83361
Post by: Verstaka
I am just getting back into 40k after a 4 year break and it seems like vanguard vets went from being considered a great assault unit to being called a worthless entry in the new codex. I was hoping to use a squad of them in some games as a line breaker unit but it sounds like they would simply die before they even earn their points.
Is there any hope for bringing this unit back into the fold or would I be considered a laughing stock for fielding them?
43972
Post by: GreyHamster
Actually, you're misremembering it. They weren't ever good in the core marine book. They're just too many points for a marine, even if he can have shiny combat toys. Even with charging off the deep strike, the scatter variance made it a crapshoot and you can't even do that anymore. Only Blood Angels could ever make any good use of them because of Descent of Angels.
They won't make it to combat unless you pay a lot of extra points (Assault transport or jump packs and lots of bodies and storm shields). They won't do anything in combat unless you pay even more points. And still, at the end of the day, they're just marines. Standard weight of fire erases them the same. These aren't new vulnerabilities either. Vanguard have been consistently bad in C:SM for their entire lifespan. They are a textbook little Timmy unit.
79467
Post by: DanielBeaver
A 15% point bump gets you an extra attack and better leadership compared to regular assault marines, as well as filling a less crowded FOC slot. That might seem like a good deal... assuming that you consider assault marines good in the first place (a lot of people don't).
A separate issue is whether it is worth it for them to take power weapons or storm shields. I would sort of laugh at that - each marine would have to kill 40pts worth of stuff just to make back their cost, and they are terribly vulnerable to long-ranged AP2 stuff... unless you huddle behind LOS blocking terrain, which seems like a terrible waste.
83361
Post by: Verstaka
Alright so the main issue is that, after wargear, you are paying the cost of an assault terminator squad and then some but sacrificing the durability for a speed increase and sweeping advance. So sticking a squad of them in a Redeemer probably wouldn't work out the best?
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
Too expensive, too few options, and not as good at what they do as other options in the codex. I'm a big fan of trying to make any unit work, but the Vanguard Vets are a really hard sell. Even in the last edition they sucked, but you could still get some use out of them if you planned for it. With the loss of Deep Strike assaults, they kind of blow.
11860
Post by: Martel732
VV have always been garbage. They actually actually BETTER now, imo. Price is so important. How many bodies can you put down to be ion accelerated off the table?
63064
Post by: BoomWolf
 DanielBeaver wrote:A 15% point bump gets you an extra attack and better leadership compared to regular assault marines, as well as filling a less crowded FOC slot. That might seem like a good deal... assuming that you consider assault marines good in the first place (a lot of people don't).
That's the issue, you compare to assault marines.
Assault marines are so bad, that being better then them means practically nothing.
43972
Post by: GreyHamster
 Verstaka wrote:Alright so the main issue is that, after wargear, you are paying the cost of an assault terminator squad and then some but sacrificing the durability for a speed increase and sweeping advance. So sticking a squad of them in a Redeemer probably wouldn't work out the best?
In essence, yes. You are getting less for your point expenditure compared to the now-mediocre assault Terminator squad.
Redeemers are still the worst raider variant in existence. You need to be literally point blank and surrounded to make its sponsons even relevant.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of posthuman melee specialists charging out of a vehicle spitting flaming death around them. But their rules are so inefficient that it's just not going to happen like that. You'll roll up, get out, not get to flame anyone because template sponsons suck, wipe out one unit on the charge, then lose everything to point blank shooting on their turn. Hooray, you traded 500 points for the bubble-wrapping kroot or tactical squad that was out front just to get murdered.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Land Raiders in general should be awesome in the S6/7 meta, but cost so much they are STILL marginal at best.
83361
Post by: Verstaka
So, not to get too off topic, do SM have access to any assault troops that would be considered good in the current meta aside from TH termies?
71151
Post by: Waaaghpower
Martel732 wrote:Land Raiders in general should be awesome in the S6/7 meta, but cost so much they are STILL marginal at best.
Mainly because a Meltagun or equivalent AP1 weapon has a 50% chance of one-shotting it.Even including BS and chance to pen, a single 24 point marine with a Meltagun has a 1/4 chance to pop a Raider.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Verstaka wrote:So, not to get too off topic, do SM have access to any assault troops that would be considered good in the current meta aside from TH termies?
Honour Guard are decent, because they're actually slightly more survivable per point against AP3+ than a normal Marine. Of course they're also much more vulnerable to AP2 per point, but yeah...
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
White Scars Command Dquads are very good
11860
Post by: Martel732
Waaaghpower wrote:Martel732 wrote:Land Raiders in general should be awesome in the S6/7 meta, but cost so much they are STILL marginal at best.
Mainly because a Meltagun or equivalent AP1 weapon has a 50% chance of one-shotting it.Even including BS and chance to pen, a single 24 point marine with a Meltagun has a 1/4 chance to pop a Raider.
That and their dakka sucks out loud. Automatically Appended Next Post:  AlmightyWalrus wrote: Verstaka wrote:So, not to get too off topic, do SM have access to any assault troops that would be considered good in the current meta aside from TH termies?
Honour Guard are decent, because they're actually slightly more survivable per point against AP3+ than a normal Marine. Of course they're also much more vulnerable to AP2 per point, but yeah...
They are on foot. Bleh. Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are passable. Nothing more.
77159
Post by: Paradigm
Verstaka wrote:So, not to get too off topic, do SM have access to any assault troops that would be considered good in the current meta aside from TH termies?
Yes. Honour Guard are amazing for the cost. You get a 2+ save and a choice of power weapon as a default, and while they necessitate a Chapter Master, they also work very well with one, as he can tank wounds for them and massively boost the CC potential. Coming out of a Land Raider (preferably a Crusader) they are a great linebreaker.
Assault Marines are good as bully units against backfield weak targets, but can't go one on one with dedicated CC units (not that they ever could or were meant to, they are best at killing troops and support units)
11860
Post by: Martel732
 Paradigm wrote: Verstaka wrote:So, not to get too off topic, do SM have access to any assault troops that would be considered good in the current meta aside from TH termies?
Yes. Honour Guard are amazing for the cost. You get a 2+ save and a choice of power weapon as a default, and while they necessitate a Chapter Master, they also work very well with one, as he can tank wounds for them and massively boost the CC potential. Coming out of a Land Raider (preferably a Crusader) they are a great linebreaker.
Assault Marines are good as bully units against backfield weak targets, but can't go one on one with dedicated CC units (not that they ever could or were meant to, they are best at killing troops and support units)
You are paying for a land raider. Autofail right there as an "amazing" unit.
77159
Post by: Paradigm
The cost of a Land Raider is perfectly justifiable as far as I'm concerned.
The Crusader has firepower slightly better than a full tactical squad once you throw on a Multi-melta, which means you're paying around 100 points for complete immunity to small arms, a huge transport capacity that hugely boots the usefulness of another unit, and far greater mobility. More than fair in my opinion.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Except in practice they usually fall flat. They kind of add up on paper, but their lack of efficacious dakka dooms them. I can't remember the last time I lost to a LR-using list. They just can't kill the BA fast enough.
Playing other meqs always spoils me though. If I have models left after turn 3, I view my opponent as a slacker. And marines can't pull that off. Even the mighty grav guns are tickle-cannons to BA compared to ion accelerators.
53886
Post by: Ignatius
Martel732 wrote: Paradigm wrote: Verstaka wrote:So, not to get too off topic, do SM have access to any assault troops that would be considered good in the current meta aside from TH termies?
Yes. Honour Guard are amazing for the cost. You get a 2+ save and a choice of power weapon as a default, and while they necessitate a Chapter Master, they also work very well with one, as he can tank wounds for them and massively boost the CC potential. Coming out of a Land Raider (preferably a Crusader) they are a great linebreaker.
Assault Marines are good as bully units against backfield weak targets, but can't go one on one with dedicated CC units (not that they ever could or were meant to, they are best at killing troops and support units)
You are paying for a land raider. Autofail right there as an "amazing" unit.
What? How does that make them unable to be amazing? All you've done in this thread is come in and throw out one liners about a unit and say it sucks. How about a little thought to be taken seriously.
Honor Guard are amazing units. Especially with that chapter banner. What sucks is that they can't have bikes or assault packs, or get an apothecary in there. But other than that there isn't much of a downside to them.
Edit: you ninja'd me there a little. But I don't think that a Land Raiders firepower is too bad. Two twin linked las cannons is pretty good. Throw in a heavy Bolger and it's a little better. Give it a melta and you're good to go. Plus it's an assault vehicle, with 4 hull points and AV 14 all around. I find them to be worth it. And it may not be the land raider that is bad. It could be user error in the games you've played against them.
77159
Post by: Paradigm
Martel732 wrote:
Playing other meqs always spoils me though. If I have models left after turn 3, I view my opponent as a slacker. And marines can't pull that off. Even the mighty grav guns are tickle-cannons to BA compared to ion accelerators.
And there we go. From what you're saying, you've adopted the viewpoint that all marine armies are doomed to fail, rather than looking for ways to make them work. The Marine Codex is perfectly playable, but you do seem resigned to the fact it's not any good.
11860
Post by: Martel732
"What sucks is that they can't have bikes or assault packs, or get an apothecary in there. But other than that there isn't much of a downside to them."
Do they need more downside? They are cheaper, footbound sanguinary guard. Do know how fast SG get picked up in my average games?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote:Martel732 wrote:
Playing other meqs always spoils me though. If I have models left after turn 3, I view my opponent as a slacker. And marines can't pull that off. Even the mighty grav guns are tickle-cannons to BA compared to ion accelerators.
And there we go. From what you're saying, you've adopted the viewpoint that all marine armies are doomed to fail, rather than looking for ways to make them work. The Marine Codex is perfectly playable, but you do seem resigned to the fact it's not any good.
Well. Marines can't table me in 3 turns by ignoring all my BA defenses. That has a tendency to make me rank them lower than the codices that can. If by doomed to fail, you mean have a sub-50% win rate, then yes I guess that's what I'm saying.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Martel732 wrote:"What sucks is that they can't have bikes or assault packs, or get an apothecary in there. But other than that there isn't much of a downside to them."
Do they need more downside? They are cheaper, footbound sanguinary guard. Do know how fast SG get picked up in my average games?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote:Martel732 wrote:
Playing other meqs always spoils me though. If I have models left after turn 3, I view my opponent as a slacker. And marines can't pull that off. Even the mighty grav guns are tickle-cannons to BA compared to ion accelerators.
And there we go. From what you're saying, you've adopted the viewpoint that all marine armies are doomed to fail, rather than looking for ways to make them work. The Marine Codex is perfectly playable, but you do seem resigned to the fact it's not any good.
Well. Marines can't table me in 3 turns by ignoring all my BA defenses. That has a tendency to make me rank them lower than the codices that can.
One of the major differences to Sanguinary Guard though is that they can take Drop Pods, making them usable in Drop Pod lists.
11860
Post by: Martel732
I've tried and tried with drop pod DC. Drop pod assault troops are just asking to be obliterated. I can't get behind that.
Look people. Marine durability is at its lowest point since 2nd. All these special troops and gimmicks they put in our codices usually are not improved durability, they are adding some stupid trick that doesn't fly in the face of massed S6/7 or ion accelerators. The gimmicks look usable against other meq lists because meq lists have crap firepower. Because of low body count, because of gear that doesn't do anything in 6th, and because we pay for gimmicks that aren't efficacious, and around and around we go.
Please tell me how to make gimmicks work that don't have any meaningful impact on my ability to survive my opponent's turn. The opposition either has far too many wounds for us to take away, or have neigh invulnerable units.
53886
Post by: Ignatius
I think they do. They are a great unit that doesn't have access to everything- which is a good thing. If they had access to all that boosting stuff they'd be overpowered. But they aren't which is evident in the fact we are having a difference of opinion right now.
The unit works the way it is supposed to- I've been able to do it multiple times. So clearly there is some disconnect in players trying to use them in ways they aren't supposed to (I've seen someone footslog them up the middle of the board and complain when they all got killed) or having bad match ups (tau riptide catching them without a chapter master with an invul in the front to take the AP 2 wounds).
All I'm saying is that dismissing them as incapable of being an amazing unit because one of the ways to field them uses a land raider is a little ridiculous.
Most of the time the way I use them is either in a drop pod or in a storm raven. And I'm having good results and having a blast using a unit that looks great, is a good centerpiece unit, and is pretty effective on the table.
77159
Post by: Paradigm
Martel732 wrote:
Paradigm wrote:Martel732 wrote:
Playing other meqs always spoils me though. If I have models left after turn 3, I view my opponent as a slacker. And marines can't pull that off. Even the mighty grav guns are tickle-cannons to BA compared to ion accelerators.
And there we go. From what you're saying, you've adopted the viewpoint that all marine armies are doomed to fail, rather than looking for ways to make them work. The Marine Codex is perfectly playable, but you do seem resigned to the fact it's not any good.
Well. Marines can't table me in 3 turns by ignoring all my BA defenses. That has a tendency to make me rank them lower than the codices that can. If by doomed to fail, you mean have a sub-50% win rate, then yes I guess that's what I'm saying.
If your rating for a good army is to be able to table an opponent in 3 turns, then I think your parameters are way off, to be honest. Either you play in a ultra-competitive meta where everyone plays super-optimised lists or you play against exceptionally good opponents the whole time, neither of which I imagine most players experience. From what I've seen online and in real life, most communities are far more casual than competitive, and will include a range of skill levels, so I'm really don't see your parameters as that helpful.
If you're that convinced that marines are useless, then why bother answering a thread about marines?
11860
Post by: Martel732
If I could get my opponents to leave all the AP 2 in the model case, I'd agree with you. But they don't. Hell, plasma vets end these guys trivially.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote:Martel732 wrote:
Paradigm wrote:Martel732 wrote:
Playing other meqs always spoils me though. If I have models left after turn 3, I view my opponent as a slacker. And marines can't pull that off. Even the mighty grav guns are tickle-cannons to BA compared to ion accelerators.
And there we go. From what you're saying, you've adopted the viewpoint that all marine armies are doomed to fail, rather than looking for ways to make them work. The Marine Codex is perfectly playable, but you do seem resigned to the fact it's not any good.
Well. Marines can't table me in 3 turns by ignoring all my BA defenses. That has a tendency to make me rank them lower than the codices that can. If by doomed to fail, you mean have a sub-50% win rate, then yes I guess that's what I'm saying.
If your rating for a good army is to be able to table an opponent in 3 turns, then I think your parameters are way off, to be honest. Either you play in a ultra-competitive meta where everyone plays super-optimised lists or you play against exceptionally good opponents the whole time, neither of which I imagine most players experience. From what I've seen online and in real life, most communities are far more casual than competitive, and will include a range of skill levels, so I'm really don't see your parameters as that helpful.
If you're that convinced that marines are useless, then why bother answering a thread about marines?
It's the list I have the most experience with and against.
And no, tabling in 3 turns is my parameter for "amazing". This unit was called "amazing". They are not. Riptides backed up by buffmanders are "amazing". 2+ armor footsloggers are just more victims for the AP 2 guns.
I guess an even more pertinent question for those "trying to make it work" is this: what are these guys good against other than other meqs? This has become an asymmetrical game to the extreme: Tau and Eldar basically ignore the assault phase (except jetseers who can't be hurt) and Daemons will eat your honor guard. I can punch Eldar and Tau to death with regular assault marines. I can't GET them there.
83361
Post by: Verstaka
Wow, just got out of my class to find a lot more responses than I expected an very mixed opinions. I'm a bit hesitant to grab the Honor Guard since the Champion has that requirement to make challenges, I m not really familiar with the pros and cons aside from a cool narrative. 
But if it looks like the general consensus is, if they are available, the Honor Guard destroy a lot in the Assault phase. So how many would you guys recommend be put in a squad? The 10 man unit seems just as pricey and perhaps a bit of overkill. And if a Master is unavailable am I just out of luck for having access to a good assault unit or is there hope? I know assault is out of style right now but I always like to have at least one unit that can mix it up in hand to hand, plus some of the 7th edition rumors are making it sound as though overwatch is getting nerfed hard. 
77159
Post by: Paradigm
Verstaka wrote:Wow, just got out of my class to find a lot more responses than I expected an very mixed opinions. I'm a bit hesitant to grab the Honor Guard since the Champion has that requirement to make challenges, I m not really familiar with the pros and cons aside from a cool narrative.
But if it looks like the general consensus is, if they are available, the Honor Guard destroy a lot in the Assault phase. So how many would you guys recommend be put in a squad? The 10 man unit seems just as pricey and perhaps a bit of overkill. And if a Master is unavailable am I just out of luck for having access to a good assault unit or is there hope? I know assault is out of style right now but I always like to have at least one unit that can mix it up in hand to hand, plus some of the 7th edition rumors are making it sound as though overwatch is getting nerfed hard.
To be honest, the Champ bring forced into challenges is no great loss. He's pretty handy against non- CC characters, so you've actually got a decent chance to win, and at the very least he protects you Chapter Master from being challenged, so he can focus on wrecking face.
I'd go with a unit of between 6-10, points-dependant. Be sure to throw in the chapter Banner and possibly a Chaplain, and mix axes and mauls. At 2000+ points, I'd probably go with the full 10+ CM in a LRC as a deathstar, lower than that maybe 6 and the CM.
Other than those, Assault Termies can still do well, and Assault Marines can work so long as you pick the targets.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Again, I'll ask what do you intend to go after with these guys?
77159
Post by: Paradigm
Pretty much anything short of a MC or Deathstar. I'm pretty sure they can reliably handle most infantry in the game, and no, I'm not talking about screamerstars/jetstars. Fire Warriors, Guardsmen, marines, Necrons. There's a huge array of viable targets.
71151
Post by: Waaaghpower
Paradigm wrote:
Pretty much anything short of a MC or Deathstar. I'm pretty sure they can reliably handle most infantry in the game, and no, I'm not talking about screamerstars/jetstars. Fire Warriors, Guardsmen, marines, Necrons. There's a huge array of viable targets.
Uh, who *can't* beat these guys in Close Combat? They're all easy as heck to kill.
64174
Post by: Davespil
Verstaka wrote:Wow, just got out of my class to find a lot more responses than I expected an very mixed opinions. I'm a bit hesitant to grab the Honor Guard since the Champion has that requirement to make challenges, I m not really familiar with the pros and cons aside from a cool narrative.
But if it looks like the general consensus is, if they are available, the Honor Guard destroy a lot in the Assault phase. So how many would you guys recommend be put in a squad? The 10 man unit seems just as pricey and perhaps a bit of overkill. And if a Master is unavailable am I just out of luck for having access to a good assault unit or is there hope? I know assault is out of style right now but I always like to have at least one unit that can mix it up in hand to hand, plus some of the 7th edition rumors are making it sound as though overwatch is getting nerfed hard.
Overwatch isn't gonna get nerfed. It was the best thing they did in 6th ed and it isn't all that great anyway. I like throwing 5 assault termies in a Redeemer cause the redeemer can do some serious damage. Sure, it has to get close but when it does str6 ap3 ignores cover is the bee's knees. Vanguard just aren't that great pointwise. Proxy them in a few battles to see for yourself, but I think they are over-priced.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Paradigm wrote:
Pretty much anything short of a MC or Deathstar. I'm pretty sure they can reliably handle most infantry in the game, and no, I'm not talking about screamerstars/jetstars. Fire Warriors, Guardsmen, marines, Necrons. There's a huge array of viable targets.
Against how many of these targets do you think you need honor guard? Fire warriors, guardsment, necrons, and other marines can get beat up by cheaper models.
77159
Post by: Paradigm
Waaaghpower wrote: Paradigm wrote:
Pretty much anything short of a MC or Deathstar. I'm pretty sure they can reliably handle most infantry in the game, and no, I'm not talking about screamerstars/jetstars. Fire Warriors, Guardsmen, marines, Necrons. There's a huge array of viable targets.
Uh, who *can't* beat these guys in Close Combat? They're all easy as heck to kill.
Yes, a lot of stuff can kill them, but few can kill them as fast as Honour Guard. AM can handle weak units, or reduced squads, but Honour Guard can go up against almost anything and either win (non-dedicated CC units) or give as good as they get (dedicated CC units). Anything other than a Monstrous Creature or a superpowered Deathstar is fair game.
11860
Post by: Martel732
But MCs and deathstars are all I care about really in CC. What other kinds of units are there that need to get hit by something like honor guard? Basically, I'm saying they are in no-mans land here. They aren't good enough against the units that really matter, and they are unnecessary against shooty troops. And they die just the same to most anti-meq weapons because AP 2 is much more common than AP 3 for some reason.
71151
Post by: Waaaghpower
 Davespil wrote: Verstaka wrote:Wow, just got out of my class to find a lot more responses than I expected an very mixed opinions. I'm a bit hesitant to grab the Honor Guard since the Champion has that requirement to make challenges, I m not really familiar with the pros and cons aside from a cool narrative.
But if it looks like the general consensus is, if they are available, the Honor Guard destroy a lot in the Assault phase. So how many would you guys recommend be put in a squad? The 10 man unit seems just as pricey and perhaps a bit of overkill. And if a Master is unavailable am I just out of luck for having access to a good assault unit or is there hope? I know assault is out of style right now but I always like to have at least one unit that can mix it up in hand to hand, plus some of the 7th edition rumors are making it sound as though overwatch is getting nerfed hard.
Overwatch isn't gonna get nerfed. It was the best thing they did in 6th ed and it isn't all that great anyway. I like throwing 5 assault termies in a Redeemer cause the redeemer can do some serious damage. Sure, it has to get close but when it does str6 ap3 ignores cover is the bee's knees. Vanguard just aren't that great pointwise. Proxy them in a few battles to see for yourself, but I think they are over-priced.
Overwatch is terrible. It's a free buff to shooty armies with absolutely no downside. It makes risky assaults nigh-worthless, and when combined with random assault distance and taking casualties from the front, is *way* too powerful given the fact that you lose literally nothing.
83361
Post by: Verstaka
Well if I was using vanilla assault marines I'd be using it to harass any smaller scoring units the enemy has and assault them if it looks like it could swing in my favor ( FW, Dire Avengers, etc.)
Vanguard Vets would be a bit of a death star but more focused on counter assaulting. With how I would kit them out I have faith that they could take out a MC without too many casualties (Then again I haven't read up on how MCs got updated so idk how dangerous smash is)
Honor Guard would be used as a spearhead. The abundance of Power Weapons and Artificer armor means that anything short of Powerfists (or equivalent) shouldn't be too dangerous and be taken out with ease.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Verstaka wrote:
Well if I was using vanilla assault marines I'd be using it to harass any smaller scoring units the enemy has and assault them if it looks like it could swing in my favor ( FW, Dire Avengers, etc.)
Vanguard Vets would be a bit of a death star but more focused on counter assaulting. With how I would kit them out I have faith that they could take out a MC without too many casualties (Then again I haven't read up on how MCs got updated so idk how dangerous smash is)
Honor Guard would be used as a spearhead. The abundance of Power Weapons and Artificer armor means that anything short of Powerfists (or equivalent) shouldn't be too dangerous and be taken out with ease.
If you spearhead them, they'll die to plasma or plasma equivalent firepower. One ion acclerator = they all die. If you put them in a LR, they'll never recover their points. The real failing is that marines don't have enough dakka to clear out enough AP 2 to make it so these guys live.
83361
Post by: Verstaka
Well if I see that the enemy has a lot of Plasma fire then I wouldn't be throwing them headlong across the board. That when you play smart, use your other units to take out models that pose a threat to them. You don't HAVE to play a unit in just one way.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Verstaka wrote:Well if I see that the enemy has a lot of Plasma fire then I wouldn't be throwing them headlong across the board. That when you play smart, use your other units to take out models that pose a threat to them. You don't HAVE to play a unit in just one way.
True, but now your grim CC unit is cowering not doing anything. It's very hard to play "smart" with a list that constantly taking more fire that it's sending out. Time is on your opponent's side. And marine's inability to trim down enemy firepower capability is one of their biggest problems.
I'm dubious of any HTH marines because the solution is always "shoot them more" and that's what most of the good lists do. Except those with MCs or deathstars, the viable HTH options.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Martel732 wrote: Verstaka wrote:
Well if I was using vanilla assault marines I'd be using it to harass any smaller scoring units the enemy has and assault them if it looks like it could swing in my favor ( FW, Dire Avengers, etc.)
Vanguard Vets would be a bit of a death star but more focused on counter assaulting. With how I would kit them out I have faith that they could take out a MC without too many casualties (Then again I haven't read up on how MCs got updated so idk how dangerous smash is)
Honor Guard would be used as a spearhead. The abundance of Power Weapons and Artificer armor means that anything short of Powerfists (or equivalent) shouldn't be too dangerous and be taken out with ease.
If you spearhead them, they'll die to plasma or plasma equivalent firepower. One ion acclerator = they all die. If you put them in a LR, they'll never recover their points. The real failing is that marines don't have enough dakka to clear out enough AP 2 to make it so these guys live.
There are other armies than Tau in this game, you know.
If you compare anything short of a Wave Serpent to a Riptide, of course it falls flat.
Nobody expects balanced units to be able to fight broken units on an equal field.
But assume for a moment that the enemy is CSM?
Or maybe SoB?
11860
Post by: Martel732
SoB and CSM can both bring enough AP2 to wipe them out, but the honor guard are much better against those lists. Although those lists are already much easier to beat, so I still don't see why you'd bring honor guard from a utility standpoint. I still think the LR-borne honor guard still fail against CSM and SoB. The LR is too overcosted and doesn't do enough damage in its own right.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Martel732 wrote:SoB and CSM can both bring enough AP2 to wipe them out, but the honor guard are much better against those lists. Although those lists are already much easier to beat, so I still don't see why you'd bring honor guard from a utility standpoint. I still think the LR-borne honor guard still fail against CSM and SoB. The LR is too overcosted and doesn't do enough damage in its own right.
Of course AP2 kills them. If something that is their hard counter doesn't kill them, they'd not be very balanced.
It's kinda like how an army of pretty much only Hormagaunts would not do well against massed Burnaboyz.
Things that lack a true hard counter (O'vesastars) outside of Escalation are not really good to compare to, since of course a unit that broken will wipe the floor with anything not equally broken.
'What's not broken isn't viable' is not really a good stance. It may win you tournaments for sure but tournament players are in a firm minority, and believe it or not, tactics are relevant outside of Brokehammer.
If anything, tactics become less relevant once you have a one-trick-pony I.W.I.N. button.
11860
Post by: Martel732
I had stopped talking about Brokehammer.
Now I'm taking about delivery systems and the fact that AP2 is still super-common in non-tournament lists. And the fact that with so many shooty units being in vogue, you don't need the CC power of honor guard. You just need to get into CC.
Honor guard, while superior to VV, are still very much victims of CC being very hard to pull off.
I will also admit that models at their price point with a 2+ save SHOULD be VERY good. It's a testament to how much AP 2 is found in even casual lists that I find this unit not worth taking. Why pay extra to have your marines die at the same rate?
46630
Post by: wowsmash
I got to ask martel. Why even bother coming into marine threads anymore? You say the same things everytime and its all bad. Your like the biggest debbie downer when it comes to marines. Ease up guy.
76619
Post by: mrbossman
I've found that whenever I've assaulted someone with the vanguard vets or the honor guard, I wipe them out in one turn and then get wiped out on the opponents shooting phase
11860
Post by: Martel732
 mrbossman wrote:I've found that whenever I've assaulted someone with the vanguard vets or the honor guard, I wipe them out in one turn and then get wiped out on the opponents shooting phase
This is the problem that makes all the effort of pulling of CC totally not worth it. Automatically Appended Next Post:  wowsmash wrote:I got to ask martel. Why even bother coming into marine threads anymore? You say the same things everytime and its all bad. Your like the biggest debbie downer when it comes to marines. Ease up guy.
I'll ease up when I'm not being tabled for benchmarking purposes. I HAVE commented on which marine units I find most efficacious, but we can't fill our lists with them, and they come up short against other lists' heavy hitters. What should I be saying?
46630
Post by: wowsmash
I'm not saying your wrong. I'm just saying you seem extra negative on marines lately bro. We realize that VV's aren't great when you stack them up against the top units but their still cool models. They deserve to be fielded sometimes. It doesn't always have to be wether they make their points back.
43972
Post by: GreyHamster
Vanguard Veterans don't even stack up well against things in their OWN book, let alone those in stronger books. No unit 'deserves' to be fielded just for existing and looking cool.
The Space Marine book is solidly middle tier. It has strong options in it, but Vanguard Veterans are far from being one of them. The price point for them to become effective, the nature of their vulnerabilities, the state of the meta, and the structure of 6th edition rules as a whole are all strikes against their efficiency.
Negativity doesn't invalidate a statement if the statement is accurate.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Sternguard are quite good. This is also a true statement and not negative. But that doesn't help VV at all. I can't help it if the marines have so many bad choices in the codex.
20913
Post by: Freman Bloodglaive
I think the simplest way to state it is that dedicated combat units in 6th edition have to either be really good (daemons) or cheap (daemons) or both (daemons).
Neither Honour Guard, nor Vanguard Veterans are cheap, and Vanguard get linearly more expensive as you tool them up to make them better at combat. That said Vanguard have mobility if you spend more points to buy them jump packs. Price inclusive power weapons mean that Honour Guard are good at combat but they don't have the mobility to get into combat, and a 2+ save didn't make Terminators playable in 3rd edition (nor did a 5+ invulnerable, but that's something for another time). Since they are fairly good at combat you can guarantee that the only time an enemy will charge them is with a unit that can kill them before they strike or simply shoot them with as much AP2 firepower as they need to remove them as a threat.
Vanguard can have storm shields (for extra points) but then they're expensive single wound 3+ save units. People will just gun them down the same way they would any other marine unit. It's the same reason Legion of the Damned aren't particularly dangerous.
81831
Post by: SRSFACE
Errrr, the ONLY units that deserve to be fielded are ones that look cool, man. I don't need to shore up my manhood by winning at plastic toy soldiers when I can show off I'm not a half bad artist, and have really cool mini-statues decorating all the shelves in my room.
77159
Post by: Paradigm
 SRSFACE wrote:Errrr, the ONLY units that deserve to be fielded are ones that look cool, man. I don't need to shore up my manhood by winning at plastic toy soldiers when I can show off I'm not a half bad artist, and have really cool mini-statues decorating all the shelves in my room.
Have an exalt! 
11860
Post by: Martel732
SRSFACE wrote:Errrr, the ONLY units that deserve to be fielded are ones that look cool, man. I don't need to shore up my manhood by winning at plastic toy soldiers when I can show off I'm not a half bad artist, and have really cool mini-statues decorating all the shelves in my room.
We're using different criteria for what deserves to be fielded. We just enjoy different things.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Paradigm wrote: SRSFACE wrote:Errrr, the ONLY units that deserve to be fielded are ones that look cool, man. I don't need to shore up my manhood by winning at plastic toy soldiers when I can show off I'm not a half bad artist, and have really cool mini-statues decorating all the shelves in my room.
Have an exalt!
This! Exalted too.
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
umm... i do think you may have missed that outside of mega-über-competitive "ineedtotableyoubeforeturnthreeorilosemyselfconfidenceOMG"-gameplay, in the casual games people enjoy, that is actually EXACTLY the reasons for ANY unit being on the board.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 FistusMaximus wrote:
umm... i do think you may have missed that outside of mega-über-competitive "ineedtotableyoubeforeturnthreeorilosemyselfconfidenceOMG"-gameplay, in the casual games people enjoy, that is actually EXACTLY the reasons for ANY unit being on the board.
Untrue. There's also the reason of "I want to play with this because I feel like it but not because it's cool or just for existing". There's plenty of other reasons to play weak units as well.
11860
Post by: Martel732
How I wish the Sanguinary Guard didn't die miserably as soon as they hit the table. Cool models, but so fragile I don't get to look at them very long.
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Untrue. There's also the reason of "I want to play with this because I feel like it but not because it's cool or just for existing". There's plenty of other reasons to play weak units as well.
i know, i was just trying to express that what GreyHamster wrote is not true at all outside of powerplay.
one reason i play weak units sometimes is for example "oh, my enemy plays nids, hasn't played for a while and hasnt much experience, as well as not the best units." that was the point where i came with my guard without all chimeras, no bailisks, and less tanks. plus yarrick added, just because of fluff (i play steel legion).
one of the closest and most fun games of the entire last year.
11860
Post by: Martel732
I don't have to pick and choose weak units, I've got BA; they are all weak.  Some are just more weak than others.
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
against Taudar cheese lists, yes.
play against a casual SM, Ork, Nid, or CSM army and you will find out BA are very strong.
you know, somebody already mentioned it, but.... not want to sound offensive, but that person was right, you do seem a bit... overly negative?
32325
Post by: Deschenus Maximus
I'm very much with Martel on this one. Marine CC units suck for one of 3 reasons: being outright bad at CC (Assault Marines), being too costly (tooled-out VV and Bike CS) or having no good delivery mechanism (HG and assault termies). Space Marines are a shooty army, and building your list with that in mind will yield far better results than trying to make our substandard CC units work.
That said, if you want to field them for "Rule of Cool"-type reasons, by all means go ahead.
24956
Post by: Xca|iber
All the people saying that "Oh this unit/army/synergy is great if you ignore anything that can reliably destroy it" really confuse me.
It's like saying "Tiger Woods is a great player to have on your football team, as long as you ignore the existence of all professional and college football players." Sure, it's technically true, and maybe even useful in your casual, local meta - but at some point, you're lowering the bar so much that any 'advice' you get becomes essentially meaningless - anything will work.
If you're asking about the usefulness of a unit, you are implicitly asking about it's performance across a broad spectrum of applications. If the unit cannot be used reliably at the competitive end, you can't just cover your ears and call everyone unreasonable 'haters' if you don't get the answer you want.
EDIT: And on the subject of VV, they are extremely boring. Last edition, they had a neat rule that made them unique - it could even shake up the game a bit (I used them with BA for a short stint, which was pretty fun). Now they're nothing more than overpriced, glorified assault marines. I'd rather have those if I had to choose - or better yet, sternguard, bikes, a buffmander/dev-star, etc...
11860
Post by: Martel732
FistusMaximus wrote:
against Taudar cheese lists, yes.
play against a casual SM, Ork, Nid, or CSM army and you will find out BA are very strong.
you know, somebody already mentioned it, but.... not want to sound offensive, but that person was right, you do seem a bit... overly negative?
Very strong? Really? I guess I never got that memo. I'm negative because I have an army that was only functional in 5th because of gimmicks and now all those gimmicks are gone. The BA are awful and frustrating. I have a "counts as" list together, but it's not really that much fun and I'm just running grav bikers like every other marine goober. The marines are generalists in a game where specialization rules. Automatically Appended Next Post: Deschenus Maximus wrote:I'm very much with Martel on this one. Marine CC units suck for one of 3 reasons: being outright bad at CC (Assault Marines), being too costly (tooled-out VV and Bike CS) or having no good delivery mechanism ( HG and assault termies). Space Marines are a shooty army, and building your list with that in mind will yield far better results than trying to make our substandard CC units work.
That said, if you want to field them for "Rule of Cool"-type reasons, by all means go ahead.
Marines are a shooting army who pay for CC utility, putting them behind the 8-ball against every real shooting list.
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
Martel732 wrote:
Very strong? Really? I guess I never got that memo. I'm negative because I have an army that was only functional in 5th because of gimmicks and now all those gimmicks are gone. The BA are awful and frustrating. I have a "counts as" list together, but it's not really that much fun and I'm just running grav bikers like every other marine goober. The marines are generalists in a game where specialization rules.
sir, allow me to ask a question before we start arguing here forever for no reason: what type of player are you? competitive or casual? do you play tournaments regularly? or more games with friends?
11860
Post by: Martel732
I'm casual/competitive. I myself don't go to many competitions because of time and BA being a dumpster fire. However, I play in a group with people who do go to tournaments. Hence, I am a test dummy for list effectiveness. This often results in my tabling, despite my best efforts.
I know I'm a pretty good player, because I've won all my mirror matches in 6th edition and I have squeaked out about 50% against C:SM, which is a vastly superior book to BA. (But still middling)
What's the common denominator? Meqs in general don't have the firepower to make me not get to play at all. When I get to play, I'm not bad.
32325
Post by: Deschenus Maximus
Martel732 wrote:Deschenus Maximus wrote:I'm very much with Martel on this one. Marine CC units suck for one of 3 reasons: being outright bad at CC (Assault Marines), being too costly (tooled-out VV and Bike CS) or having no good delivery mechanism ( HG and assault termies). Space Marines are a shooty army, and building your list with that in mind will yield far better results than trying to make our substandard CC units work.
That said, if you want to field them for "Rule of Cool"-type reasons, by all means go ahead.
Marines are a shooting army who pay for CC utility, putting them behind the 8-ball against every real shooting list.
True. If I could spare myself a couple of points on each Marine by making him WS, S and Init 1, I totally would. And while we're at it, give up power armour too since it seems like I barely ever get to use it.
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
Martel732 wrote: However, I play in a group with people who do go to tournaments. Hence, I am a test dummy for list effectiveness. This often results in my tabling, despite my best efforts.
that might be the problem, don't you agree?
i am a fluff player through and through, i admit that. i play very weak fluffy regular SM, and that means i get my ass kicked against even slightly competitive players. (except for the shining moments where my dice luck just makes the enemies' things die by the dozens lol).
in my gaming community though, we all play fluffy and more weak things, as well as not having a single eldar, tau, GK or SW player, so it balances out.
and i win a lot of times, with an average list.
if you fight an average army with an average list, some of the less powerful things become useful, actually. in no way powerful, but useful.
so, my point is: whenever a question about a unit's effectiveness is asked, the first reply should not be "ohmygod, the unit xxx sucks ass, because it cant kill riptides or drakes", but it should be: "in competitive games or casual?"
if the answer is "competitive", feel free to go nuts on how it sucks.
if the answer is "casual", think before you judge.
66727
Post by: OIIIIIIO
I have to agree with Martel here, the BA codex did not age well in 6th at all. The Space Wolf codex aged better than the BA one did and it was older. Let's look at some of the things that you could do with the BA codex that you can no longer do.
All JP, all DS: Viable in 5th against shooty armies in 5th. Worked well because if you were not on the board the could not shoot you. Only 1 turn of shooting before you were in CC with them ... Unable to do this in 6th as you autolose on turn 1.
FNP got a boost in 6th while it still got hit with a nerfbat for the BA. Sure you can still take it against PW wounds now but at a much lower chance of survival. Instead of a 50% chance of staying alive, you now fail 66% of the time. This was massive for those of us that use SP for sustainability to counteract the high price of our units.
Vehicles (fast or normal) go down faster than my sister on her first date and I am not talking about Prom night ... I do not take any at all except for Thunder Guppies, because they are so screwed. Razorback rush is toasted.
DS Land Raiders: The only thing ... well ... nevermind, I only ever tried it once and would never do it again. Bad Idea even in 5th.
Special Characters: Dante and Astorath were fun in 5th, in 6th ... not so much. When 6th came out I was one of the ones that was saying that RAW Dante would go at I1 but Astro-boy would go at his regular I because his axe had the unusual status due to the weapon doing damage at STR6 and victims must re-roll successful Invuln saves ... Nope hit him with the Nerf bat and send him to Initiative hell. I did not even use him much but that kinda ticked me off as he was the DEFINITION of an unusual power weapon.
These are just a few of the problems with the BA Codex.
The only VV that are any good anymore are the BA ones for right now, and that is because you can still assault after you DS with them ... for the time being. Or did they FAQ that as well while I was writing this?
18698
Post by: kronk
Verstaka wrote:Alright so the main issue is that, after wargear, you are paying the cost of an assault terminator squad and then some
My general thought with the 5th edition book was once I took a model in a vanguard vet squad to 40 points with power weapons, jump packs or other war gear, I hit the point cost of a terminator.
Then the question became "Is this unit better than a 5-man terminator squad?"
The answer was always no to me.
24956
Post by: Xca|iber
FistusMaximus wrote:
if the answer is "competitive", feel free to go nuts on how it sucks.
if the answer is "casual", think before you judge.
Except that in this context, "competitive" indicates a specific application - i.e. highly optimized shooting lists - so the answer is very clear: VV are ineffective against such lists. In the context of "casual" play however, there won't be a clear answer. You cannot simply say "Oh I play casually" and still get a meaningful answer about a unit's competitiveness, due to the enormous variety of casual metas. If 'casual' in your local scene means players bringing mono-kroot lists or SoB with no shooting, the answer you get will be very different compared to a meta dominated by 1ksons CSM and dakkafex Tyranids. There really isn't a great way to debate the point either, since everyone will have experiences linked to their local metas - so you'll almost always end up with the answer being "it depends." Ultimately, this isn't that helpful compared to what most normal, intelligent people can come up with on their own.
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
 Xca|iber wrote:
Except that in this context, "competitive" indicates a specific application - i.e. highly optimized shooting lists - so the answer is very clear: VV are ineffective against such lists. In the context of "casual" play however, there won't be a clear answer. You cannot simply say "Oh I play casually" and still get a meaningful answer about a unit's competitiveness, due to the enormous variety of casual metas. If 'casual' in your local scene means players bringing mono-kroot lists or SoB with no shooting, the answer you get will be very different compared to a meta dominated by 1ksons CSM and dakkafex Tyranids. There really isn't a great way to debate the point either, since everyone will have experiences linked to their local metas - so you'll almost always end up with the answer being "it depends." Ultimately, this isn't that helpful compared to what most normal, intelligent people can come up with on their own.
yes, you are right, and i do not argue with that. if the question is for "casual" its hard to come up with an answer at all, because it depends a lot on the opponent.
(in this case, it just means there need to be more questions to the person who asked, like "who do you play against mostly?" and "do you have certain armies you face in mind for this question?")
but you did also get the essence of my point, that there is a substantial difference between if the question was "how powerful is that thing in competitive play" or "is this useful in more casual games?".
and this, my friend, is all i want to express.
EDIT: btw, just in case you think that: i am NOT defending VV, i do agree that they suck ass in competitive play, and even in casual games its very often hard to get them working. which does not mean they are useless, because sometimes they are a bit useful.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Ya know, The way some people talk, you'd think Tau can take riptides as troops
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
BrianDavion wrote:Ya know, The way some people talk, you'd think Tau can take riptides as troops
well, they don't take riptides AS troops, but INSTEAD OF troops. close enough, sadly.
(what i mean is they spend 70% of the armies points on 5 riptides, and then just use two small filler units in the troops, instead of taking two riptides and an actual army to go around them)
46630
Post by: wowsmash
Ya that is the most boring game too, ugh.
38817
Post by: dracpanzer
Might be remembering the FW release wrong. But wouldn't VV's using the Fire Hawks traits be ablr to each get a handflamer for 5 points? And be scoring...
32325
Post by: Deschenus Maximus
 dracpanzer wrote:Might be remembering the FW release wrong. But wouldn't VV's using the Fire Hawks traits be ablr to each get a handflamer for 5 points? And be scoring...
You'd still be better off in getting ASM instead - They suck more but are at least reasonably cheap.
46630
Post by: wowsmash
But they don't have all the bling
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
well, if the OP still reads all of our rambles, here is my opinion on the initial question lol
as others said, if you play competitive games, forget the vanguard. like, really.
if you play more casual games, it depends a bit which armies you face and how you would intend to use them. the problem is (as said before) that their upgrades are really expensive.
i personally have 3 units of them, two are for apoc only, because they are fully fitted guys, and only in apoc where points dont matter can do something.
but i did actually use the other 5 man squad of vanguard in regular 40k games, fitted with nothing besides their basic gears, jumppacks, plus meltabombs for everyone. against people without tanks, they suck. but against IG, SM or or tank heavy xenos, very often they paid off, provided they landed close enough to their target to attack. they were somewhat 150 points, and just killing a single tank made them pay off their points.
and, you know, no tank i can think of can survive 5 meltabombs.
and deepstriking them right next to an immobilised vehicle is gold, as it blocks LOS to the unit completely, and you can get so close to it that it cant shoot you (IG Leman Russ for example).
problem is, that this trick does not work in 6th anymore, as they can no longer assault the same turn they arrive.
it might still work, provided you get a good position, but it is highly unlikely.
sternguard in a drop pod is a better option, whether with only bolters for using the special ammunition against infantry targets, or meltas and combimeltas for killing tanks.
they work a lot better in pretty much any circumstances, because they get to do their work the turn they arrive.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
Just don’t paint the helmets white and trim the shoulder pads with a company color. Use the non-crux shoulder pads. And have an awesome looking assault squad.
81831
Post by: SRSFACE
I really wish Jump units in general were more worth it, but with the deep discount across the board to everything, anything in jump packs is just a gimped biker. All the same downsides, none of the upsides, barely any cheaper, significantly worse shooting and upgrade options.
If Assault Squads and Vanguard Vets could use melta guns, they'd at least have a worthwhile option for upgrading weapons, making them a cheap anti-armor unit. Raptors can still do it, and they're moderately useful as a result. Still not as useful as Nurgle bikers, but they aren't something you can simply yawn and ignore.
11860
Post by: Martel732
BA ASM can get meltaguns. It doesn't help. 6th edition is not about anti-armor, except wave serpents, which two meltaguns have a poor chance of downing anyway.
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
.....in competitive games. do we want to start over again?
11860
Post by: Martel732
I would submit that in games where competition is not a factor, it doesn't matter what you put in your list. So of course those people won't understand the VV hate. Because they don't care or don't need to care because their opponents effectively pull punches by not caring about what they bring.
But seriously, why use melta in 6th when you can just glance armor to death and hull point them out? Or grav them to death. What vehicles do people actually care about other than Wave Serpents?
43972
Post by: GreyHamster
FistusMaximus wrote:
umm... i do think you may have missed that outside of mega-über-competitive "ineedtotableyoubeforeturnthreeorilosemyselfconfidenceOMG"-gameplay, in the casual games people enjoy, that is actually EXACTLY the reasons for ANY unit being on the board.
Riptides look awesome. I want to field five.
11860
Post by: Martel732
 GreyHamster wrote: FistusMaximus wrote:
umm... i do think you may have missed that outside of mega-über-competitive "ineedtotableyoubeforeturnthreeorilosemyselfconfidenceOMG"-gameplay, in the casual games people enjoy, that is actually EXACTLY the reasons for ANY unit being on the board.
Riptides look awesome. I want to field five.
LOL
77159
Post by: Paradigm
Just because people aren't playing to win a tournament against super-optimised list, it doesn't mean tactics suddenly become a non-issue. It's not like we randomly move the units around or just throw dice for everything. If anything, casual games are more about player skill that list-building, as people avoid the obviously OP units, so everything is on-the-whole more balanced, regardless, that is a tangent, the point is that tactics do still matter at that level, so just saying 'there's no point' is irrelevant. The most effective way to use unit X is no different whether you're playing at a top-end GT or a local beer-and-pretzels club night.
On topic, I've thought about it some more, and how to get the most of out the VV's ability to charge multiple units. I'm thinking that it might be a neat (if a little expensive) idea to bring a squad of 10, no upgrades apart from JP, and spread them behind youtr lines. That way, you can move them forward just before enemy assault units hit your line and charge 2-3 units. This is only really going to work against armies that specialise in multiple close assaults, like horde nids, orks and CC Dark Eldar, but might be a good way to use them, robbing multiple units of charge bonuses. Even if you don't win, you've at the least bought the rest of your army a turn to fall back away from the assaulters. It's not the best use of points, but it might be a way to make Vanguard useful.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
Paradigm wrote:
On topic, I've thought about it some more, and how to get the most of out the VV's ability to charge multiple units. I'm thinking that it might be a neat (if a little expensive) idea to bring a squad of 10, no upgrades apart from JP, and spread them behind youtr lines. That way, you can move them forward just before enemy assault units hit your line and charge 2-3 units. This is only really going to work against armies that specialise in multiple close assaults, like horde nids, orks and CC Dark Eldar, but might be a good way to use them, robbing multiple units of charge bonuses. Even if you don't win, you've at the least bought the rest of your army a turn to fall back away from the assaulters. It's not the best use of points, but it might be a way to make Vanguard useful.
Another idea to take advantage of the multi charge is to make sure one or two guys have melta bombs (Or if you are feeling frisky and spendy, thunderhammers or powerfists) If someone is tucked up next to a building or vehicle, you send one or two guys to blow it up, and the rest of the squad plows into the infantry.
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
GreyHamster wrote: FistusMaximus wrote:
umm... i do think you may have missed that outside of mega-über-competitive "ineedtotableyoubeforeturnthreeorilosemyselfconfidenceOMG"-gameplay, in the casual games people enjoy, that is actually EXACTLY the reasons for ANY unit being on the board.
Riptides look awesome. I want to field five.
okay, that was funny, i admit it
but realistically speaking, if a tau player comes up to me and says he wants to field a (means one) riptide because he likes the model, i'd have no problem with that. i agree, i kinda like the model.
but if he says "i want to field five, but believe me, ONLY because i like the looks", i'd only walk away. i would not even waste my time by laughing at him or saying anything. just walk away and find someone else to play against.
46630
Post by: wowsmash
Maybe use them in concert with other units to offer to many targets. Sure they can shoot em but that means they have to ignore something else...
43972
Post by: GreyHamster
FistusMaximus wrote: GreyHamster wrote: FistusMaximus wrote:
umm... i do think you may have missed that outside of mega-über-competitive "ineedtotableyoubeforeturnthreeorilosemyselfconfidenceOMG"-gameplay, in the casual games people enjoy, that is actually EXACTLY the reasons for ANY unit being on the board.
Riptides look awesome. I want to field five.
okay, that was funny, i admit it
but realistically speaking, if a tau player comes up to me and says he wants to field a (means one) riptide because he likes the model, i'd have no problem with that. i agree, i kinda like the model.
but if he says "i want to field five, but believe me, ONLY because i like the looks", i'd only walk away. i would not even waste my time by laughing at him or saying anything. just walk away and find someone else to play against.
See, you're rejecting the unit based on percieved power level, which is no different from what we're doing with VV, just on the other side of the spectrum. What if all five are actually painted to a fantastic standard with cohesive unit markings, wonderfully and creatively posed and based, complete with O'vesa even having a converted torso and gorgeous lettering to indicate him? They look so awesome, and by your own logic, deserve to be fielded.
There's a binary condition in play here. Either you care about competitiveness for selecting units, or you do not. If you do, then unit power level should be a factor in your decision making. If you do not, then your opinion doesn't take power level into account at all and is thus irrelevant to a discussion on power level.
For the record, I personally own Vanguard Veterans and Warp Talons because they are pretty. They only show up when I'm softballing a game so I can pull punches without the younger kids catching on that I did so. Competitiveness is still a factor in this decision, but in the other direction. I'm deliberately neutering the list so the youth can have a closer, more engaging game with their woefully uncompetitive collections. Dangling victory tantalizingly close is a better motivator to improve than a whitewashing. This logic only works BECAUSE of awareness of how bad the units are and even includes teaching moments like when Warp Talons charge someone in cover ("And this is why you need grenades").
76619
Post by: mrbossman
FistusMaximus wrote: GreyHamster wrote: FistusMaximus wrote:
umm... i do think you may have missed that outside of mega-über-competitive "ineedtotableyoubeforeturnthreeorilosemyselfconfidenceOMG"-gameplay, in the casual games people enjoy, that is actually EXACTLY the reasons for ANY unit being on the board.
Riptides look awesome. I want to field five.
okay, that was funny, i admit it
but realistically speaking, if a tau player comes up to me and says he wants to field a (means one) riptide because he likes the model, i'd have no problem with that. i agree, i kinda like the model.
but if he says "i want to field five, but believe me, ONLY because i like the looks", i'd only walk away. i would not even waste my time by laughing at him or saying anything. just walk away and find someone else to play against.
I play against a guy that fields 4 riptides because "they look like gundams"
I sure am glad he's not very good
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
GreyHamster wrote: FistusMaximus wrote: GreyHamster wrote:
See, you're rejecting the unit based on percieved power level, which is no different from what we're doing with VV, just on the other side of the spectrum. What if all five are actually painted to a fantastic standard with cohesive unit markings, wonderfully and creatively posed and based, complete with O'vesa even having a converted torso and gorgeous lettering to indicate him? They look so awesome, and by your own logic, deserve to be fielded.
i see you point, and i can partly agree. if it would be 3 of them, which fit in a normal list. but when he maxes it out with allies shenanigans to 5, then it does get a bit too much.
There's a binary condition in play here. Either you care about competitiveness for selecting units, or you do not. If you do, then unit power level should be a factor in your decision making. If you do not, then your opinion doesn't take power level into account at all and is thus irrelevant to a discussion on power level.
untrue. power level IS a factor in my decision making. in a way that i avoid putting too much power into my list to not overdo things depending on my opponent. and also, in a discussion about power level, shouldn't you take into account what the opponents are? because even an OP unit might have a unit its bad against. or an otherwise bad unit might have certain situations and opponents its good against.
For the record, I personally own Vanguard Veterans and Warp Talons because they are pretty. They only show up when I'm softballing a game so I can pull punches without the younger kids catching on that I did so. Competitiveness is still a factor in this decision, but in the other direction. I'm deliberately neutering the list so the youth can have a closer, more engaging game with their woefully uncompetitive collections. Dangling victory tantalizingly close is a better motivator to improve than a whitewashing. This logic only works BECAUSE of awareness of how bad the units are and even includes teaching moments like when Warp Talons charge someone in cover ("And this is why you need grenades").
pretty much what i said before about "lowering" list for weaker opponents, isn't it?
11860
Post by: Martel732
All this being said, I like VV better in 6th ed than 5th. Conceptually, they are very coo, but they can't help being meqs.
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
Martel732 wrote:All this being said, I like VV better in 6th ed than 5th. Conceptually, they are very coo, but they can't help being meqs.
i cant think of a reason why they are better in 6th than in 5th, apart from the points reduction... why do you think they are better? would like to hear that, maybe i am overlooking something?
11860
Post by: Martel732
FistusMaximus wrote:Martel732 wrote:All this being said, I like VV better in 6th ed than 5th. Conceptually, they are very coo, but they can't help being meqs.
i cant think of a reason why they are better in 6th than in 5th, apart from the points reduction... why do you think they are better? would like to hear that, maybe i am overlooking something?
Points reduction, cheap storm shields, multi-assault, and DS is/was crap, even with descent of angels. The VV 5th edition ability was a gimmick that got you to throw away expensive meqs. Although the bottom line with meqs, the cheaper the better, because they are gonna die.
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
Martel732 wrote:
Points reduction, cheap storm shields, multi-assault, and DS is/was crap, even with descent of angels. The VV 5th edition ability was a gimmick that got you to throw away expensive meqs. Although the bottom line with meqs, the cheaper the better, because they are gonna die.
i do disagree with the DS being crap, but it is a bit risky, yeah.
and the cheaper weapons options, points on you, didn't realize that until now.
one thing that blows is that they are now elites instead of fast attack, them being fast attack was cooler since it kept space in the elites for other stuff...
11860
Post by: Martel732
That's perfect for my purposes, as I think most marine elites suck out loud. Dreads: garbage, Terminators: garbage, Assault cents: garbage. Sure, there are sternguards, but unless I'm going drop pod, my elite slot is usually pretty empty.
Caveat: Iron clad dread w/double heavy flamer is okay. It's like a crappy fragnought.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
The thing with assaulting from deepstrike was it was more expensive then it looked. And VV were overpriced to start. If you wanted to reliably use the heroic intervention you needed to seed the table with locator beacons. Or have a much healthier relation to your scatter die then I do. BA could get a little bit more from it with the whole DoA thing. Vanilla Vanguard Veterans were just too random to rely on without a massive points investment.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Infiltrating these guys is potentially brutal with Shrike, but Shrike himself is a useless tool. So much fail in C:SM.
78869
Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae
As a Raven Guard player, I love Vanguard Veterans. But I havn't played in 2 years since 5th Ed, nevermind 6th.
I'm planning on eventually making a small 5 man squad all armed with Stormshields and the Sgt equipped with a thunder hammer (though they'll all be magnetised so I can swap out the weapons) to act as a bodyguard for my Captain/Chapter Master to soak up fire and allow him to do the real damage. The Captain would use the Shield Eternal and Burning Blade or a Relic Blade.
11860
Post by: Martel732
I think that squads of 10 with 3-4 stormshields that move in front in case of ion accelerators would be more efficient. Give them meltabombs to threaten any target.
78869
Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae
Martel732 wrote:I think that squads of 10 with 3-4 stormshields that move in front in case of ion accelerators would be more efficient. Give them meltabombs to threaten any target.
Well I'm more of a fluff player than competitive & efficient . I'm making an absurdly expensive (though magnetised) beatstick melee Captain with a bodyguard of 5 Vanguard Veterans with storm shields not because I expect it to be effective but because it'll be cool and fluffy.
Edit: I'll also use lots of fast MSUs Infiltrating (Scouts), Scouting (Rhino borne Sternguard and footslogging Devestators), Deepstriking (Tactical Squads in Drop Pods) or just outright fast (2 x 5 Assault Squads and a Storm Talon) to create Target Saturation and draw fire away from the Captain and Veterans.
I'm very much a casual player, so I don't expect to be playing Escalation or Stronghold Assault.
83361
Post by: Verstaka
FistusMaximus wrote:well, if the OP still reads all of our rambles, here is my opinion on the initial question lol
Not gone, just had a paper that needed working on last night. Also didn't expect to see the thread revived on a scale such as this. Looks like the big spiel now is competitive play vs playing for the sake of fun. I consider myself a member of the latter, especially with 40K. I mean come on, if we wanted to be playing a balanced game there's plenty of other options both historical and fictional. The main reason I even got back into 40K is for the great looking models and the insanity that makes up this game and I feel in the end thats why many of us have stuck around or gotten into this game as well despite the outrageous prices. Is it annoying as feth sometimes to face a cheesy list that we've seen copied and pasted in countless forums and army comp videos.
Opinions aside I think I can agree now, even if some of the arguments got repetitive, that Vanguards don't meet the standard set for assault troops anymore between price and fragility though I do want to play devil's advocate for a moment. Let's say that the squad makes it to enemy lines relatively intact, say 2/3 of the original squad size, do we see a chance for them to earn their points? Maybe this is just from my 3 years of playing Warmachne but there were plenty of times when my Doom Reavers (berzerking criminals with broadswords as large as themselves) would get wiped out or suffer heavy casualties before reaching another unit. If the first happened I was fine with it as people were frightened of what they COULD do should they close the gap so the rest of my army was relatively unscathed those first two turns. The latter option wasn't a big deal either since even at reduced strength they would continue to cause havoc with my opponent, even if it only kept a unit from shooting.
Now I'm not saying Vanguard's cost is justified but if played smart does anyone else feel that even the top tier armies (Tau, Eldar, etc) would focus fire on them as they would be frightened of what they COULD do?
11860
Post by: Martel732
I think any fast moving troop will be focused by Tau/Eldar. The actual CC power doesn't matter, they just stop stuff from shooting. But any REAL CC troops will beat up ASM or VV.
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
Verstaka wrote:
Opinions aside I think I can agree now, even if some of the arguments got repetitive, that Vanguards don't meet the standard set for assault troops anymore between price and fragility though I do want to play devil's advocate for a moment. Let's say that the squad makes it to enemy lines relatively intact, say 2/3 of the original squad size, do we see a chance for them to earn their points?
as i said, it depends on enemies and loadout. my 140 points 5 man with meltabombs earned their points back in multitude, just killing a single russ made them be worth their points. still a risky gamble, but definitey a fun one in casual games!
Now I'm not saying Vanguard's cost is justified but if played smart does anyone else feel that even the top tier armies (Tau, Eldar, etc) would focus fire on them as they would be frightened of what they COULD do?
they would, but due to tau and eldar's pretty heavy shooting, given its a very competitive list, it would be a short attention they'll need to give to the vanguard to wipe them out. not worth it, really.
now, back in casual games, the distraction they cause can be massive lol
43972
Post by: GreyHamster
FistusMaximus wrote: GreyHamster wrote:
See, you're rejecting the unit based on percieved power level, which is no different from what we're doing with VV, just on the other side of the spectrum. What if all five are actually painted to a fantastic standard with cohesive unit markings, wonderfully and creatively posed and based, complete with O'vesa even having a converted torso and gorgeous lettering to indicate him? They look so awesome, and by your own logic, deserve to be fielded.
i see you point, and i can partly agree. if it would be 3 of them, which fit in a normal list. but when he maxes it out with allies shenanigans to 5, then it does get a bit too much.
There's a binary condition in play here. Either you care about competitiveness for selecting units, or you do not. If you do, then unit power level should be a factor in your decision making. If you do not, then your opinion doesn't take power level into account at all and is thus irrelevant to a discussion on power level.
untrue. power level IS a factor in my decision making. in a way that i avoid putting too much power into my list to not overdo things depending on my opponent. and also, in a discussion about power level, shouldn't you take into account what the opponents are? because even an OP unit might have a unit its bad against. or an otherwise bad unit might have certain situations and opponents its good against.
For the record, I personally own Vanguard Veterans and Warp Talons because they are pretty. They only show up when I'm softballing a game so I can pull punches without the younger kids catching on that I did so. Competitiveness is still a factor in this decision, but in the other direction. I'm deliberately neutering the list so the youth can have a closer, more engaging game with their woefully uncompetitive collections. Dangling victory tantalizingly close is a better motivator to improve than a whitewashing. This logic only works BECAUSE of awareness of how bad the units are and even includes teaching moments like when Warp Talons charge someone in cover ("And this is why you need grenades").
pretty much what i said before about "lowering" list for weaker opponents, isn't it?
5 Riptides is straightforwardly legal. Any problems with it would relate more to potential weaknesses like wound saturation and scoring potential.
If power level is a factor to you, then you are evaluating the competitiveness of the unit. If there is a unit that the so-called OP unit is bad against, then you have to take into consideration the power of that potential counter. If it's only countered by some awful unit that no one takes due to extreme cost inefficiency, you can probably entirely disregard it. If the situation arises freqeuntly enough that a bad unit is useful, then it's not actually a bad unit, it's just poor initial evaluation. If it's not frequent enough, then the unit is still bad. If a unit is only useful against other low efficiency units, they can be written off. 40k doesn't have bizarre edge cases where generally awful things suddenly become useful, like the card One with Nothing in Magic the Gathering. In general, units are strong because they are very broadly useful and strong against pretty much anything you might expect to run into. A Screamerstar or seerstar can fight just about anything and take minimal damage. An ion accelerator is a threatening weapon against almost any list construct. This makes them good. Vanguard Veterans have a very narrow band of targets they are efficient against and are bad. Because, say, a Centurion Dev squad could kill everything in the same target band AND kill a substantial number of other things at the same price point.
If you're avoiding overloading power in the list as I am during instructive games, you're still acknowledging that a unit is bad. When I lower the list power level, the goal is to teach the youngsters WHY such units are weak and allow them to up their game down the line. The point is to encourage better play later, because they're still in the learning phase of the game. You are saying, 'My opponent is bad, so I'll just be bad." I am saying "My opponent is inexperienced, so I will teach him why things are bad.'
As to the OP's return question, you won't be able to make VV threatening enough that the top armies will be forced to deal with them inefficiently. They're too expensive and will get fed disposable fire warrior squads or jetbike units so they can never make a meaningful charge.
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
GreyHamster wrote:
5 Riptides is straightforwardly legal. Any problems with it would relate more to potential weaknesses like wound saturation and scoring potential.
i know it's legal? i am just saying i will not believe somebody who uses fluff for explaining why his army is 80% of his points in riptides.
As to the OP's return question, you won't be able to make VV threatening enough that the top armies will be forced to deal with them inefficiently. They're too expensive and will get fed disposable fire warrior squads or jetbike units so they can never make a meaningful charge.
this repeats exactly what i have stated.
11860
Post by: Martel732
To strike a balance, I think 10 VV with 3-4 stormshields and melta bombs led by a character with 2+ armor can be a threat. This is not cheap, and bikers led by characters are better, but it's still got some punch to it. In a "casual" game, this could actually be pretty brutal.
73050
Post by: Tyberos the Red Wake
Casual players who only possess knowledge of casual play should stick to making comments and observations that are related to their field of specialty, which makes for a largely irrelevant and unhelpful discussion.
If you're not a competitive player, you don't exactly have the knowledge, experience, or reason to discuss a unit's uses from a competitive standpoint.
And all tactics that aim to improve generalship or increase chance of match wins are competitive in nature.
Spamming VVs with wargear, or taking VVs at all might be fun and fluffy for casual play, but it's simply not good or competitive. How you guys can have 4 pages of arguing over Vanguards is beyond me.
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:Casual players who only possess knowledge of casual play should stick to making comments and observations that are related to their field of specialty, which makes for a largely irrelevant and unhelpful discussion.
If you're not a competitive player, you don't exactly have the knowledge, experience, or reason to discuss a unit's uses from a competitive standpoint.
.
besides this being pretty insulting, essentially calling all non-competitive players incompetent (thanks a lot for that, sir), may i politely remind you that just a couple posts up, the OP stated he is a casual player and such wants this answered from a casual standpoint?
43972
Post by: GreyHamster
FistusMaximus wrote: GreyHamster wrote:
5 Riptides is straightforwardly legal. Any problems with it would relate more to potential weaknesses like wound saturation and scoring potential.
i know it's legal? i am just saying i will not believe somebody who uses fluff for explaining why his army is 80% of his points in riptides.
As to the OP's return question, you won't be able to make VV threatening enough that the top armies will be forced to deal with them inefficiently. They're too expensive and will get fed disposable fire warrior squads or jetbike units so they can never make a meaningful charge.
this repeats exactly what i have stated.
I started writing before you posted, so I left it there. It's a forum, that obviously happens from time to time, no need to get snippy about it.
And frankly, what's wrong with the fluff? The guy made an experimental Cadre that's testing mass deployment of the suits, overseen by Farsight and the most qualified of the Eight to observe. Besides, giant mecha are awesome.
Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:Casual players who only possess knowledge of casual play should stick to making comments and observations that are related to their field of specialty, which makes for a largely irrelevant and unhelpful discussion.
If you're not a competitive player, you don't exactly have the knowledge, experience, or reason to discuss a unit's uses from a competitive standpoint.
And all tactics that aim to improve generalship or increase chance of match wins are competitive in nature.
Spamming VVs with wargear, or taking VVs at all might be fun and fluffy for casual play, but it's simply not good or competitive. How you guys can have 4 pages of arguing over Vanguards is beyond me.
This is why you read more than the thread title before posting. It's possible to be aware of competitive play while playing casually.
73050
Post by: Tyberos the Red Wake
You're free to interpret the post however you want. The fact that "if you're not a competitive player...you're not a competitive player" remains is something neither of us can change.
If you haven't noticed, Carcharodons aren't exactly the most competitive army.
And even the "well for casual play..." excuse is bogus. The minute any player wisens up and uses any sort of decent strategy, regardless of how casual or competitive that player is, a lot of stuff gets sunk. Your argument is essentially "If my opponent doesn't try to win and doesn't do anything remotely efficient, then this will work!".
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
GreyHamster wrote:
I started writing before you posted, so I left it there. It's a forum, that obviously happens from time to time, no need to get snippy about it.
okay, makes sense, i apologise then for being a bit harsh.
And frankly, what's wrong with the fluff? The guy made an experimental Cadre that's testing mass deployment of the suits, overseen by Farsight and the most qualified of the Eight to observe. Besides, giant mecha are awesome.
i think we both should stop and call it a day now, as we both wouldn't give in an inch on this debate about fluffyness of 5 'tides (and you know that as well as i do! )
78869
Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae
Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:Casual players who only possess knowledge of casual play should stick to making comments and observations that are related to their field of specialty, which makes for a largely irrelevant and unhelpful discussion.
If you're not a competitive player, you don't exactly have the knowledge, experience, or reason to discuss a unit's uses from a competitive standpoint.
And all tactics that aim to improve generalship or increase chance of match wins are competitive in nature.
Spamming VVs with wargear, or taking VVs at all might be fun and fluffy for casual play, but it's simply not good or competitive. How you guys can have 4 pages of arguing over Vanguards is beyond me.
Riiiiight.
So you're only allowed to voice your own opinion if you can prove your expertise at 40K.
My Ignore list grows once more.
77159
Post by: Paradigm
Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:Casual players who only possess knowledge of casual play should stick to making comments and observations that are related to their field of specialty, which makes for a largely irrelevant and unhelpful discussion.
If you're not a competitive player, you don't exactly have the knowledge, experience, or reason to discuss a unit's uses from a competitive standpoint.
And all tactics that aim to improve generalship or increase chance of match wins are competitive in nature.
I must say that I entirely disagree with this.
Firstly, there is a huge difference between knowing what is the best/most competitive/ OP choice/tactic and using that yourself. I only ever play casual games myself, but spend enough time reading/watching batreps and forums to be familiar with the competitive side of the game. I (and many others) am perfectly capable of discussing competitive tactics from a theoretical standpoint, despite not participating in this myself.
If the question was purely 'can I take Vanguard Veterans to a top tournament and use them to win?', I would join the chorus of people saying 'no', because at the level where you see the likes of Screamerstars, Triptides and Seer Councils left right and centre, Vanguard veterans do not stack up. All the points that have been made against them are valid in this regard.
However, the OP has stated that he is not looking to play at this level of competition, and has expressed an interest in using Vanguard Veterans as well as other SM assault units. Therefore, this indicates he is aware of but not bothered by the perceived lack of competitiveness, and is asking not 'should the units be used?' but rather 'how to use them?'. In this respect, the posts about how they are going to fall apart to top-level competitive builds is largely irrelevant. It's like saying that paintball gear won't save you from a sniper rifle. Therefore, while we can all accept said units are far from the optimum choice, that does not mean discussion of how to get the most from them is irrelevant. Just in the last page, there have been a couple of ways suggested that would make them useful, if not perfect, for a list, and that's probably far more useful to the OP than all those saying 'don't bother with them'.
To your last point, yes, anything that aims to improve the chance of success is competitive by definition, but I think everyone on these boards is aware that, in this particular context, competitive refers to tournament-level gaming.
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:Casual players who only possess knowledge of casual play should stick to making comments and observations that are related to their field of specialty, which makes for a largely irrelevant and unhelpful discussion.
If you're not a competitive player, you don't exactly have the knowledge, experience, or reason to discuss a unit's uses from a competitive standpoint.
And all tactics that aim to improve generalship or increase chance of match wins are competitive in nature.
Spamming VVs with wargear, or taking VVs at all might be fun and fluffy for casual play, but it's simply not good or competitive. How you guys can have 4 pages of arguing over Vanguards is beyond me.
Riiiiight.
So you're only allowed to voice your own opinion if you can prove your expertise at 40K.
My Ignore list grows once more.
THIS.
thank you sir, now i know i am not the only person who thinks his statement is a slap into the face of large parts of the gaming community.
83361
Post by: Verstaka
Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:If you're not a competitive player, you don't exactly have the knowledge, experience, or reason to discuss a unit's uses from a competitive standpoint.
Wow, had no idea that just because I don't like spamming Riptides, Heldrakes or Wave Serpents I have no knowledge or reason to discuss a way to make a unit that sees no play potentially effective on the table. I will concede experience since I haven't even read the entirety of the 6th ed rulebook yet but I like to think I have a good grasp on tactics since I've been playing various wargames since 2007.
83684
Post by: FistusMaximus
Paradigm wrote:
Firstly, there is a huge difference between knowing what is the best/most competitive/ OP choice/tactic and using that yourself. I only ever play casual games myself, but spend enough time reading/watching batreps and forums to be familiar with the competitive side of the game. I (and many others) am perfectly capable of discussing competitive tactics from a theoretical standpoint, despite not participating in this myself.
this is true for me too, but apparently, not wanting to play in a super competitive way somehow magically makes me unqualified in the eyes of Tyberos.
However, the OP has stated that he is not looking to play at this level of competition, and has expressed an interest in using Vanguard Veterans as well as other SM assault units. Therefore, this indicates he is aware of but not bothered by the perceived lack of competitiveness, and is asking not 'should the units be used?' but rather 'how to use them?'. In this respect, the posts about how they are going to fall apart to top-level competitive builds is largely irrelevant. It's like saying that paintball gear won't save you from a sniper rifle. Therefore, while we can all accept said units are far from the optimum choice, that does not mean discussion of how to get the most from them is irrelevant. Just in the last page, there have been a couple of ways suggested that would make them useful, if not perfect, for a list, and that's probably far more useful to the OP than all those saying 'don't bother with them'.
i tried to make that point several times now, but up to now without effect.
i fully agree with what you said, especially regarding the OP's intention with the question (jeez, he even said it by himself that he is not a competitive player, why do people STILL continue rambling about VV not being a powerful unit against Taudar?)
78869
Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae
Anyway, I thought the consensus was that Warhammer 40K was a horribly unbalanced and poorly written though fun game with GW's intended target demographic being casual beer & pretzel gamers, not Competitive tournament players?
Being GW's main target demographic, surely my opinion is at least partially relevant?
Have I gone through the Looking Glass and arrived in a world in which Warhammer 40K is a game written by and for competitive gamers?
81831
Post by: SRSFACE
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Anyway, I thought the consensus was that Warhammer 40K was a horribly unbalanced and poorly written though fun game with GW's intended target demographic being casual beer & pretzel gamers, not Competitive tournament players?
Being GW's main target demographic, surely my opinion is at least partially relevant?
Have I gone through the Looking Glass and arrived in a world in which Warhammer 40K is a game written by and for competitive gamers?
Exalted.
At my FLGS, we're gearing for an April Kill Team tournament, and it's actually got the player base around here more excited than anything else we've done in 6E. The competitive guys are racking their brains with every last build they can think of, the collectors are excited they'll actually have an excuse to field some of their lesser competitive units, the new players are happy they'll be able to play toy soldiers for only $50 bucks, and the store itself is happy because people are buying at least one new kit, and paints and such.
And everyone is happy there won't be any D weapons, flyers, or undercosted-yet-totally-unstoppable monstrous creatures.
77020
Post by: turgon868
I'll be trying out a squad with no jump packs, a few power weapons and a chaplain charging out of a Stormraven Gunship. I am under no illusions over whether it's a strong choice or not. Should be a fun one in less competitive games though.
They are beautiful models, worth some effort.
77159
Post by: Paradigm
Hmm, that does sound interesting. The obvious drawback is no assault unitl T3, but then you'd be lucky to get one before that anyway. The Chaplain should certainly help them out. Just make sure you have other tanks/flyers so that the Raven is not just blown away as soon as you hover.
Let us know how it goes.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
For what it’s worth, I picked up a box of the Vanguard Vets when they came out, and assembled them as:
(With jump packs)
Sarge - LC/SS
One - Power axe/SS
One - BP/CCW, meltabomb
Two - BP/CCW (basic)
They are still awaiting paint, and so this is just a theoretical shelf deployment. But it’s my balance of point cost to getting the job done. Keep in mind they would almost always be escorting a HQ, either a bare bones chaplain, or a TH/LC captain (with jump packs)
|
|
