Aggressors. Am I missing something?

[SkimaskMohawk]

They have half the spotter buff and its arguably the worst of the two as the +1 to wound comboing into the mortal wound proc allowed them to reliably chunk down infantry characters and threaten monster characters. Theyre now just never include because they're so slot inefficient on top of being less flexible.

 

Incursors went from a unit with interesting abilities, to "the new scout equivalent".

 

Aggressors were a problem unit at their chapter approved price point and with salamanders. You seem them as supporting units here and there now, but mostly as reserve-chargers. I refuse to believe that they couldn't have balanced them with a better points value while keeping either of their rules.

 

My main point is a lot of primaris units got special rules taken away, which usually makes them less strong and definitely less interesting. A strat approximation of a special ability is boring and abstract, and that's the best some units get now.

[Silas7]

Stratagem bloat is hurting game/codex/unit balance. One of the undesirable derivatives of the last few game editions. Unsurprising given GWs inclinations to heap books on the players, justifying their existence with additional rules. How often does FW put out red books?

[Kenzaburo]

To be honest, strats have become a similar problem to universal special rules from earlier editions for me. I hate having to remember all the options I now MAY use. I haven't played any games since last February due to Corona, but the sheer amount of strats with its own limitations and special circumstances in which they apply isn't any easier to handle then USRs before, I feel. 

 

The move to remove more unit-specific rules and outsource them to strats isn't helping. And has changed use of some units significantly and not necessarily for the better. 

 

This has become even more apparent in the handling of Primaris, which I just don't get. You get all these new units that at first were stronger than Firstborn, then were sorta alternatives and now are weaker and in a weird spot. Firstborn offer more flexibility and in a way remain true to form. To me it seems like the rules guys are still trying to get a feel for what each new Primaris unit is supposed to do - Aggressors, Eliminators, Gladiators, Stormspeeders, Incursors/Infiltrators and the always kinda weird and unsatisfying Reivers. It seems like from a rules POV they don't wanna mirror Firstborn, but haven't come up with other niches the units are supposed to fill beside their looks.

[The Unseen]

I will admit that the Stratagems cards, or making your own, is very helpful in remembering what you have available. Go through before you put your dudes down and pull out any strats you have access to, set down all the ones that go to units or tactics you aren't using, and then you have a more manageable pile to glance through during your turn rather than reading 3 or 4 pages of text potentially scattered among several books.

[Silas7]

I will admit that the Stratagems cards, or making your own, is very helpful in remembering what you have available. Go through before you put your dudes down and pull out any strats you have access to, set down all the ones that go to units or tactics you aren't using, and then you have a more manageable pile to glance through during your turn rather than reading 3 or 4 pages of text potentially scattered among several books.

USRs were easier to find in the books (mostly the base rulebook) and you knew from the unit entry who had what and over time the USRs became second nature. I don't even bother with reading the strategems, and I'd rather invest into a personal printer than buy a card peripheral for an already expensive hobby.

 

I dunno man; I'm glad your having fun Unseen but I'd be interested in seeing a tourney circuit ran without strats and what the top performers are.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea USRs were far easier to remember than circumstantial stratagems.

 

I really hate stratagems that replace wargear too like what happened with incursor mines, smoke launchers, frag launchers, auspex and all that.

 

Like only one vehicle is going to use its smoke launchers when it's in danger? Only one unit of centurions can fire it's frag launchers off on the charge? It just doesn't make sense and cheapens the models.

[The Unseen]

I wasn't disagreeing, I also don't care for having unit rules be moved to once a phase strategems

But that's the way 9th is laid out, so you can't just ignore them, as most of a factions power and flavor is tied up in them now.

A tournament run without strats would be an incredibly boring thing, and would basically hand the winner to whoever has the most efficient bundle of stats.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

I will admit that the Stratagems cards, or making your own, is very helpful in remembering what you have available. Go through before you put your dudes down and pull out any strats you have access to, set down all the ones that go to units or tactics you aren't using, and then you have a more manageable pile to glance through during your turn rather than reading 3 or 4 pages of text potentially scattered among several books.

USRs were easier to find in the books (mostly the base rulebook) and you knew from the unit entry who had what and over time the USRs became second nature. I don't even bother with reading the strategems, and I'd rather invest into a personal printer than buy a card peripheral for an already expensive hobby.

 

I dunno man; I'm glad your having fun Unseen but I'd be interested in seeing a tourney circuit ran without strats and what the top performers are.

 

 

I think a few of the current top performers would get worse (mainly harlies/daemons), but most of the top armies are either soup lists (which already are giving cp up to do it), or have strong bonuses for going mono-fraction. They also tend to be good at taking/holding objectives in the midfield. The armies that aren't good at it all stink regardless of how good their stratagems are. 

 

That said I wouldn't mind not having stratagems. I think it would speed the game up, and be easier for new players. It just wouldn't shake up the meta much.

[XeonDragon]

That could be an interesting idea for a brave TO somewhere in the world: a 9th edition competition with no stratagems allowed!  

[USNCenturion]

That could be an interesting idea for a brave TO somewhere in the world: a 9th edition competition with no stratagems allowed!

I think that period in time was called the Index Era. It was fun.

[Riddlesworth]

...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.

 

They are one of the best platforms for sallies strat and doctrine support. free +1 to wound is huge. CP for max hits, also huge.

 

I don't know that I agree with you on Scars either. With the updated CT, yes, flamestorms can advance, shoot and charge with no penalty, but so can boltstorms and for me the extra range on that spot wins out.

[SkimaskMohawk]

I'm not sure what you're saying. Aggressors are objectively worse as they caught nerfs to their special abilities. Sallies already used them, but their loss of the double tap means their strat to not count as moving doesn't work on them. They're worse.

 

What I fumbled in saying is that scars is the only one where boltstorms stayed the same, but for everyone else the ability went away. And they lost the double tap. So are worse still.

Edited February 22, 2021 by SkimaskMohawk

[Riddlesworth]

I'm not sure what you're saying. Aggressors are objectively worse as they caught nerfs to their special abilities. Sallies already used them, but their loss of the double tap means their strat to not count as moving doesn't work on them. They're worse.

 

What I fumbled in saying is that scars is the only one where boltstorms stayed the same, but for everyone else the ability went away. And they lost the double tap. So are worse still.

 

My misunderstanding. Thought the second part of your statement was focused on what they do now (where max flamer hits strat and doctrine still make flamestorms best choice for salamanders), rather than what they lost.

 

Yes - they are objectively worse. That isn't a bad thing given how obscene they were at the start of 9th.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea I agree they were needlessly brutal sue to the chapter approved point drop and the circumstances of 9th favoring bully units. But I always lament the removal of special rules for just a statline 

[Silas7]

So we can agree? The OP isn't missing something, the Aggressors are a known quality now and have lost their luster.

[USNCenturion]

So we can agree? The OP isn't missing something, the Aggressors are a known quality now and have lost their luster.

Yeah I’m still not sure how to arm the Blood Angel aggressors I have even after all this discussion haha. I don’t know if that’s good game design and balance or poor nerfing.

 

For one thing, the fists don’t do much for BA; they already punch really hard, so I don’t know if they even want aggressors. The flamers are nice to scoot and shoot with, without losing accuracy, but white scars and sallies for them so much better it’s tough to justify them with BA I think. The bolters and grenades are cheaper and longer range, with I guess more shots, and encourage more BA walking then charging I think, skipping on the advancing.

 

All good points everyone. Thanks for the ongoing discussion.

[Dracos]

Yes because wounding T5 to T8 models on a 2+ is absolutely a wasted investment. ;) I can’t argue too much though BA really like to lean into the melee and have an embarrassing amount of solid elite choices to fill that role.

[Tokugawa]

Weapon configurations depend on chapter rules. If your chapter doctrine(e.g. salamanders) improve flamer weapons, then the flamer variants is better. Same for bolter variants. And BA improve,errr…

[Karhedron]

BAs get +1" to Advance which means the Flamer variant might have a slight edge.