BA Scouts vs Infiltrators.

[Morticon]

Hi all, following on from the really good discussion/debate in the FAQ thread, I figure I'd make this a separate thread.

 

Feel free to discuss pros and cons and strategies of both units - it's not necessarily about trying to convince people of one or the other, but more to open the options that we may not have seen originally.  

 

Feel free to rehash or even cut/paste what was said in the FAQ thread, but please just keep it civil. 

Thanks! 

Edited May 13, 2019 by Morticon

[Lemondish]

Silly question, I know...

 

But do you mean Intercessors?

 

If so, they perform such different tasks that I'm not sure there's much of a comparison to be made. Scouts, like all units with the special deployment rules, help create a buffer zone that reduces the down Haider of units with limited mobility, like Intercessors. Scouts help them do their job, and in that way they're pretty synergistic.

 

For example, I'd say scouts with Intercessors reduce the impact of the latter's limited mobility options by intercepting fast threats before they can tie up or delay the Intercessors from challenging for an objective.

 

On the other hand, Intercessors without scouts result in the unit having to still foot slog its way to objectives, but now with zero buffer zone to benefit from.

 

And scouts without Intercessors are totally fine, especially in BA where the capacity for them to generate CP cheaply benefits the army far more than any other marine force.

Edited May 11, 2019 by Lemondish

[CaptainHelion]

Lemondish, we're discussing the Primaris Interceptors Infiltrators, the basic infantry from the new Shadowspear box! Compared to Intercessors, they gain a special deployment rule, like the Scouts, a 12" bubble which prevents deep strikes, and they can take a pretend-apothecary, that can only effect their unit, and only revives a model on a 5+ instead of a 4+. They swap the Bolt Rifles for Marksman Bolt Carbines, which are regular boltguns that automatically wound on a 6+ To Hit.

 

Edited: To change Interceptor to Infiltrator, whoops

Edited May 12, 2019 by CaptainHelion

[Majkhel]

*Infiltrators then :)

[Vermintide]

I like em in theory, but they seem pretty meh as it stands. Where intercessors are double 'ard tacs, these guys are double 'ard scouts. You trade a bit of firepower for durability and flexibility. If I didn't already have a bunch of intercessors and scouts, I'd base my list of top of 3 squads of these.

 

One of the niggles is that I feel like they make reivers look even more pointless, and I hate that because I desperately want to like reivers. If reivers aren't supposed to be primaris scouts, and infiltrators are, what were reivers meant to be? Assault marines? Why are they in an elite slot? What purpose do they serve when it would make more sense to just give infiltrators a variant with combat knives?

 

They look hella sick though which is what matters most ;)

[Karhedron]

I like Infiltrators. They have some good stats and interesting rules. Unfortunately I feel they are too expensive as they stand. Vermintide made a good comparison that they are "double Scouts" whereas Intercessors are "double Tacs". However the problem for me is price. Intercessors are 30% more than Tacs whereas Infiltrators are 100% more than Scouts.

 

To me, they suffer in comparison to both Intercessors and Scouts. Especially since their deep-strike push-back is situational, being great against some armies and pointless against others. If you know you are facing GSC, Daemons or Orks then Infiltrators look tempting. Against other armies I would rather take Scouts. When Infiltrators come down to 19ppm or less, I will be interested. As it stands, they look too expensive for open play.

[Morticon]

Omg...totally meant infiltrators. Sorry. Brain fart. Will change when I'm on pc

[Panzer]

 If reivers aren't supposed to be primaris scouts, and infiltrators are, what were reivers meant to be? Assault marines? Why are they in an elite slot? What purpose do they serve when it would make more sense to just give infiltrators a variant with combat knives?

Reivers have always been more Assault squad than Scout squad crunch-wise. It's only the fluff that gives them tasks you'd usually see Scouts do.

 

As for why they are in the Elite slot? Who knows, GW is pretty random with their FOC these days and it seems that anything they don't have a specific plan for just lands in the Elite slot. It would be great if they'd go back to using the FOC like the Codex Astartes battleroles again (eg Ranged Support -> Heavy Support, Close Support -> Fast Attack, Veterans -> Elites) though that never really worked with vehicles and Scouts either since those are outside of the battleroles structure so it would only be another kind of compromise I guess. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

None of these are good reasons not to field Infiltrators seriously .

 

Who here that is anti Infiltrators has used them in more than two games?

[Karhedron]

None of these are good reasons not to field Infiltrators seriously .

 

It is more a case that I need reasons to field Infiltrators instead of Scouts since I have Scouts but no Infiltrators ATM. Currently I see the breakdown something along these lines.

 

Defense: Same points per wound. Infiltrators have a better save but die faster to multi-damage weapons (Plasma, Avengers etc). No score draw.

Offense: Bolter Scouts get twice as many shots per point and the same number of melee attacks. BP/CCW Scouts get double the attacks per point and can take PW/PF on the Serg. Advantage Scouts

Price: If running MSU for Troop tax, Scouts cost 55 points minimum and Infiltrators cost 110 points minimum: Advantage Scouts

Deployment: Pretty much the same: No score draw.

Disruption: Infiltrators have a 12" no-Reserve bubble which is potentially very useful but only against a handful of armies. Situational Advantage Infiltrators.

Objective holding: Both have ObjSec but Scouts can contest twice the number of Objectives per point. Advantage Scouts.

 

Both Scouts and Infiltrators have their advantages but for me, Scouts are ahead of Infiltrators in more areas. Infiltrators only seem to me to have an advantage in specific situations. E.g. they are more durable specifically against small-arms fire (but less so against plasma etc). They are really good against armies that like to rush you from Reserves (Orks, GSC, Daemons). Unless you know you are facing certain opponents, Scouts seem like the better all-round choice as they are more likely to be able to leverage their advantages.

 

If you feel you can field Infiltrators in such a way that you maximise their advantages then maybe you can get mileage out of them. For me, it comes down to price. Their advantages are too situational to be worth twice as much as Scouts and 30% more than Intercessors. If that were to come down, the calculus would change for me.

[Lemondish]

None of these are good reasons not to field Infiltrators seriously .

 

Who here that is anti Infiltrators has used them in more than two games?

 

Two games is child's play ;)

 

I think to fully understand a unit, let alone a list, you have to really play it into the ground. Jim Vesal had a great point in an interview on the Forge the Narrative podcast where he was discussing his awesome Daemons list with a guy on Facebook. This guy was running the exact same list, but had a question about handling Necrons, who he felt the list couldn't combat well. Jim was flabbergasted - in his experience, Necrons were one of the easier matchups! His advice - play another 30 games, understand the list, then come back for some questions. 

 

I think that's good advice across the board. That experience helps you learn how to cover your weaknesses, and in turn the unit's weaknesses, during the heat of a match rather than constantly trying to theory your way to an answer in the list building stage. My few modest games with them haven't resulted in anything but a glowing recommendation from me, I do recognize that more time is needed. However, in my experience, sometimes things that look like cons on paper can turn out to be pros if you just shift your perception a bit...

 

For me...(shamelessly stealing Karhedron's list design)

 

Defense: I have found units using high damage or high AP weaponry like plasma on my Infiltrators is actually a boon rather than a curse. Anything that helps confuse target priority is valuable, and if the opponent is deciding to take on the 2w Scout troops with valuable multi-damage high AP firepower rather than something who's presence threatens their valuable units, I'm okay with that trade. This is especially true when it can become a bit of a trap by forcing the opponent to overextend those units just to deal with the Infiltrators. At the same time, the weaponry that clears scouts so easily can't do the same with Infiltrators, helping them contain the opponent for longer, where the helix also comes into play in providing more staying power. And it's also important to note that Plasma is deadlier against Scouts, but you often don't want to or need to use it against them. If you had a way to force your opponent to consider using plasma to deal with scouts, wouldn't you find that valuable?

Offense: Scouts win in number of bolter shots or bolter equivalent melee attacks, but that isn't worth much. Most lists are not missing out on bolter equivalent shooting. It's important to also consider that scouts can run with heavy bolters to give you access to another source of Hellfire shells, but given the much reduced durability, is it really worth adding more cost the unit?

Price: This is a component that I think is much more relevant to BA than other marine forces. BA likes CP - other marines don't really need much of it since there are so few valuable Stratagems to really rely on. Your mileage may vary here, but Karhedron is right that this is an important thing to consider. 

Deployment: Ditto - same ability, but the difference is that this isn't isolated - it increases the value of the offensive/defensive points above. 

Disruption: Specific to the Infiltrators alone, and while situational, it is certainly powerful. Turns off some specific strats entirely, including ones that you might use to take out 2w models like this in the form of rapid fire plasma dropping in, so it does have a bit of a defensive boon there. 

Objective holding: Two Scout squads can certainly hold twice as many objectives as one Infiltrator squad, but combined with the above durability differences, how valuable is that really? 10 scouts will die faster and to a variety of more numerous weapons than 5 Infiltrators will after all. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Thanks for the detailed response, I think you’ve made some valid points. Here’s my feedback based upon experience ...

 

Defense: Same points per wound. Infiltrators have a better save but die faster to multi-damage weapons (Plasma, Avengers etc). No score draw.

I disagree because of the 3+ armor save for Infiltrators which becomes 2+ in cover. Sure Scouts can take camo cloaks but then you start to lose out on the points advantage. I’d also like to give one in game example... opponent had a squad of 10 Sternguard in a rhino sitting by an enclosed ruin with an objective inside where I had infiltrated a squad of six Infiltrators. The Infiltrators held up the Sternguard and survived for several turns in combat after surviving the Sternguard initial shooting. I don’t think an equal amount of points in Scouts would have lasted that long.

 

Offense: Bolter Scouts get twice as many shots per point and the same number of melee attacks. BP/CCW Scouts get double the attacks per point and can take PW/PF on the Serg. Advantage Scouts

If there are protracted rounds of combat (see example above) the Infiltrators last longer and end up inflicting more damage. Sure the scout sergeant can take a melee weapon but then again you’re increasing the cost in points.

 

Price: If running MSU for Troop tax, Scouts cost 55 points minimum and Infiltrators cost 110 points minimum: Advantage Scouts

Agree with the caveat I see some examples of scouts versus Infiltrators where the advantage in points is first discussed then later in the discussion it’s pointed out Scouts have access to heavy weapons, etc. To me it’s one or the other. :)

 

Deployment: Pretty much the same: No score draw.

When you stack deployment with disruption and defense I give the advantage to Infiltrators. There’s a synergy for them that scouts don’t possess.

 

Disruption: Infiltrators have a 12" no-Reserve bubble which is potentially very useful but only against a handful of armies. Situational Advantage Infiltrators.

Really depends upon your meta and if you play competively (e.g., tournaments, leagues, etc.). Daemonbomb, GSC, and Orks are all seen quite a bit on top tables. Also this type of pushback should be more heavily weighted than some of the other points imo.

 

Objective holding: Both have ObjSec but Scouts can contest twice the number of Objectives per point. Advantage Scouts

I disagree due to Infiltrators’ better defense. They will last longer for example versus common barrage such as mortars.

[Lemondish]

I just want to say that I absolutely love that we're having such a well reasoned discussion on these two units. The fact that there's proponents for both units says to me that it's a tough decision to make. A small shift in the pricing could make the gap even smaller.

 

One thing we haven't really brought up is the utility gained from a few of the Phobos Librarian spells - point in favour of Infiltrators, or not worth considering given the value of the more offensive powers?

Edited May 14, 2019 by Lemondish

[Neuralshock]

For my 2 cents, I could see them being a tough nut to crack in the center field paired with the standard of sacrifice. You'll be hard pressed to crack 20 wounds of 2+, 5+++, give them a helix and shield of sanguinius and HOLD THE LINE.

[Semirhagge]

They look better. Like way better. Aesthetics is important to my warhammering.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Me too I love the minis. <3

[ThatOneMarshal]

The more I think about the deep strike bubble the more I like them. I just can’t get myself to field them because of the extra points. I field like the opportunity cost is simply too high in terms of what I could do with the extra points.

 

However one idea that I kind of like is the idea of mixing a couple of them in a detachment. Like for a battalion have 1 for every two scouts, just for the deep strike bubble.

[Karhedron]

They look better. Like way better. Aesthetics is important to my warhammering.

A good point. The current Scouts models are among the more "aesthetically challenged" in the Marine lineup.

However I still run my old metal models so this is not a big issue for me.

[Majkhel]

I still believe that Infiltrators are too pricey.
Remember that we also usually pay for options that a model can take. In case of Scouts, we can tool them up for different jobs quite significantly. Some of those options are even free. 

Infiltrators atm only have the Helix Adept upgrade. 

[Vermintide]

I think the options are indeed key. If these guys had a close combat variant I'd drop my Intercessors/Scouts and rush out to buy them in a heartbeat.

 

Trouble is I can't see that happening because then it would make Reivers almost entirely redundant, as I mentioned earlier. Although, then again... Back in the old days, Marines were a lot like that I guess. Assault Marines were always just Tacticals with the option of jump packs and chainswords, and Veterans were just Assault Marines without jump packs. And I guess they did just release a "new" Repulsor which is practically the same as the old one...

 

Hmm.

[shanewatts]

In all my recent tournament games I am running 1 scout squad and 2 infiltrator squads. Almost every game the scouts have been (or felt like) a liability due to being easy to kill (even when out of LoS.)

 

These tournaments were either ITC or NOVA format, ITC killing a unit is worth a point (so easy with scouts), and NOVA killing a troop unit is worth a point if the secondary is taken (which is common.)

 

The only games that the infiltrators didn't do well, were games that I felt like I misplayed them.

 

 

I certainly think the rest of your army composition impacts the viability of both units. I agree that if you have units that are "hard targets" (multi-wound,) having the infiltrators gains value. Simply because any multi damage gun shooting at them is less shooting at your other units, and any small arms that shoot them are way less effective (over scouts.)

[Majkhel]

What unit size have you guys been using?

[shanewatts]

I have been using minimum sized units of both.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I run six man squads with no apothecary.