Aggressors or Terminators?

[Dracos]

This is almost tongue in cheek thread discussion but I am concerned about future proofing as the Codex is on the horizon.

 

For the life of me I can’t understand why 6 Aggressors cost more than 5 Terminators? Yes there is an additional model but anyone who has played can see that Terminators survivability and mobility via deep strike are more valuable that a single extra body on a unit with a few more low strength and ap attacks, and that’s not even adding in the bonus of having a  heavy weapon

 

It’s not that I want Terminators to go up in price but Aggressors to be properly priced in comparison to a similar unit. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Sell more new terminator kits.

[CCE1981]

Aggressors are priced the way they are due to the fragstorm launchers.  Fire those things against a horde, last game I shot them at a 20-man poxwalkers unit with Typhos attached, the 6-man Aggressors with attached Bolter Discipline Biologis wiped out the entire squad Typhos included, using only the fragstorms 24 plus 6d6 shots, at ap-2 ignore cover.  Terminators with a Terminator LT attached, Dark Angels and Space Wolves, couldn't do that.

[Dracos]

1 hour ago, CCE1981 said:

Aggressors are priced the way they are due to the fragstorm launchers.  Fire those things against a horde, last game I shot them at a 20-man poxwalkers unit with Typhos attached, the 6-man Aggressors with attached Bolter Discipline Biologis wiped out the entire squad Typhos included, using only the fragstorms 24 plus 6d6 shots, at ap-2 ignore cover.  Terminators with a Terminator LT attached, Dark Angels and Space Wolves, couldn't do that.

And this is definitely the one thing that they do better that Terminators. I just don’t feel it’s enough to compensate for the Terminator’s invulnerable save  tactical flexibility due to deep strike. 
 

Didn’t  realize they could be quite that good though. Mind you my 2k list has two units of Aggressors and one of Terminators. Without my Raven Guard Chapter stratagems and warlord traits Aggressors are  just a bear to maneuver. 

[Orange Knight]

Different unit with different characters support.

 

Both exist and both are useful. The Aggressors can receive some synergy with characters that Terminator can't, and visa versa.

 

We shouldn't concern ourselves too much with which one is better or worse. The tiers of unit performance are never stationary. A weak unit today is a strong unit tomorrow, and the same is true in reverse. The important thing is that both units are perfectly viable.

 

 

[Minsc]

Apples and Oranges.

 

Aggressors can shoot way harder than Terminators can ever dream of. They can get buffed to a point where they literally delete almost anything they shoot at.
Dont let that T6 fool you, Aggressors are not an anvil, they're a hammer, one of the hardest hitting ones we got.

 

Terminators meanwhile are anvils - albeit equipped with decently heavy hammers and a small utilitybelt.

 

I don't think either invalidates the other at all.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Minsc

[Toldavf]

Terminators are better in melee and have pretty good shooting and character support, they are the better option

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Minsc said:

Apples and Oranges.

 

Aggressors can shoot way harder than Terminators can ever dream of. They can get buffed to a point where they literally delete almost anything they shoot at.
Dont let that T6 fool you, Aggressors are not an anvil, they're a hammer, one of the hardest hitting ones we got.

 

Terminators meanwhile are anvils - albeit equipped with decently heavy hammers and a small utilitybelt.

 

I don't think either invalidates the other at all.

Aggressors max 27 S4 shots(excluding extra shots from blast)

terminators- max 32 S4 shots (excluding blast) or 20 S4 shots and 6 S6 shots

 I’d say terminators can shoot just as well as aggressors if not better.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Minsc]

26 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Aggressors max 27 S4 shots(excluding extra shots from blast)

terminators- max 32 S4 shots (excluding blast) or 20 S4 shots and 6 S6 shots

 I’d say terminators can shoot just as well as terminators if not better.

What numbers are we comparing? 6 Aggressors (220 pts) to 5 Terminators (205 pts)?

6 Aggressors get 18 Twinlinked S4 shots (Gauntlets) + 6 D6 S4 Blasts = Average 39 shots (54 max)
5 Terminators get 10/20 S4 shots (Stormbolters) + 2 D6 S4 Blasts = Average 27 shots (32 max)
Care to elaborate, because your math is way different than mine.

Then add to that the facts that:
- Aggressors can get AP2 on all their shots, while Terminators can at best get AP1.
- Aggressors can get Lethal Hits from a Biologis while still having space for more charactersupport. Terminators can't even get Lethal Hits.

- While Terminators can get Sustained Hits 5+ from Bolter Discipline, they can't combine Sustained Hits and Lethal Hits (on 5+) the way Aggressors can. (This gives them a stupidly strong damageboost, especially in conjunction with OoM.)
 

I don't see at all how "Terminators can shoot just as well as Aggressors, if not better". They are in entirely different leagues. 

[CCE1981]

Terminators from Dark Angels and Space Wolves can get a Terminator Lt, Deathwing Strikemaster and Wolfguard Battle Leader respectively.  

Rumors from the Space Marine Codex are starting to come out.  Nothing definitive but it is sounding like Codex Armies are going to be a big boost vs index armies, about back to 8th lvls of better.

[Paladin777]

How many aggressors are you counting? 3? If so, that's barely more than half the points of a squad of 5 terminators.
 

If you're going to do a damage comparison, then at least make it fair!
 

5 terminators are 205 points and with a cyclone Missile launcher in the squad they'll have on average (which is a much better number for comparisons than maximum) 27 shots at Str 4, AP-. They could alternatively have 16 shots at s4, AP-, and 6 shots at Str 6, AP- with DW if you took the assault cannon instead.
 

6 aggressors are 220 points, which is admittedly more, but only by a pittance. Those six aggressors, when armed with bolters will put out an average of 39 S4, AP- (with the potential of AP-1), and 18 of those shots are twin-linked! In addition, all six aggressor models benefit from the blast keyword, whereas only the terminator with the cyclone Missile launcher would benefit. That's 6x the extra shots from blast...
 

I absolutely love me some terminators (between my armies I probably have close to 60 of them!), but point per point aggressors absolutely wipe the floor with terminators when it comes to damage output. 
 

aggressors are a hammer, terminators are an anvil. 
 

Edit: @Minsc you totally beat me to it! That's what I get for not refreshing my page before posting!

Edited August 24, 2023 by Paladin777

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Minsc said:

What numbers are we comparing? 6 Aggressors (220 pts) to 5 Terminators (205 pts)?

6 Aggressors get 18 Twinlinked S4 shots (Gauntlets) + 6 D6 S4 Blasts = Average 39 shots (54 max)
5 Terminators get 10/20 S4 shots (Stormbolters) + 2 D6 S4 Blasts = Average 27 shots (32 max)
Care to elaborate, because your math is way different than mine.

Then add to that the facts that:
- Aggressors can get AP2 on all their shots, while Terminators can at best get AP1.
- Aggressors can get Lethal Hits from a Biologis while still having space for more charactersupport. Terminators can't even get Lethal Hits.

- While Terminators can get Sustained Hits 5+ from Bolter Discipline, they can't combine Sustained Hits and Lethal Hits (on 5+) the way Aggressors can. (This gives them a stupidly strong damageboost, especially in conjunction with OoM.)
 

I don't see at all how "Terminators can shoot just as well as Aggressors, if not better". They are in entirely different leagues. 

I’m comparing minimum sized squads. It makes no sense to compare a max sized squad to a minimum sized squad.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[jaxom]

38 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I’m comparing minimum sized squads. It makes no sense to compare a max sized squad to a minimum sized squad.

Yeah, but then we're also looking at a more noticeable point difference. So we can compare max size squads and then have to look at damage output relative to points, or we can look at squads which are about the same points. Both methods work, though we should be looking at damage per point regardless.

 

Aggressors: 0.25 shots per point from one post or 018 per point from another
Terminators 0.16 shots per point from one post or 0.13 from another

 

Regardless of the math used, when reduced to the  damage per point, Aggressors do more with shooting.

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by jaxom
Added shots per point

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

58 minutes ago, jaxom said:

Yeah, but then we're also looking at a more noticeable point difference. So we can compare max size squads and then have to look at damage output relative to points, or we can look at squads which are about the same points. Both methods work, though we should be looking at damage per point regardless.

 

Aggressors: 0.25 shots per point from one post or 018 per point from another
Terminators 0.16 shots per point from one post or 0.13 from another

 

Regardless of the math used, when reduced to the  damage per point, Aggressors do more with shooting.

 

.09 shots per point difference is pretty negligible. Nor does it take into account any shooting stat other than number of attacks.

[Karhedron]

4 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

.09 shots per point difference is pretty negligible. Nor does it take into account any shooting stat other than number of attacks.

 

Not true. When you are dealing with 200-ish point squads, that is an extra 18 shots. That is quite a lot of firepower. Seriously if you compare min-sized squads, you are comparing 110 points of Aggressors to 205 points of Terminators. Aggressors lack that 2+/4++ of Terminators but they shoot a lot harder and the addition of twin-linked means they can afford to shoot at non-OOMed targets without losing so much punch.

[Paladin777]

Also, that extra .09 shots per point is a whopping 56% increase. That is incredibly significant.

[Minsc]

8 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I’m comparing minimum sized squads. It makes no sense to compare a max sized squad to a minimum sized squad.

 

But comparing a 110 pts unit to a 205 pts unit and stating that "the 205 pts unit is better" makes sense? 

No, it would make way more sense to compare the closest point-for-point, which in this scenario is 6 Aggressors (220 pts) to 5 Terminators (205 pts)

 

6 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

.09 shots per point difference is pretty negligible. Nor does it take into account any shooting stat other than number of attacks.

0,25/0,16 gives a 56,25% difference.
That is not negligible, it's a massive difference, especially in conjunction with previous mentioned buffs (1 extra point of AP, Twin-Linked, Lethal* and Sustained Hits on 5+.)
(*Apparently possible on Terminators if you run DA or SW.)

Honestly Lensoven, sometimes stepping back and admitting that you're wrong makes you the bigger man.
 

[Orange Knight]

A point I would like to bring up is that Aggressors and Terminators can make different uses of the same Transports.

 

For example, you can include 3 Aggressors inside a Repulsor Executioner, Terminators can't make use of this transport at all. You can fill a regular Landraider or Repulsor with a full squad of Aggressors (Although in the case of these transports, you can include a 5 man Terminator squad and a Character). When it comes to the Redeemer and Crusader, you can get more bang for your buck by using them to transport Aggressors in terms of squad size and character support without wasting points.

 

8 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I’m comparing minimum sized squads. It makes no sense to compare a max sized squad to a minimum sized squad.

 

This is not a good method to compare the units because of the vast point disparity. We should either compare them as closely as possible in terms of squad size, or break down the comparison by points.

 

We can all agree that Terminators are more durable, but the Aggressors are significantly more potent when it comes to shooting and have character support that enhances that further. As I said earlier, the units are different and both are viable.

 

The character support plays a big part also, depending on your chapter of choice. As an Imperial Fist player focused on Primaris, Tor Garaddon can join squads of Aggressors so I would be inclined to take them ahead of Terminators. If and when Lysander is released, army composition could change or I may include both with their own dedicated bodyguard unit.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

A point I would like to bring up is that Aggressors and Terminators can make different uses of the same Transports.

 

For example, you can include 3 Aggressors inside a Repulsor Executioner, Terminators can't make use of this transport at all. You can fill a regular Landraider or Repulsor with a full squad of Aggressors (Although in the case of these transports, you can include a 5 man Terminator squad and a Character). When it comes to the Redeemer and Crusader, you can get more bang for your buck by using them to transport Aggressors in terms of squad size and character support without wasting points.

 

 

This is not a good method to compare the units because of the vast point disparity. We should either compare them as closely as possible in terms of squad size, or break down the comparison by points.

 

We can all agree that Terminators are more durable, but the Aggressors are significantly more potent when it comes to shooting and have character support that enhances that further. As I said earlier, the units are different and both are viable.

 

The character support plays a big part also, depending on your chapter of choice. As an Imperial Fist player focused on Primaris, Tor Garaddon can join squads of Aggressors so I would be inclined to take them ahead of Terminators. If and when Lysander is released, army composition could change or I may include both with their own dedicated bodyguard unit.

Most people are running either minimum sized or maximum sized units even in edition when mid sized squads were allowed, now it’s min or max, so to me it makes sense to compare min size to min size.

I can’t take a fraction of a model so trying to break down shots per point is kinda silly.

[Dracos]

2 hours ago, Minsc said:

 

But comparing a 110 pts unit to a 205 pts unit and stating that "the 205 pts unit is better" makes sense? 

No, it would make way more sense to compare the closest point-for-point, which in this scenario is 6 Aggressors (220 pts) to 5 Terminators (205 pts)

 

0,25/0,16 gives a 56,25% difference.
That is not negligible, it's a massive difference, especially in conjunction with previous mentioned buffs (1 extra point of AP, Twin-Linked, Lethal* and Sustained Hits on 5+.)
(*Apparently possible on Terminators if you run DA or SW.)

Honestly Lensoven, sometimes stepping back and admitting that you're wrong makes you the bigger man.
 

Well said. I think most of us are in agreement on a comparative point basis Termies soak and Aggies hit with some utility going to the Termies. 
 

I haven’t given transports much thought in years because a) they  haven’t suited my play style since 3rd edition and b) more recently the table sizes make them less necessary imo and the cost can go to additional units. Admittedly usually ones that can deep strike :)

 

I also have never ever in any edition been a fan of HeroHammer. I’ve normally been able to place midfield or better in tournament events and use no more than two characters always with the thought of dumping that second character. 
 

That said 

 

Having skipped most of that atrocity called 9e I am excited at putting a “Gravis” army (that in less a unit of Terminators) into play  this edition and seeing how far it goes. I even bought the Bastion box to add more HInts to my list. The point of character support is well taken. It does seem GW is giving Gravis some real support and I’m going to definitely test the Biologis (I can’t call that thing an Apothecary with the rules it has) and as much as it pains me to play a named character usually I think I’ll have to try Tor at some point because his points are low balled when stacked up against a Gravis Captain. 
 

Summary: I don’t see myself buying a Land Raider …. probably (?) but definitely going to test out the character support in the Crusade I’m participating in as I get models painted and army grows. 
 

Land Raider Redeemer?

[jaxom]

3 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Most people are running either minimum sized or maximum sized units even in edition when mid sized squads were allowed, now it’s min or max, so to me it makes sense to compare min size to min size.

I can’t take a fraction of a model so trying to break down shots per point is kinda silly.

That makes sense. Perhaps comparing two min-sized squads of Aggressors to one min-sized squad of Terminators instead though? It's not like there are force org slots limiting Elite choices anymore and no one's brought up the stats for running a character with either unit.

 

I have seen some of the recent Space Marine videos by Art of War and they've been pretty keen on a full sized unit of Aggressors with an Apothecary Biologis in a Land Raider Redeemer. They differentiated it from Terminators with Rapid Ingress; the Terminators are something the opponent has to plan around while the Aggressors+AB+LRR are something the opponent has to deal with. There's also the back up perk when fighting opponents with large screening units. Twin-linked lets the Aggressors reliably tackle the screening units while OOM can go on important targets.

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

To answer the original post, 6 is greater than 5.

5 terminators at 205pts is 41ppm

6 aggressors at 220pts is 36ppm.

 

terminators cost 5pt more per model, that’s probably the invuln save that’s making up the difference.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

22 minutes ago, jaxom said:

That makes sense. Perhaps comparing two min-sized squads of Aggressors to one min-sized squad of Terminators instead though? It's not like there are force org slots limiting Elite choices anymore and no one's brought up the stats for running a character with either unit.

 

I have seen some of the recent Space Marine videos by Art of War and they've been pretty keen on a full sized unit of Aggressors with an Apothecary Biologis in a Land Raider Redeemer. They differentiated it from Terminators with Rapid Ingress; the Terminators are something the opponent has to plan around while the Aggressors+AB+LRR are something the opponent has to deal with. There's also the back up perk when fighting opponents with large screening units. Twin-linked lets the Aggressors reliably tackle the screening units while OOM can go on important targets.

 

The comparison I made was 3 bolt/frag aggressors and 5 terminators with cyclone launcher, and 5 terminators with assault cannon.

 

cyclone launcher set up gets far more S4 shots at max numbers than aggressors get at max output.

 

assault cannon set up gets slightly fewer shots than aggressors, but some of those shots are much more potent.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

27 minutes ago, Dracos said:

Well said. I think most of us are in agreement on a comparative point basis Termies soak and Aggies hit with some utility going to the Termies. 
 

I haven’t given transports much thought in years because a) they  haven’t suited my play style since 3rd edition and b) more recently the table sizes make them less necessary imo and the cost can go to additional units. Admittedly usually ones that can deep strike :)

 

I also have never ever in any edition been a fan of HeroHammer. I’ve normally been able to place midfield or better in tournament events and use no more than two characters always with the thought of dumping that second character. 
 

That said 

 

Having skipped most of that atrocity called 9e I am excited at putting a “Gravis” army (that in less a unit of Terminators) into play  this edition and seeing how far it goes. I even bought the Bastion box to add more HInts to my list. The point of character support is well taken. It does seem GW is giving Gravis some real support and I’m going to definitely test the Biologis (I can’t call that thing an Apothecary with the rules it has) and as much as it pains me to play a named character usually I think I’ll have to try Tor at some point because his points are low balled when stacked up against a Gravis Captain. 
 

Summary: I don’t see myself buying a Land Raider …. probably (?) but definitely going to test out the character support in the Crusade I’m participating in as I get models painted and army grows. 
 

Land Raider Redeemer?

Personally I don’t think that character support should be taken into account with pricing units. That should be in the character’s price if that is a factor GW takes into consideration.

 

a unit shouldn’t be good for its points cost only if it has a character buffing it, because any time you take that unit without a buffing character it is now a subpar unit for its points.

[Orange Knight]

But the point disparity between those units is significant. As mentioned above, a more fair comparison is a squad of 6 Aggressors or two units of 3.

 

We have to account for point cost when making any sort of comparison.

 

I would expect a unit that costs 205 points to perform better than a unit that costs 110 points.