still and hitting on 2s with everything but the grenade launchers, or you're advancing and still shooting at normal BS, essentially it comes down to opportunity to use the ability in the first place coupled with the fact it's active decision making in your own turn.

  

6 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

That said, as we talked about earlier, the tacticals ability to fallback and still shoot/charge shouldn’t be overlooked, we talked about tacticals not wanting to be in melee, and thanks to that, they never have to be. It’s more situational, but intercessors need a character or a stratagem to achieve the same.

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by Blindhamster

[unrealchamp88]

How would folks feels about rolling Tactical and Intercessors into a single unit in some manner. The 'jack of all trades, master of one' philosophy is very iconic for SM warfare. Each unit is not as specialised and rigid (but also effective) in its ability like Eldar, SM units typically could be geared toward a certain doctrine or battlefield role whilst also being able to perform others to a reasonable degree of quality, however the strike force on a strategic level was able to be organised to operate in a specific manner.

 

I remember back during 5th ed a GW employee described marine units to me as 'being able to go toe-to-toe with most enemies in either shooting or melee and have a decent chance of success'.

 

Obviously, as mentioned above, the dynamic of the game has shifted dramatically. Players used to be able to hamper their opponents progress by means more sophisticated than merely causing casualties and i believe that the new Battleshock system (though perhaps questionable in its implementation) was an attempt to move toward that, which i would personally welcome as it might make tactically flexible loadouts as valuable as focused mono-loadouts and thus create a more dynamic game imo.

 

Apologies for this meandering a bit, but i felt a comprehensive answer would save antagonising folks rather than throwing out single sentence soundbites.  

[Blindhamster]

@unrealchamp88 Honestly I think its exactly what will eventually happen.

We'll have Tactical Intercessors, to go with the Assault Intercessors.

 

And I think they'll have bolt rifles, but also have the option to take special/heavy weapons (the new versions though probably). Will be interesting to see how aux grenade launchers might fit in.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

@unrealchamp88 Honestly I think its exactly what will eventually happen.

We'll have Tactical Intercessors, to go with the Assault Intercessors.

 

And I think they'll have bolt rifles, but also have the option to take special/heavy weapons (the new versions though probably). Will be interesting to see how aux grenade launchers might fit in.

I think AGL will just be one special choice.

 

[Blindhamster]

8 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I think AGL will just be one special choice.

 

yeah you're probably right honestly, particularly as such a thing would come with a new kit.

[Dracos]

New kits are going to be a decade down the road okay by now half a decade but it’s going to be a while.
 

I don’t mind the idea of a Desolator and Hellblaster per 5 man Intercessor squad I’m just not convinced it’s going to be more effective than the current system of specialization 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2023 by Dracos
wrong name

[Berzul]

I dont get it. what is the main difference with just taking a 5 man intercessors quad and a5 man hellblaster squad, as they are right now?

[Dracos]

4 hours ago, Berzul said:

I dont get it. what is the main difference with just taking a 5 man intercessors quad and a5 man hellblaster squad, as they are right now?

One is Battleline Ob Sec and the other cost 30 points more and kills power armor like cockroaches?