Aggressors. Am I missing something?

[USNCenturion]

So I’m beginning to dabble in a new Blood Angel army to be a foil to my shooty, durable Death Guard, and I have an unbuilt box of Aggressors ready to build.

 

My question is what armament to give them, and my next question is why is it the bolters and grenade launchers? Am I missing the benefit of the flamers against the other option? From my minimal understanding of the datasheet, it seems for a few more points I can get on average more shots from the bolter/grenades than the flamers, for the same strength, damage and AP, with more range.

 

What am I missing, and what variant works best on a pure blood Angel chassis? Thanks fraters.

 

Edit: I do factor in the auto hit, but does that really outweigh the shot variance the bolters and grenades provide?

Edited February 11, 2021 by Crix

[McGibs]

Benefits of the flamegressors are:

-they're 5pts cheaper each

-they hit automatically, even when advancing and firing

-they can be a nasty overwatch deterrent, thanks to the aforementioned auto-hitting

 

I think the current thinking is the flame guys are generally better, mostly by dint of being cheaper and by filling a different role (ie: overwatch) than just more bullets. The bolters aren't bad, but now they they lost their doubleshoot they're a shadow of what they once were. For BA, I don't think either really pulls ahead of the other, as you're taking them for the powerfist smackdown and the shooting is just extra. I'd probably go with the flamers, against just to save a couple points to use elsewhere.

[GrinNfool]

Don't really play BA, but neither version really gets anything out of being BA specifically so it would just come down to the differences in weapon, and what you want to use them for.  As far as pure weapons the flamers will outperform vs MEQ by ~.38 wounds, and a full wound vs GEQ when comparing a 3 man squad.  In addition they are 5 points cheaper saving 15 points for a 3 man squad 25 for a 5 so not minor, auto hit so better for overwatch, assault so can advance and shoot which the auto hit helps with again.  If you want them sitting on a point as a deterrent then the bolt version gives you some ability to support from 18" away, if you want to get them in there and punch may as well take the flamers, can advance and get some shots in as you go.

[tychobi]

Naw u sussed it. Flamers are a trap

[infyrana]

Naw u sussed it. Flamers are a trap

Apologies, but do you mean they are 'a trap, don't do it!', or something else, not being in the know I am slightly confused by this short statement?  I don't have any of the 9th ed rules (hence my confusion), but I do own unbuilt Aggressors and their ETB variants which I was thinking to change into bolters.  Thanks!

[Karhedron]

In 8th, I think the bolter versions were superior. In 9th, the flamer versions have got a range boost to 12". Combined with the ability to Advance and fire at full effect. I think they are now competitive, especially as they are cheaper than the bolter version.

 

Several Chapter Traits can leverage these guys quite well. Wolves get extra mileage from the melee attacks with +1 to-Hit in the first round of combat. Blood Angels like the Flamer version with their +1" to Advance. Other Chapters may also have good uses for them.

[Vermintide]

In Blood Angels you're gonna be more interested in fisting than shooting anyway, right?

The question is probably more about how you intend on fielding them. If you want them jumping out of a transport in the thick of the action, you won't be seeing much use from the guns, so the flamers will perform nicely and save you a few points. But if you want them marching up the table or coming in from reserves to provide fire support while they do, the bolters and launchers are what you're looking for.

 

I would personally go for the bolters and launcher, and play them on foot. Seems like that's how you get the most value out of them. It's worth noting that if you don't have the 9th ed rules, their double-tap rule has been removed, so you're not just gonna to have them stood still like people did in 8th.

[USNCenturion]

I suppose I didn’t take into account the advance at no penalty aspect. That makes the flamers much more appealing to me. Good points.

[tychobi]

Even advancing the bolters and fragstorm average the same amount of s4 hits. Without strat support or some special rule the flamers are not as good. They are however way cooler!

[TheNewman]

Even advancing the bolters and fragstorm average the same amount of s4 hits. Without strat support or some special rule the flamers are not as good. They are however way cooler!

Flamers average 7 hits, Bolter/Grenades average 9.5 shots, 6.33 hits on a normal move, 4.25 hits advancing. If you want 'em moving up quick Flamers are better at the base-line.

 

Chapter tactics, super doctrines, and strat support not withstanding, obviously

[Dracos]

The “flamers ... are ... way cooler.” Lol nice.

 

Putting Aggressors in a vehicle is a suckers game. Too many eggs in one basket.

 

 

I think the flamers look good but you get more flex-ability out of the boltstorm gauntlets.

[Silas7]

Aggies losing double-tap is the bad kind of rules adjustments I hate but expect from GW.

 

boltstorm don't stick out as much from the fist so actually looks usable, flamers have always been kinda underwhelming, across the game. With the changes to overwatch the boon from flamers autohitting only comes into play if your aggies are the closest unit and the enemy wants to counter charge in if you didn't make your initial charge attempt.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Silas7

[Warhead01]

Even advancing the bolters and fragstorm average the same amount of s4 hits. Without strat support or some special rule the flamers are not as good. They are however way cooler!

I think that's fair. I've use them twice and plan to support them with a LT next time but it may hardly help, if they need it. 

[The Unseen]

Some of the melee nasties running around won't like running into a wall of 2d6 auto hits per aggressor. Harlies and Orks spring to mind. They aren't top tier, but having a squad of them push forward into the midfield with our extra advance distance, and preferably supported by an Apothecary, they're reasonably durable, punch well in melee, and are very hard to dislodge with any squishy but high damage melee bodies. With the Gravis specific strat, they're also very hard to kill with 1 damage weapons. Something to give them an invuln is also nice, but not required, as their 3+ base save is rather meh.

 

The bolter version is substantially worse than in 8th, with the loss of double-tap, their big bonus over the flamers with the extended range matters a lot less, when you can now just advance and flame stuff at 12" rather than 8''.

[TheNewman]

Aggies losing double-tap is the bad kind of rules adjustments I hate but expect from GW.

Aggressors having double-tap in the first place was typical terrible GW rules writing.

A close-range shooting unit that loses half it's firepower when it moves is weird design, and having a couple of factions ignore the movement restriction made them impossible to point properly.

[ShibeKing]

I'm more surprised they didn't have the Aggressor or Eradicator shoot twice rule as a 2-3cp stratagem. Feels weird that those models had/have such a powerful rule built into their datasheet when so many other special rules have been put behind the CP wall.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I'm more surprised they didn't have the Aggressor or Eradicator shoot twice rule as a 2-3cp stratagem. Feels weird that those models had/have such a powerful rule built into their datasheet when so many other special rules have been put behind the CP wall.

 

I think it has more to do with both units being released during an awkward time. Aggressors were in the first wave and I think they were being cautious with how many wounds units had and tried to compensate with a strong rule. Even with it they just didn't work well, so they got boosted in the second 8th edition marine book but in typical GW fashion it was 3-4 buffs all at once so they became too good for some chapters who had doctrines that really pushed them. 

 

Eradicators are in a similar position, where they knew they were boosting Melta weapons but eradicators were going to be released first (granted I think they thought it would be much a much shorter gap...). I don't think they wanted to give them a unique weapon rule, until they knew how those changes would effect things. Eradicators were pretty busted at release but they actually did a pretty good job balancing them with the other MM options (I do think MM is under costed in general though so I expect some more increases for a wide range of models at some point). 

[Riddlesworth]

They are still good. Losing double shoot and advance/shoot with no penalty did hurt them, but merely makes them a solid all rounder unit rather than "take 18, strategic reserve, drop 350 shots on turn 2" madness from ultramarines and salamanders we saw at the start of 9th. horde armies will make a come back and fragstorm having blast will help more there.

with the shooting nerf they took, they are more of a mobile combat support than a pillbox, especially with the powerfist becoming consistent damage.

 

Because to get the most out of them you want them seeing combat, boltstorm is still better in most cases. If they're standing on an objective, or in the mid board (for oaths of moment), the additional range of the boltstorm/frag combo is preferable. If they're moving, unless you can advance and shoot, boltstorm is better in most cases because shoot/charge is better than just shoot. Even if you can advance and shoot without penalty on the flamers, the effective range vs the bolters is still 20.5 inches vs 23.

 

salamanders will still want to use flamestorm because of the bonkers strat and doctrine support. white scars could also make the best use of flamestorm, but without the strat support, boltstorm is still better imo. For every other chapter, boltstorm is the better choice. IMO, scars run the best aggressors today, followed by wolves. ultras, ravenguard and blood angels are tied for third.

 

If you're looking at the power fists thinking aggressors are your go to combat unit, take bladeguard instead. Point for point, bladeguard are a better combat unit than aggressors. and have better delivery mechanisms. If you want midfield threat to support your obsec units, aggressors project a nice bubble of threat that is good TAC - shooting for horde, fists for elite.

 

TL:DR - boltstorm is best in all cases except 1 (salamanders aggressors). pure combat is done better by bladeguard. aggressors are a good unit if you intend to have them both shoot and combat (e.g. sitting between 2 objectives you want to hold with obsec units to counterpunch)

[SkimaskMohawk]

The counter to that is flamestorms are just better for area control once you're actually in range. Scars, ravens and wolves all have tools to set them up exactly where you want them to be and then get a pretty reliable charge to boot. Or, if you've got that midfield objective and someone needs to charge you off of it (since there's so much melee now), you can easily burn them with the overwatch.

 

If there's a lot of repentia or daemonettes rolling in to charge me, I know I'd prefer to have the cheaper flamers on than the bolts.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I run the flamestorm variant with my wolves for the reasons SkimaskMohawk pointed out. Being able to outflank a unit of them can be great in the right matchup. I think for chapters that have a way to gain an advance and charge ability they're pretty strong. Riddlesworth is right that your taking them for horde clearing more than the powerfists.

[Dracos]

I'm more surprised they didn't have the Aggressor or Eradicator shoot twice rule as a 2-3cp stratagem. Feels weird that those models had/have such a powerful rule built into their datasheet when so many other special rules have been put behind the CP wall.

 

Well the Aggressors don't have it anymore and I think the Eradicators would be dumped in the trash without it. Just too fe shots off to be effective. Maybe if Gravis had a 5++ save. As is it's shoot then die on the counterstrike. Aggressors even if it cost 3 CP would just be too much, especially the Boltstorm. I build my list around using Boltstorm Aggressors and honestly they sit in a real good place right now. I'm just starting to use Eradicators, I'll need a dozen games to decide on them.

 

I can tell you I'd rather pay CP than points for anything Primaris Marines do. The more bodies I can field the better.

[SkimaskMohawk]

There's definitely been some weird balance and design decisions around some of the primaris stuff.

 

Aggressors got a flamer range increase, but lost advance and shoot and sit still and double tap. Theyre only better in lists that used them as reserve-flamer guys.

 

Eliminators got a point hike, lost the seargent spotter buff, and lost shoot out of los. The nerf to imperial fists doctrine means they got less attractive there and the removal of stacking bonuses to wound and the seargent spotter buff means raven guard got far less attractive. And then slot efficiency got way more important, so they really weren't incentivized to be taken anyways.

 

Incursors basically just got cheap, but lost their melee stuff so the assault intercessors could have a role. Their physical model for the mine also got rendered useless because it's now a strat that works differently.

 

The executioner just got trashed pretty comprehensively. It paid the price for showcasing the offensive street sweeping of the 8.5 list and early iron hands. Getting hit with points increases, losing double tap, losing fly, losing fall back and shoot, losing rerolls.

 

All sorts of odd swings in the primaris range.

[Karhedron]

Aggressors got a flamer range increase, but lost advance and shoot and sit still and double tap. Theyre only better in lists that used them as reserve-flamer guys.

Aggressors can still Advance and shoot. In fact that is the main advantage of the Flamestorm guys, they can Advance and shoot without any penalty which helps to level the playing field a bit vs the Boltstorm guys.

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

Aggressors got a flamer range increase, but lost advance and shoot and sit still and double tap. Theyre only better in lists that used them as reserve-flamer guys.

Aggressors can still Advance and shoot. In fact that is the main advantage of the Flamestorm guys, they can Advance and shoot without any penalty which helps to level the playing field a bit vs the Boltstorm guys.

...they lost the ability to advance and fire with no penalty they previously had. I know flamestorms are unaffected, but the boltstorm build is for everyone but scars. They lost the ability.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

There's definitely been some weird balance and design decisions around some of the primaris stuff.

 

Aggressors got a flamer range increase, but lost advance and shoot and sit still and double tap. Theyre only better in lists that used them as reserve-flamer guys.

 

Eliminators got a point hike, lost the seargent spotter buff, and lost shoot out of los. The nerf to imperial fists doctrine means they got less attractive there and the removal of stacking bonuses to wound and the seargent spotter buff means raven guard got far less attractive. And then slot efficiency got way more important, so they really weren't incentivized to be taken anyways.

 

Incursors basically just got cheap, but lost their melee stuff so the assault intercessors could have a role. Their physical model for the mine also got rendered useless because it's now a strat that works differently.

 

The executioner just got trashed pretty comprehensively. It paid the price for showcasing the offensive street sweeping of the 8.5 list and early iron hands. Getting hit with points increases, losing double tap, losing fly, losing fall back and shoot, losing rerolls.

 

All sorts of odd swings in the primaris range.

Eliminators are as BS 2+ now so I'd argue they always have spotter buff now. They also have set damage which is nice, they just aren't the auto-include they used to be.

 

The incursors didn't lose too much CC, considering how cheap they are for a unit with forward deploy.

 

Aggressors are worse than they were in 8th but I don't think they could fairly point them with how much some chapters could boost them. I still think they are useful, just not something you spam.