So with the ability to make your own chapter, I thought about picking up space marines to make Angry Marines for fun games. The problem with primaris is that they don’t have all the close combat options as og marines, meaning I can’t say that the power boot I modeled is actually just a power glove.
The question I have is are tacticals good enough for pickup runs games or should I just wait till they decide to give primaris melee weapons?
Intercessors can take fists, chainswords and thunderhammers on their sgts, and even make them +1D relics for 1CP. You will never need more deadly ground infantry. And who knows maybe in the future GW will make primaris melee bikers or jump pack armed melee dudes.
Only non primaris stuff that is really worth taking are jump pack HQs.
Tacticals can still work fine. You have cheep bodies to shield special/heavy weapons, options on the sarges, etc. But honestly, if you are going angry, go primaris. 2A base for the boys, with 3 on the sarge. +1 for the charge, and anything else you can leverage.
As stated, intercessors have some nice options, and a good number of base attacks. Plenty enough to get some anger on the table. Primaris captains also have some good choices, not the full gamut, but enough to get some licks in.
For the non-troop picks there are less stompy/stabby options for the new kids. If you just want to put the boot in, Inceptors have the crushing charge rule. And Suppressors look to have the same footwear, but no rules to back it up.
Reivers have very “Meh” rules, but fit the theme like a glove.
You can always mix in some old units. A squad of Vanguard Vets still brings some chop to the table.
Karol wrote: Intercessors can take fists, chainswords and thunderhammers on their sgts, and even make them +1D relics for 1CP. You will never need more deadly ground infantry. And who knows maybe in the future GW will make primaris melee bikers or jump pack armed melee dudes.
Only non primaris stuff that is really worth taking are jump pack HQs.
Intercessor sergeants can take Power Swords too.
I don't know I'd go so far as just the jump pack HQs being worth it.
- I expect when Primaris do get assault-type troops they'll probably be armed similar to Shrike, with the price tag that entails, but Chainsword bikers are very much in the vicinity of faster, tougher Intercessors. They can even take all the same Sergeant weapon upgrades, although they don't leverage them quite as well.
- If the aesthetics of the unit don't bother you (a big if I'll admit) Centurions are designed very much like a Primaris unit. Assault Cents are like Aggressors that require less babysitting. Centurion Devastators are probably still too expensive outside of an IF list, but they can put out a frankly silly number of wounds with the right support.
- A raw stat comparison of Teminators to Aggressors makes GW's stance that classic Marines aren't going away look almost insultingly flimsy, but I've been playing them lately and I'm starting to think I was underestimating how much native DS is actually worth. Encirclement and it's equivalent in RG are very expensive strats, and sometimes DS has let me drop Terms into blind spots that I couldn't have reached with a more points-efficient unit.
- Speaking of which, everything I just said about Terminators applies to characters in Terminator armor.
- Company Vets with Storm Shields and Stormbolters cost about as much as an Intercessor, but W1 3++ is vulnerable to very different weapons from W2 3+. Sometimes it's worth it.
- And on the original topic, a basic Tac squad is 25 points cheaper than a basic Intercessor squad, and sometimes you really need to shave 25 points from a list. Sure, Scouts are only five points cheaper, but sometimes the 3+ is worth it.
Droo Pods are great, and those are non-Primaris. Grav-Cannons are great too, and you won't see those on Primaris either.
Edit: Also, you can just buy a squad of Tacticals, paint Veteran basges on them and call them Sternguard with special issue bolters, which are pretty good. The Tactical Doctrine will have them shooting bolters with a -3 AP on them. Pew pew!
Not only are they not worth the price of buying but they’re not worth the time to assemble and paint. You’re better off with scouts or intercessors depending on what role you need filled.
Kommisar wrote: Not only are they not worth the price of buying but they’re not worth the time to assemble and paint. You’re better off with scouts or intercessors depending on what role you need filled.
I want to argue with you about that, but it's not easy. If I had to do it over from the start of 8th I wouldn't have picked up any Classic Marines at all outside of bikes and Centurions, with the possible exception of a single Tac squad to use as Scouts since I think the Scout models have aged really poorly.
They're worth getting if you want to play 30k with them but the 40k Marine rules are built to sell Primaris models. Maybe when 9th Edition comes out they'll think "hey, we got everyone to buy Primaris models by making old-Marines redundant, maybe we should make Primaris bad and old-Marines good this edition and do some new sculpts."
AnomanderRake wrote: They're worth getting if you want to play 30k with them but the 40k Marine rules are built to sell Primaris models. Maybe when 9th Edition comes out they'll think "hey, we got everyone to buy Primaris models by making old-Marines redundant, maybe we should make Primaris bad and old-Marines good this edition and do some new sculpts."
If you really wanted to go all in on tactical marines you'd need about 80 of them as ultramarine's sucessors or imperial fist.
It can work. You really need the counts as in cover trait and probably expert marksmen for sucessors and imperial fist get by with storming on foot into range and generating buckets of dice.
The key advantage of the tactical is they take better advantage of +1 attack abilties and on death banner ability. Ultras can give them +2 attacks in a 6" aura. So for 1 turn at least you can have tacticals up to 4 attacks each and with a str5 from a chaplain dread.
Ultimately the intercessors are a better choice as the base ap-1 makes them a lot more versatile (can engage 2+ saves and 3+ in cover) and fit a lot more power into a smaller space.
I feel like there's a lot of mis-information about the usefulness of old marines here.
These are the relative point efficiencies of some tacs versus some primaris - damage given and damage taken all relative to the unit cost with only bolter weapons double tapping. Obviously the 30"/36" range is advantageous to Primaris, but they're not as efficient as Old marine configs at any job.
It isn't as simple as herp derp GW hates old marines.
Daedalus81 wrote: I feel like there's a lot of mis-information about the usefulness of old marines here.
These are the relative point efficiencies of some tacs versus some primaris - damage given and damage taken all relative to the unit cost with only bolter weapons double tapping. Obviously the 30"/36" range is advantageous to Primaris, but they're not as efficient as Old marine configs at any job.
It isn't as simple as herp derp GW hates old marines.
That's why ultras tacs are best because they are always rapid firing turn 2. I've been thinking about massing bolter marines but that be such a waste to finish painting them. I already got 50 painted intercessors. The principle reason that intercessors out perform is due to range and they are easier to fit in auras too. In the end - tacs are going to outdamage intercessors point per point if in rangeand the outsuvive vs special weapons too. Tacs are still reasonably resistant to ap-0 anything - ESP if always in cover. However - that range disadvantage can not be overstated. It is a massive consideration. Good luck facing admech casteallan robots with tactical marines :(.
I'm going to have to come back later to do the math on the efficiencies, but when it comes to getting forward and taking objectives Autobolter Intercessors feel like the best troop choice available to Marines by a wide margin.
I want to write up a big rant on the topic but the tl:dnr version is DakkaDakka wants to boil everything down to points efficiency and I think that ignores too many things that matter on the table.
The Newman wrote: I'm going to have to come back later to do the math on the efficiencies, but when it comes to getting forward and taking objectives Autobolter Intercessors feel like the best troop choice available to Marines by a wide margin.
I want to write up a big rant on the topic but the tl:dnr version is DakkaDakka wants to boil everything down to points efficiency and I think that ignores too many things that matter on the table.
Auto bolters are great. Fantastic even. I think everyone is even agreeing with you that intercessors are a better choice. It's just tacs aren't as worthless as people say they are now.
The Newman wrote: I'm going to have to come back later to do the math on the efficiencies, but when it comes to getting forward and taking objectives Autobolter Intercessors feel like the best troop choice available to Marines by a wide margin.
I want to write up a big rant on the topic but the tl:dnr version is DakkaDakka wants to boil everything down to points efficiency and I think that ignores too many things that matter on the table.
Auto bolters are great. Fantastic even. I think everyone is even agreeing with you that intercessors are a better choice. It's just tacs aren't as worthless as people say they are now.
I was responding to Daedalus81 and Xenomancer who both said that Tacs are more points-efficient than Intercessors, particularly under UM, and basically claimed Tacs are the better option.
Kommisar wrote: Not only are they not worth the price of buying but they’re not worth the time to assemble and paint. You’re better off with scouts or intercessors depending on what role you need filled.
I want to argue with you about that, but it's not easy. If I had to do it over from the start of 8th I wouldn't have picked up any Classic Marines at all outside of bikes and Centurions, with the possible exception of a single Tac squad to use as Scouts since I think the Scout models have aged really poorly.
Martel732 wrote: Points efficiency directly translates on the table.
Tacs, esp geared tacs, bleed points really fast.
Don't give them gear except for a storm bolter. Survive turn 1. Shoot bolters. Get into combat preferably near a chaplain dread and chapter master. They are pretty good at this now with the successor trait to always count as in cover.
Kommisar wrote: Not only are they not worth the price of buying but they’re not worth the time to assemble and paint. You’re better off with scouts or intercessors depending on what role you need filled.
I want to argue with you about that, but it's not easy. If I had to do it over from the start of 8th I wouldn't have picked up any Classic Marines at all outside of bikes and Centurions, with the possible exception of a single Tac squad to use as Scouts since I think the Scout models have aged really poorly.
The metal ones still hold up!
Truth. Old metal scouts are fantastic, and have stood the test of time.
The modern snipers are not horrible, but the CCW/Shotgun/Bolter scout box is dumpster fire of failure.
The Newman wrote: I'm going to have to come back later to do the math on the efficiencies, but when it comes to getting forward and taking objectives Autobolter Intercessors feel like the best troop choice available to Marines by a wide margin.
I want to write up a big rant on the topic but the tl:dnr version is DakkaDakka wants to boil everything down to points efficiency and I think that ignores too many things that matter on the table.
Auto bolters are great. Fantastic even. I think everyone is even agreeing with you that intercessors are a better choice. It's just tacs aren't as worthless as people say they are now.
I was responding to Daedalus81 and Xenomancer who both said that Tacs are more points-efficient than Intercessors, particularly under UM, and basically claimed Tacs are the better option.
If you could manage to close the distance and take away the intercessors primary advantage of range - they would out brawl the intercessors is the point Daedalus was making. In game terms - +6 inch range and equal movement makes that almost impossible though. Range is the key issue here. Autobolters also have the excellent ability to advance and shoot 3 shots another huge advantage.
Bolt Rifles 10 x .666 x .5 x .666 = 2.21
2.21 total
----------------------------
5 Tactical w/Plasma, Combi-Plasma vs. Primaris - Tactical Doctrine
Bolters 6 x .666 x .5 x .5 = .999
Plasma Overcharged 4 x .666 x .83 x 2 = 4.4
5.4 total
---------------------------
Because of their gear options, well used Tacticals can out-damage the Primaris Marines, especially against heavier/more elite targets. Imo this all comes down to play style. If you want to march up and soak D1 wounds while dishing out reasonable firepower, Primaris are for you. But if you want to hit fast and hard, classics are the way to go.
Another example:
Bolt Rifles vs. T7 3+ Tactical Doctrine. 10 x .666 x .333 x .666 = 1.47
Lascannon vs. T7 3+ Devastators Doctrine .666 x .666 x 3.5 = 1.55
Bolters (same variables) .666 x .333 x .333 = .59
A single Lascannon out performes the entire Primaris Squad, even if the Primaris are rapid firing. In this example, the Tacticals can engage the vehicle better than the Primaris with just their Lascannon (and at greater range), and use their bolters to shoot nearby troops for even more efficiency.
Martel732 wrote: Points efficiency directly translates on the table.
Tacs, esp geared tacs, bleed points really fast.
sometimes units have things going for it that mathhammer doesn't account for. take smash captains,
A space Marine Captain with a storm sheild and thunder hammer is 127 points
A space Marine Captain with a storm shield, thunderhammer and Jumppack is 146 points. now on paper purely doing the mathhammer, the first option is the cheaper, but EVERYONE agrees the jump pack is worth the extra points.
The Newman wrote: I'm going to have to come back later to do the math on the efficiencies, but when it comes to getting forward and taking objectives Autobolter Intercessors feel like the best troop choice available to Marines by a wide margin.
I want to write up a big rant on the topic but the tl:dnr version is DakkaDakka wants to boil everything down to points efficiency and I think that ignores too many things that matter on the table.
I got you fam (they aren't). ABRs come into AP at turn 3. Here's the thing - 3 shots means a bigger upper range of models killed, so, they are useful with some considerations in mind. Just like old marines are useful with some considerations in mind.
I don't want to boil things down to points efficiency. I want to dispel the absurd notion that old marines are useless. Do you know what would happen if I had masked the unit names? People would have picked Primaris as the ones doing the most damage, because the forum has a clear mental bias that Primaris are the best bar none.
Martel732 wrote: Its really hard to give up that wound. Esp for ba who want to get close.
Which is fair, and you can do that.
The thing is I can pack so much D2+ into a list that I'm okay giving up the extra wound for deployment flexibility and guaranteed alpha strikes (Drop Pods).
Martel732 wrote: Its really hard to give up that wound. Esp for ba who want to get close.
Which is fair, and you can do that.
The thing is I can pack so much D2+ into a list that I'm okay giving up the extra wound for deployment flexibility and guaranteed alpha strikes (Drop Pods).
Oh - I forgot that ABRs are still 1 point so those stats are a bit worse.
In any case, yes, old marines can alpha strike the gak out of primaris with high AP multi-damage weapons to a point where the wound advantage disappears. Just because you don't see units on top tables does not always mean they're bad units.
Simple, 24" is the average engagement range of chaff.
Bolter discipline doubles your output above theirs.
Auras affect multiple of your units.
On average to force a 10 man squads to flee or be irrelevant you need to kill about 5-6 ,meaning that half a 10 squad or a 5 man squad should suffice.
Loyalists would of course pick allways 5 man squads due to not really having the necessary stratagems requireing bigger squads so you then also gain further durability due to that.
Prolong the fire fight, engage on your terms via smart moves and use of terrain.
Add in a hammer and that is the whole trick to make this style of list work.
Ofccsm got other helping tools for such a playstyle.( Red corsairs especially are hillarious because 2 battalions=16 cp fueling your stratagems to the Limit. Also recycling is hillarious.)
Martel732 wrote: But what about the field? Not all opponents are primaris. Old marines crumble to mortals so easily.
The field is solving for Primaris - disintegrators, night spinners, etc. There's an upper limit to the number of bullets/smites/etc that can be in range of desired targets. 3 Nightspinners can theoretically kill 9.3 Primaris the whole game, but only 9.3 old marines.
None of this means old marines are what you should use, but they shouldn't be what you avoid, because of words from paranoid people on the forums.
The Newman wrote: I'm going to have to come back later to do the math on the efficiencies, but when it comes to getting forward and taking objectives Autobolter Intercessors feel like the best troop choice available to Marines by a wide margin.
I want to write up a big rant on the topic but the tl:dnr version is DakkaDakka wants to boil everything down to points efficiency and I think that ignores too many things that matter on the table.
I got you fam (they aren't). ABRs come into AP at turn 3. Here's the thing - 3 shots means a bigger upper range of models killed, so, they are useful with some considerations in mind. Just like old marines are useful with some considerations in mind.
I don't want to boil things down to points efficiency. I want to dispel the absurd notion that old marines are useless. Do you know what would happen if I had masked the unit names? People would have picked Primaris as the ones doing the most damage, because the forum has a clear mental bias that Primaris are the best bar none.
You just said that people would choose the Primaris units if you masked the names so they wouldn't know which unit was Primaris because they're biased in favor of Primaris. You can't possibly have said that correctly.
(If you meant it the way I think you meant it then I have to disagree. I started with pure classic Marines in 8th because I really didn't like the Primaris units and the more I gave the Primaris units a chance the less use I had for the classic Marines, but I can't be sure what you actually meant.)
You just said that people would choose the Primaris units if you masked the names so they wouldn't know which unit was Primaris because they're biased in favor of Primaris. You can't possibly have said that correctly.
(If you meant it the way I think you meant it then I have to disagree. I started with pure classic Marines in 8th because I really didn't like the Primaris units and the more I gave the Primaris units a chance the less use I had for the classic Marines, but I can't be sure what you actually meant.)
Sorry, to rephrase - in a blind test people always pick the biggest numbers as being associated with Primaris (it happened a lot in a previous such experiment).
You just said that people would choose the Primaris units if you masked the names so they wouldn't know which unit was Primaris because they're biased in favor of Primaris. You can't possibly have said that correctly.
(If you meant it the way I think you meant it then I have to disagree. I started with pure classic Marines in 8th because I really didn't like the Primaris units and the more I gave the Primaris units a chance the less use I had for the classic Marines, but I can't be sure what you actually meant.)
Sorry, to rephrase - in a blind test people always pick the biggest numbers as being associated with Primaris (it happened a lot in a previous such experiment).
Ah. Can't argue with that.
I do think it's worth pointing out that which Troop selections are worth owning is a very "what's the best way to arrange these deck chairs" sort of discussion. The whole reason GW increased the CP generation on Battalions and Brigades was basically bribing Marine players to actually use any troops.
i still find blue tide works decently well, basically pure tactical marines with a few hqs for buffs. added bonus, you can get tacticals pretty cheap used. sub $20 for 10 man squads painted or unpainted and shipped on ebay.
You wanted to pick up a squad of models to make some silly "Angry marines" for a bit of fun but you want to know if they will be competitive enough? I don't think you fully understand the concept of "A bit of fun". Buy the models you like the look of.
Martel732 wrote: Points efficiency directly translates on the table.
Tacs, esp geared tacs, bleed points really fast.
Don't give them gear except for a storm bolter. Survive turn 1. Shoot bolters. Get into combat preferably near a chaplain dread and chapter master. They are pretty good at this now with the successor trait to always count as in cover.
At that point just use Intercessors.
Tacticals can't properly do a job so they're pointless. Scouts and Intercessors (and Infiltrators are a decent pick) are all you need. If you want special weapon saturation or Heavy weapons, let other units in the codex take care of that.
Daedalus81 wrote: I feel like there's a lot of mis-information about the usefulness of old marines here.
It also seems pretty clear to me that GW has made a point of not having Primaris units take over the roles of old marines. That's why there are no bikers, no devastator equivalents, no jump back/deep striking assault units (unless you count reivers) in the Primaris range. It's not that GW hasn't gotten around to them yet, it's that they have deliberately avoided them..
Daedalus81 wrote: I feel like there's a lot of mis-information about the usefulness of old marines here.
It also seems pretty clear to me that GW has made a point of not having Primaris units take over the roles of old marines. That's why there are no bikers, no devastator equivalents, no jump back/deep striking assault units (unless you count reivers) in the Primaris range. It's not that GW hasn't gotten around to them yet, it's that they have deliberately avoided them..
I don't know that they've avoided them. They just have other units in more monotone roles. Eliminators certainly washed over scout snipers (not that they were being used much). Helblasters are "devastators", but with really limited options.
I fully expect to see Primaris bikes and speeders at some point (disregarding that fake looking rumor).
Hollow wrote: You wanted to pick up a squad of models to make some silly "Angry marines" for a bit of fun but you want to know if they will be competitive enough? I don't think you fully understand the concept of "A bit of fun". Buy the models you like the look of.
depends on the person and thier likes. they may consider "fun" to be cool modeled army that can still do ok on the table. I personally run a lot of buggies and bikes in my ork lists, but make no mistake I am well aware I am putting myself at an extreme disadvantage. Its fun to throw down on a table but I go into it knowing there is almost a 100% chance of a loss but ti me my orks are blowing gak up and having fun. when I take my imperial knights its the opposite, I may run armigers and not have everything optimized for a tournament but its not a great time to have my big pricey models just disappear turn 1 knowing there is no coming back and not much that I can do from then on other than a protracted loss (see vs eldar flyer spam)
Daedalus81 wrote: I feel like there's a lot of mis-information about the usefulness of old marines here.
It also seems pretty clear to me that GW has made a point of not having Primaris units take over the roles of old marines. That's why there are no bikers, no devastator equivalents, no jump back/deep striking assault units (unless you count reivers) in the Primaris range. It's not that GW hasn't gotten around to them yet, it's that they have deliberately avoided them..
I don't know that they've avoided them. They just have other units in more monotone roles. Eliminators certainly washed over scout snipers (not that they were being used much). Helblasters are "devastators", but with really limited options.
I fully expect to see Primaris bikes and speeders at some point (disregarding that fake looking rumor).
You can argue for all of the following:
- Eliminators (of both types) and Suppressors infringe on Devastators.
- Inceptors horn in on Biker and Terminator territory a little and Attack Bike territory more than a little.
- Aggressors infringe on Centurions and Terminators.
- You could probably make a case for Stalker-armed Intercessors displacing Sternguard.
- Invictors at least steps on the toes of the Predator.
- Repulsors kind of stand in the middle ground between the various types of Land Raider and the Stormraven.
- Impulsors are kinda-sorta in the middle of Razorback/Lamd Speeder Storm if you squint at it.
I don't know that they've avoided them. They just have other units in more monotone roles. Eliminators certainly washed over scout snipers (not that they were being used much). Helblasters are "devastators", but with really limited options.
I fully expect to see Primaris bikes and speeders at some point (disregarding that fake looking rumor).
Yeah. Limited options. They're kind of... specialized at not being specialized, if that makes any sense? Your hellblaster squad can be used against most anything, but it's not really good at any one specific target. You can't make a dedicated anti-vehicle hellblaster squad.
They may get bikes and speeders, but I'm reasonably sure that they're not going to just duplicate the roles of preexisting units.
Look at the jump troops. They're both shooting units -- which assault marines and vanguard veterans are not.
I don't know that they've avoided them. They just have other units in more monotone roles. Eliminators certainly washed over scout snipers (not that they were being used much). Helblasters are "devastators", but with really limited options.
I fully expect to see Primaris bikes and speeders at some point (disregarding that fake looking rumor).
Yeah. Limited options. They're kind of... specialized at not being specialized, if that makes any sense? Your hellblaster squad can be used against most anything, but it's not really good at any one specific target. You can't make a dedicated anti-vehicle hellblaster squad.
They may get bikes and speeders, but I'm reasonably sure that they're not going to just duplicate the roles of preexisting units.
Look at the jump troops. They're both shooting units -- which assault marines and vanguard veterans are not.
The melee capabilities of Assault Marines are virtually non-exsistent though. Your point with Vanguard makes sense though.
I don't know that they've avoided them. They just have other units in more monotone roles. Eliminators certainly washed over scout snipers (not that they were being used much). Helblasters are "devastators", but with really limited options.
I fully expect to see Primaris bikes and speeders at some point (disregarding that fake looking rumor).
Yeah. Limited options. They're kind of... specialized at not being specialized, if that makes any sense? Your hellblaster squad can be used against most anything, but it's not really good at any one specific target. You can't make a dedicated anti-vehicle hellblaster squad.
They may get bikes and speeders, but I'm reasonably sure that they're not going to just duplicate the roles of preexisting units.
Look at the jump troops. They're both shooting units -- which assault marines and vanguard veterans are not.
The melee capabilities of Assault Marines are virtually non-exsistent though. Your point with Vanguard makes sense though.
People always say that but Assault Marines are as good on the charge as Chainsword Bikers and they're surprisingly good at it. Durability is probably the thing making the difference though.
I don't know that they've avoided them. They just have other units in more monotone roles. Eliminators certainly washed over scout snipers (not that they were being used much). Helblasters are "devastators", but with really limited options.
I fully expect to see Primaris bikes and speeders at some point (disregarding that fake looking rumor).
Yeah. Limited options. They're kind of... specialized at not being specialized, if that makes any sense? Your hellblaster squad can be used against most anything, but it's not really good at any one specific target. You can't make a dedicated anti-vehicle hellblaster squad.
They may get bikes and speeders, but I'm reasonably sure that they're not going to just duplicate the roles of preexisting units.
Look at the jump troops. They're both shooting units -- which assault marines and vanguard veterans are not.
The melee capabilities of Assault Marines are virtually non-exsistent though. Your point with Vanguard makes sense though.
People always say that but Assault Marines are as good on the charge as Chainsword Bikers and they're surprisingly good at it. Durability is probably the thing making the difference though.
LOL no they're not, especially for the price difference where you get the MUCH more durable Bikers or the offensively better Vanguard. With the detachment system the battlefield role argument doesn't work either.
assault marines hit as hard as a tactical marine, dealing 2 S4 AP - attacks. this sounds like a defence of them but it's actually the PROBLEM.
tactical marines can reach out and begin dealing damage right from the start, the odds of them being wiped out before they can contribute any damage dealing is for the most part small (or at least smaller then assault marines who have to run forward and likely won't get into assault until T2 or T3). This BTW is a problem across the board with melee in 8th edition, basic melee troops are rarely worth it. look across the board at armies and assault troops are considered worthwhile under two specific circumstances.
1: they're dirt dirt dirt cheap and thus can be utterly disposable
or 2: they hit hard eneugh to justify bothering. (being durable helps in this case too obviously)
Shock attack is clearly GW attempting to address this with marine at least.
I think Tac marines still have a place and nothing that bothers them now would need to forever aside from the one less wound. Their gear options could always drop in points and lead to them being more fragile but more swingy in combat geared with little points difference they just aren't as tough with one less wound.
Putting out thoughts, they could also give old marines more veteran stats as time goes on to make up for their less tough nature in other regards.
Really it depends but you aren't doing poorly to take at least a couple Tac squads seasoned to perfection along with the new boys. At least it gives your army some history with it.
Well you could look at that topic from 2 perspective.
1. In their own codex, they seem kind of meh, because Intercessors are better and scouts are cheaper and one of the most busted ability in the game.
2. But compared to similar troop choices from other armies, they look decent. They look better than avengers, necron warriors, because of the T4 and better save. Armies like GK and custodes, could really benefit from them, because of their cheap price.
BrianDavion wrote: assault marines hit as hard as a tactical marine, dealing 2 S4 AP - attacks. this sounds like a defence of them but it's actually the PROBLEM.
tactical marines can reach out and begin dealing damage right from the start, the odds of them being wiped out before they can contribute any damage dealing is for the most part small (or at least smaller then assault marines who have to run forward and likely won't get into assault until T2 or T3). This BTW is a problem across the board with melee in 8th edition, basic melee troops are rarely worth it. look across the board at armies and assault troops are considered worthwhile under two specific circumstances.
1: they're dirt dirt dirt cheap and thus can be utterly disposable
or 2: they hit hard eneugh to justify bothering. (being durable helps in this case too obviously)
Shock attack is clearly GW attempting to address this with marine at least.
Honestly, assault marines without jumppack should not exist.
Also raptors share the same issues, maximum 3 attacks S4 is not particularry impressive.
Especially not for a model priced in the case of raptors about 30% more for mobility options compared to the foot csm.
Now if you could skip the melee weapons entirely and equip boltguns, that would make a difference, but i am anyways of the opinion that tac equivalents and tacs should've gotten the full equipment (bolter, boltpistol , chainsword)
BrianDavion wrote: assault marines hit as hard as a tactical marine, dealing 2 S4 AP - attacks. this sounds like a defence of them but it's actually the PROBLEM.
tactical marines can reach out and begin dealing damage right from the start, the odds of them being wiped out before they can contribute any damage dealing is for the most part small (or at least smaller then assault marines who have to run forward and likely won't get into assault until T2 or T3). This BTW is a problem across the board with melee in 8th edition, basic melee troops are rarely worth it. look across the board at armies and assault troops are considered worthwhile under two specific circumstances.
1: they're dirt dirt dirt cheap and thus can be utterly disposable
or 2: they hit hard eneugh to justify bothering. (being durable helps in this case too obviously)
Shock attack is clearly GW attempting to address this with marine at least.
Honestly, assault marines without jumppack should not exist.
Also raptors share the same issues, maximum 3 attacks S4 is not particularry impressive.
Especially not for a model priced in the case of raptors about 30% more for mobility options compared to the foot csm.
Now if you could skip the melee weapons entirely and equip boltguns, that would make a difference, but i am anyways of the opinion that tac equivalents and tacs should've gotten the full equipment (bolter, boltpistol , chainsword)
Raptors not getting a points drop at the same time as warp talons is perplexing. Also they would benefit from greater weapon options. Or the onslaught rule from hh that night raptors get.
BrianDavion wrote: assault marines hit as hard as a tactical marine, dealing 2 S4 AP - attacks. this sounds like a defence of them but it's actually the PROBLEM.
tactical marines can reach out and begin dealing damage right from the start, the odds of them being wiped out before they can contribute any damage dealing is for the most part small (or at least smaller then assault marines who have to run forward and likely won't get into assault until T2 or T3). This BTW is a problem across the board with melee in 8th edition, basic melee troops are rarely worth it. look across the board at armies and assault troops are considered worthwhile under two specific circumstances.
1: they're dirt dirt dirt cheap and thus can be utterly disposable
or 2: they hit hard eneugh to justify bothering. (being durable helps in this case too obviously)
Shock attack is clearly GW attempting to address this with marine at least.
Honestly, assault marines without jumppack should not exist.
Also raptors share the same issues, maximum 3 attacks S4 is not particularry impressive.
Especially not for a model priced in the case of raptors about 30% more for mobility options compared to the foot csm.
Now if you could skip the melee weapons entirely and equip boltguns, that would make a difference, but i am anyways of the opinion that tac equivalents and tacs should've gotten the full equipment (bolter, boltpistol , chainsword)
Raptors not getting a points drop at the same time as warp talons is perplexing. Also they would benefit from greater weapon options. Or the onslaught rule from hh that night raptors get.
was the second time though, warp talons have now dropped twice, CSM have dropped once, Raptors? nope, even Havocs you could argue have dropped in points (got t5 instead of a real pts drop but still.) But frankly we don't know if it was actually intended for raptors to drop aswell, due to the rather "great" state CA pts booklet is in.
BrianDavion wrote: assault marines hit as hard as a tactical marine, dealing 2 S4 AP - attacks. this sounds like a defence of them but it's actually the PROBLEM.
tactical marines can reach out and begin dealing damage right from the start, the odds of them being wiped out before they can contribute any damage dealing is for the most part small (or at least smaller then assault marines who have to run forward and likely won't get into assault until T2 or T3). This BTW is a problem across the board with melee in 8th edition, basic melee troops are rarely worth it. look across the board at armies and assault troops are considered worthwhile under two specific circumstances.
1: they're dirt dirt dirt cheap and thus can be utterly disposable
or 2: they hit hard eneugh to justify bothering. (being durable helps in this case too obviously)
Shock attack is clearly GW attempting to address this with marine at least.
Honestly, assault marines without jumppack should not exist.
Also raptors share the same issues, maximum 3 attacks S4 is not particularry impressive.
Especially not for a model priced in the case of raptors about 30% more for mobility options compared to the foot csm.
Now if you could skip the melee weapons entirely and equip boltguns, that would make a difference, but i am anyways of the opinion that tac equivalents and tacs should've gotten the full equipment (bolter, boltpistol , chainsword)
Raptors not getting a points drop at the same time as warp talons is perplexing. Also they would benefit from greater weapon options. Or the onslaught rule from hh that night raptors get.
was the second time though, warp talons have now dropped twice, CSM have dropped once, Raptors? nope, even Havocs you could argue have dropped in points (got t5 instead of a real pts drop but still.) But frankly we don't know if it was actually intended for raptors to drop aswell, due to the rather "great" state CA pts booklet is in.
They've got to be a lot of errors judging by how long the faq is taking. It's been almost two months since release.
I don't know that they've avoided them. They just have other units in more monotone roles. Eliminators certainly washed over scout snipers (not that they were being used much). Helblasters are "devastators", but with really limited options.
I fully expect to see Primaris bikes and speeders at some point (disregarding that fake looking rumor).
Yeah. Limited options. They're kind of... specialized at not being specialized, if that makes any sense? Your hellblaster squad can be used against most anything, but it's not really good at any one specific target. You can't make a dedicated anti-vehicle hellblaster squad.
They may get bikes and speeders, but I'm reasonably sure that they're not going to just duplicate the roles of preexisting units.
Look at the jump troops. They're both shooting units -- which assault marines and vanguard veterans are not.
The melee capabilities of Assault Marines are virtually non-exsistent though. Your point with Vanguard makes sense though.
People always say that but Assault Marines are as good on the charge as Chainsword Bikers and they're surprisingly good at it. Durability is probably the thing making the difference though.
LOL no they're not, especially for the price difference where you get the MUCH more durable Bikers or the offensively better Vanguard. With the detachment system the battlefield role argument doesn't work either.
Sorry about being pendantic for a moment, but how is WS3, A3, S4, Ap- D1 on 15ppm Assault Marines worse than WS3, A3, S4, Ap- D1 on 23ppm Bikers on the charge?
For that matter what sense does it make to say I'm wrong about Assault Marines overall usefulness in melee because Bikes are more durable when I said exactly the same fething thing?
Not Online!!! wrote: i mean that is by far not the only thing in the csm list.
Considering MoP and regular sorcerer dropped 10 pts.
Like, i get the MoP due to his very niche nature, the regular sorcer though with access to one of the better psy disciplines?
Didn't it bring them inline with the loyalist's librarians? Also why did loyalist drop pods get a drop along with new rules that allow for first turn ds in c:sm 2.0 but dreadclaws are still 115ppm? And why the feth does the kytan ravager have a higher base cost than a klos?
They've got to be a lot of errors judging by how long the faq is taking. It's been almost two months since release.
I'm under the suspicion that they're holding on to it until after LVO so they don't need to put points into the Big FAQ.
also quite possible, maybee they also make an honest attempt at fixing stuff.
Just as likely, but with the wierd and questionable changes i can't really estimate propperly what is a typo or fault and what isn't, well beyond the 55 neophyte
They've got to be a lot of errors judging by how long the faq is taking. It's been almost two months since release.
I'm under the suspicion that they're holding on to it until after LVO so they don't need to put points into the Big FAQ.
also quite possible, maybee they also make an honest attempt at fixing stuff.
Just as likely, but with the wierd and questionable changes i can't really estimate propperly what is a typo or fault and what isn't, well beyond the 55 neophyte
Theoretically Raptors should at least be 14 if we're following the jump pack logic. You could argue it is a typo, but it is so small a margin of error it doesn't matter much.
Talons got to where they are, because they have no ranged option and are forced to specific and fairly costly weapons, but Raptors will likely always have an upper bound that is more costly than standard CSM.
They've got to be a lot of errors judging by how long the faq is taking. It's been almost two months since release.
I'm under the suspicion that they're holding on to it until after LVO so they don't need to put points into the Big FAQ.
also quite possible, maybee they also make an honest attempt at fixing stuff.
Just as likely, but with the wierd and questionable changes i can't really estimate propperly what is a typo or fault and what isn't, well beyond the 55 neophyte
Theoretically Raptors should at least be 14 if we're following the jump pack logic. You could argue it is a typo, but it is so small a margin of error it doesn't matter much.
Talons got to where they are, because they have no ranged option and are forced to specific and fairly costly weapons, but Raptors will likely always have an upper bound that is more costly than standard CSM.
1ppm can make a difference on infantry squads. And if we go by the 3 points per jump pack precedent why not jump pack chosen for 15ppm? And don't tell me "no model no rules " because there isn't a chosen kit and how many different units can the guardsmen kit be used for nowadays?
And I'm really hoping they're using the extra time to fix more than just obvious typos. Especially fw and even more especially the hellforged/relic super heavys. Did somebody on the gw rules team lose to many games to fellblades in 7th or what?
And I still don't get the problem of sorcerers costing the same as librarians. How many psychic spells and disciplines do loyalists have access to now?
I don't know that they've avoided them. They just have other units in more monotone roles. Eliminators certainly washed over scout snipers (not that they were being used much). Helblasters are "devastators", but with really limited options.
I fully expect to see Primaris bikes and speeders at some point (disregarding that fake looking rumor).
Yeah. Limited options. They're kind of... specialized at not being specialized, if that makes any sense? Your hellblaster squad can be used against most anything, but it's not really good at any one specific target. You can't make a dedicated anti-vehicle hellblaster squad.
They may get bikes and speeders, but I'm reasonably sure that they're not going to just duplicate the roles of preexisting units.
Look at the jump troops. They're both shooting units -- which assault marines and vanguard veterans are not.
The melee capabilities of Assault Marines are virtually non-exsistent though. Your point with Vanguard makes sense though.
People always say that but Assault Marines are as good on the charge as Chainsword Bikers and they're surprisingly good at it. Durability is probably the thing making the difference though.
LOL no they're not, especially for the price difference where you get the MUCH more durable Bikers or the offensively better Vanguard. With the detachment system the battlefield role argument doesn't work either.
Sorry about being pendantic for a moment, but how is WS3, A3, S4, Ap- D1 on 15ppm Assault Marines worse than WS3, A3, S4, Ap- D1 on 23ppm Bikers on the charge?
For that matter what sense does it make to say I'm wrong about Assault Marines overall usefulness in melee because Bikes are more durable when I said exactly the same fething thing?
Bikers also have 4 Bolt Shots from any distance and the ability to close the gap pretty quick. So there's that. You can get Vanguard or Bikers. Assault Marines don't have a niche.
And I still don't get the problem of sorcerers costing the same as librarians. How many psychic spells and disciplines do loyalists have access to now?
I personally have no problem with sorcerers/libs at 80. I just get a little annoyed at an exalted paying 32 points for 1 wound, 1 attack, and reroll 1s to hit.
Mostly. You could run 5 man JP - melta bombs & fist / eviscerator for 100 points. Doesn't hurt to lose that much, its small enough to hide well, and you will out fight most equally pointed units.
Both RG and BT offer layers that could make them more interesting in a forward leaning army. Nobody will really bother though, because you won't see them tackling things like centurions.
And I still don't get the problem of sorcerers costing the same as librarians. How many psychic spells and disciplines do loyalists have access to now?
I personally have no problem with sorcerers/libs at 80. I just get a little annoyed at an exalted paying 32 points for 1 wound, 1 attack, and reroll 1s to hit.
I feel you. Try paying 390 points for 3+bs, 9ld, t9, and a 2+ save vs 4+bs, 8ld, t8, and a 3+ save. (That's a fellblade vs a baneblade btw).
I don't know that they've avoided them. They just have other units in more monotone roles. Eliminators certainly washed over scout snipers (not that they were being used much). Helblasters are "devastators", but with really limited options.
I fully expect to see Primaris bikes and speeders at some point (disregarding that fake looking rumor).
Yeah. Limited options. They're kind of... specialized at not being specialized, if that makes any sense? Your hellblaster squad can be used against most anything, but it's not really good at any one specific target. You can't make a dedicated anti-vehicle hellblaster squad.
They may get bikes and speeders, but I'm reasonably sure that they're not going to just duplicate the roles of preexisting units.
Look at the jump troops. They're both shooting units -- which assault marines and vanguard veterans are not.
The melee capabilities of Assault Marines are virtually non-exsistent though. Your point with Vanguard makes sense though.
People always say that but Assault Marines are as good on the charge as Chainsword Bikers and they're surprisingly good at it. Durability is probably the thing making the difference though.
LOL no they're not, especially for the price difference where you get the MUCH more durable Bikers or the offensively better Vanguard. With the detachment system the battlefield role argument doesn't work either.
Sorry about being pendantic for a moment, but how is WS3, A3, S4, Ap- D1 on 15ppm Assault Marines worse than WS3, A3, S4, Ap- D1 on 23ppm Bikers on the charge?
For that matter what sense does it make to say I'm wrong about Assault Marines overall usefulness in melee because Bikes are more durable when I said exactly the same fething thing?
Bikers also have 4 Bolt Shots from any distance and the ability to close the gap pretty quick. So there's that. You can get Vanguard or Bikers. Assault Marines don't have a niche.
We weren't talking about shooting though, we were talking about melee. AMs outnumber Bikes 3:2 per point so they're trading 3:4 on wounds for 6/9 : 4/6 on attacks, and AMs get their Pistols for the rare melee that lasts more than a turn, and they can leave melee without penalty if they live long enough.
If we were talking about shooting then neither unit belongs on the table, Scout Bikes are laughably better than either of them. (Although I've come around to believing that native DS is more valuable than it tends to get credit for, and dropping in with 11" Flamers is something Vanguard Vets and Scout Bikes can't do and normal Bikes can do but are probably better off using Plasma.)
And I still don't get the problem of sorcerers costing the same as librarians. How many psychic spells and disciplines do loyalists have access to now?
I personally have no problem with sorcerers/libs at 80. I just get a little annoyed at an exalted paying 32 points for 1 wound, 1 attack, and reroll 1s to hit.
I feel you. Try paying 390 points for 3+bs, 9ld, t9, and a 2+ save vs 4+bs, 8ld, t8, and a 3+ save. (That's a fellblade vs a baneblade btw).
This may sort you (and they were even so kind as to feature a storm cannon levi for the article):
Since the release of the Forge World indexes a couple of years ago, Warhammer 40,000 has changed a lot. While the indexes were a great reference resource, we want to give you something even better – which is why the Warhammer 40,000 studio embarked on a project to bring you a series of all-new books with updated rules for these units and armies.
And I still don't get the problem of sorcerers costing the same as librarians. How many psychic spells and disciplines do loyalists have access to now?
I personally have no problem with sorcerers/libs at 80. I just get a little annoyed at an exalted paying 32 points for 1 wound, 1 attack, and reroll 1s to hit.
I feel you. Try paying 390 points for 3+bs, 9ld, t9, and a 2+ save vs 4+bs, 8ld, t8, and a 3+ save. (That's a fellblade vs a baneblade btw).
This may sort you (and they were even so kind as to feature a storm cannon levi for the article):
Since the release of the Forge World indexes a couple of years ago, Warhammer 40,000 has changed a lot. While the indexes were a great reference resource, we want to give you something even better – which is why the Warhammer 40,000 studio embarked on a project to bring you a series of all-new books with updated rules for these units and armies.
And I still don't get the problem of sorcerers costing the same as librarians. How many psychic spells and disciplines do loyalists have access to now?
I personally have no problem with sorcerers/libs at 80. I just get a little annoyed at an exalted paying 32 points for 1 wound, 1 attack, and reroll 1s to hit.
Mostly. You could run 5 man JP - melta bombs & fist / eviscerator for 100 points. Doesn't hurt to lose that much, its small enough to hide well, and you will out fight most equally pointed units.
Both RG and BT offer layers that could make them more interesting in a forward leaning army. Nobody will really bother though, because you won't see them tackling things like centurions.
Two big reasons to take ASM over Bikers:
1. For not that many points, you get 5 highly mobile PA bodies. Enough to to tie up a shooty or support squad. It won't take on a deathstar or a dedicated CC unit, but they're quite the bullies. And they can maneuver through any terrain, helping them get into position - 'Fly' is incredible on terrain-dense boards. And they have a much smaller footprint - so LOS is a lot easier, cover is a lot easier, and fitting in a blindspot is a lot easier. They're just a lot more adaptable and capable of dealing with dense terrain. Good luck getting Bikers to move through a city block or such.
2. They are freaking marines with freaking rockets strapped to their backs. How can you not want freaking marines with freaking rockets strapped to their backs?
On a more serious note, Bikers and ASM fill different variants of a similar niche: Bikers are bullies who cover open ground fast. ASM are bullies who cover any ground fast. They're different tools for a similar but different job. Like a maul and a fencepost driver. You can do just about any job that requires one with the other, but not as well.
And I still don't get the problem of sorcerers costing the same as librarians. How many psychic spells and disciplines do loyalists have access to now?
I personally have no problem with sorcerers/libs at 80. I just get a little annoyed at an exalted paying 32 points for 1 wound, 1 attack, and reroll 1s to hit.
Mostly. You could run 5 man JP - melta bombs & fist / eviscerator for 100 points. Doesn't hurt to lose that much, its small enough to hide well, and you will out fight most equally pointed units.
Both RG and BT offer layers that could make them more interesting in a forward leaning army. Nobody will really bother though, because you won't see them tackling things like centurions.
Two big reasons to take ASM over Bikers:
1. For not that many points, you get 5 highly mobile PA bodies. Enough to to tie up a shooty or support squad. It won't take on a deathstar or a dedicated CC unit, but they're quite the bullies. And they can maneuver through any terrain, helping them get into position - 'Fly' is incredible on terrain-dense boards. And they have a much smaller footprint - so LOS is a lot easier, cover is a lot easier, and fitting in a blindspot is a lot easier. They're just a lot more adaptable and capable of dealing with dense terrain. Good luck getting Bikers to move through a city block or such.
2. They are freaking marines with freaking rockets strapped to their backs. How can you not want freaking marines with freaking rockets strapped to their backs?
On a more serious note, Bikers and ASM fill different variants of a similar niche: Bikers are bullies who cover open ground fast. ASM are bullies who cover any ground fast. They're different tools for a similar but different job. Like a maul and a fencepost driver. You can do just about any job that requires one with the other, but not as well.
But then there's not a reason to take them over Vanguard. That's the grand point that's being missed. It would be one thing if there were any reason to list being able to take Flamers or Eviscerators as a benefit, but basic Flamers are still bad for the points and only become useable via a Successor Tactic, and Eviscerators are still only being bought for a one attack model.
And I still don't get the problem of sorcerers costing the same as librarians. How many psychic spells and disciplines do loyalists have access to now?
I personally have no problem with sorcerers/libs at 80. I just get a little annoyed at an exalted paying 32 points for 1 wound, 1 attack, and reroll 1s to hit.
Mostly. You could run 5 man JP - melta bombs & fist / eviscerator for 100 points. Doesn't hurt to lose that much, its small enough to hide well, and you will out fight most equally pointed units.
Both RG and BT offer layers that could make them more interesting in a forward leaning army. Nobody will really bother though, because you won't see them tackling things like centurions.
Two big reasons to take ASM over Bikers:
1. For not that many points, you get 5 highly mobile PA bodies. Enough to to tie up a shooty or support squad. It won't take on a deathstar or a dedicated CC unit, but they're quite the bullies. And they can maneuver through any terrain, helping them get into position - 'Fly' is incredible on terrain-dense boards. And they have a much smaller footprint - so LOS is a lot easier, cover is a lot easier, and fitting in a blindspot is a lot easier. They're just a lot more adaptable and capable of dealing with dense terrain. Good luck getting Bikers to move through a city block or such.
2. They are freaking marines with freaking rockets strapped to their backs. How can you not want freaking marines with freaking rockets strapped to their backs?
On a more serious note, Bikers and ASM fill different variants of a similar niche: Bikers are bullies who cover open ground fast. ASM are bullies who cover any ground fast. They're different tools for a similar but different job. Like a maul and a fencepost driver. You can do just about any job that requires one with the other, but not as well.
But then there's not a reason to take them over Vanguard. That's the grand point that's being missed. It would be one thing if there were any reason to list being able to take Flamers or Eviscerators as a benefit, but basic Flamers are still bad for the points and only become useable via a Successor Tactic, and Eviscerators are still only being bought for a one attack model.
"There's no reason to take them over Vanguard" is a stupid reason to use Bikes instead of ASM in such conditions. Now, maybe you'd want to use Vanguard instead of Bikes in those situations, but that's an entirely *different* discussion.
Vanguard will usually outperform ASM. From a purely mechancial standpoint, ASM are rarely the superior option (although there are some very solid non-mechanical reasons), but there are some niches. Against most targets, VV and ASM with the same kit have the exact same effect. They both fail miserably against any CC or anvil unit. They both bully almost exactly the same targets with very similar results. The VV get a few more kills, for a few more points. So if you're really short on points, you might want ASM. For min naked squads, you're talking something like killing 4 Guardsmen instead of 3 on the charge. But in every other metric they perform identically. They move the same. Tie up units the same. Die the same. You don't take this squad - VV or ASM - to kill units, you take them to bully/skirmish. So paying some extra points to kill 1 guardsmen in a unit not intended to kill things isn't all that much of a win.
Also, if you're swinging 1A with the Eviscerator, you're using ASM wrong. It means you're getting charged, not charging. Which should not be done with VV or ASM.
But then there's not a reason to take them over Vanguard. That's the grand point that's being missed. It would be one thing if there were any reason to list being able to take Flamers or Eviscerators as a benefit, but basic Flamers are still bad for the points and only become useable via a Successor Tactic, and Eviscerators are still only being bought for a one attack model.
Slightly cheaper and slotting are the only space they can occupy. There's probably a very narrow set of lists that would care. I don't know what else could change that would get them on the table more though.
But then there's not a reason to take them over Vanguard. That's the grand point that's being missed. It would be one thing if there were any reason to list being able to take Flamers or Eviscerators as a benefit, but basic Flamers are still bad for the points and only become useable via a Successor Tactic, and Eviscerators are still only being bought for a one attack model.
Slightly cheaper and slotting are the only space they can occupy. There's probably a very narrow set of lists that would care. I don't know what else could change that would get them on the table more though.
With the current detachment system, battlefield role isn't a good argument. They're also REALLY not that much cheaper as they'll always require some upgrade, whereas Vanguard are content just taking dual Chainswords.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Though with A3 base you can get away with buying the Sergeant something more blingy.
And I still don't get the problem of sorcerers costing the same as librarians. How many psychic spells and disciplines do loyalists have access to now?
I personally have no problem with sorcerers/libs at 80. I just get a little annoyed at an exalted paying 32 points for 1 wound, 1 attack, and reroll 1s to hit.
Mostly. You could run 5 man JP - melta bombs & fist / eviscerator for 100 points. Doesn't hurt to lose that much, its small enough to hide well, and you will out fight most equally pointed units.
Both RG and BT offer layers that could make them more interesting in a forward leaning army. Nobody will really bother though, because you won't see them tackling things like centurions.
Two big reasons to take ASM over Bikers:
1. For not that many points, you get 5 highly mobile PA bodies. Enough to to tie up a shooty or support squad. It won't take on a deathstar or a dedicated CC unit, but they're quite the bullies. And they can maneuver through any terrain, helping them get into position - 'Fly' is incredible on terrain-dense boards. And they have a much smaller footprint - so LOS is a lot easier, cover is a lot easier, and fitting in a blindspot is a lot easier. They're just a lot more adaptable and capable of dealing with dense terrain. Good luck getting Bikers to move through a city block or such.
2. They are freaking marines with freaking rockets strapped to their backs. How can you not want freaking marines with freaking rockets strapped to their backs?
On a more serious note, Bikers and ASM fill different variants of a similar niche: Bikers are bullies who cover open ground fast. ASM are bullies who cover any ground fast. They're different tools for a similar but different job. Like a maul and a fencepost driver. You can do just about any job that requires one with the other, but not as well.
But then there's not a reason to take them over Vanguard. That's the grand point that's being missed. It would be one thing if there were any reason to list being able to take Flamers or Eviscerators as a benefit, but basic Flamers are still bad for the points and only become useable via a Successor Tactic, and Eviscerators are still only being bought for a one attack model.
"There's no reason to take them over Vanguard" is a stupid reason to use Bikes instead of ASM in such conditions. Now, maybe you'd want to use Vanguard instead of Bikes in those situations, but that's an entirely *different* discussion.
Vanguard will usually outperform ASM. From a purely mechancial standpoint, ASM are rarely the superior option (although there are some very solid non-mechanical reasons), but there are some niches. Against most targets, VV and ASM with the same kit have the exact same effect. They both fail miserably against any CC or anvil unit. They both bully almost exactly the same targets with very similar results. The VV get a few more kills, for a few more points. So if you're really short on points, you might want ASM. For min naked squads, you're talking something like killing 4 Guardsmen instead of 3 on the charge. But in every other metric they perform identically. They move the same. Tie up units the same. Die the same. You don't take this squad - VV or ASM - to kill units, you take them to bully/skirmish. So paying some extra points to kill 1 guardsmen in a unit not intended to kill things isn't all that much of a win.
Also, if you're swinging 1A with the Eviscerator, you're using ASM wrong. It means you're getting charged, not charging. Which should not be done with VV or ASM.
Few more kills for a few more points is precisely the problem. Vanguard are not much more points for double the attacks (let's be real, the Bolt Pistol is basically worthless) and ability to be more flexible in equipment. Flamers are a non-choice and so are Eviscerators. You're paying 18 or so points for 2 hits on average first fight. With rerolls, the Captain is doing more by himself for the points!
And keep in mind Vanguard aren't exactly making noise either, and Bikers being mostly taken for the Bolt shots, and of course Scout Bikers do all that much better.
But then there's not a reason to take them over Vanguard. That's the grand point that's being missed. It would be one thing if there were any reason to list being able to take Flamers or Eviscerators as a benefit, but basic Flamers are still bad for the points and only become useable via a Successor Tactic, and Eviscerators are still only being bought for a one attack model.
Slightly cheaper and slotting are the only space they can occupy. There's probably a very narrow set of lists that would care. I don't know what else could change that would get them on the table more though.
With the current detachment system, battlefield role isn't a good argument. They're also REALLY not that much cheaper as they'll always require some upgrade, whereas Vanguard are content just taking dual Chainswords.
Not much cheaper, but with the same kit they're not much killier either. If you want a blender, ASM aren't even in the running, but for a cheap 5 Pistol/Chainsword bully? It's only a couple more points for 33% more killy. But 33% more of "almost 0" is still "almost 0".
Though with A3 base you can get away with buying the Sergeant something more blingy.
Certainly, if you want a bigger/stronger bully than bare-minimum, paying more-than-minimum can give you more. Not sure why that needs to be pointed out.
And I still don't get the problem of sorcerers costing the same as librarians. How many psychic spells and disciplines do loyalists have access to now?
I personally have no problem with sorcerers/libs at 80. I just get a little annoyed at an exalted paying 32 points for 1 wound, 1 attack, and reroll 1s to hit.
Mostly. You could run 5 man JP - melta bombs & fist / eviscerator for 100 points. Doesn't hurt to lose that much, its small enough to hide well, and you will out fight most equally pointed units.
Both RG and BT offer layers that could make them more interesting in a forward leaning army. Nobody will really bother though, because you won't see them tackling things like centurions.
Two big reasons to take ASM over Bikers:
1. For not that many points, you get 5 highly mobile PA bodies. Enough to to tie up a shooty or support squad. It won't take on a deathstar or a dedicated CC unit, but they're quite the bullies. And they can maneuver through any terrain, helping them get into position - 'Fly' is incredible on terrain-dense boards. And they have a much smaller footprint - so LOS is a lot easier, cover is a lot easier, and fitting in a blindspot is a lot easier. They're just a lot more adaptable and capable of dealing with dense terrain. Good luck getting Bikers to move through a city block or such.
2. They are freaking marines with freaking rockets strapped to their backs. How can you not want freaking marines with freaking rockets strapped to their backs?
On a more serious note, Bikers and ASM fill different variants of a similar niche: Bikers are bullies who cover open ground fast. ASM are bullies who cover any ground fast. They're different tools for a similar but different job. Like a maul and a fencepost driver. You can do just about any job that requires one with the other, but not as well.
But then there's not a reason to take them over Vanguard. That's the grand point that's being missed. It would be one thing if there were any reason to list being able to take Flamers or Eviscerators as a benefit, but basic Flamers are still bad for the points and only become useable via a Successor Tactic, and Eviscerators are still only being bought for a one attack model.
"There's no reason to take them over Vanguard" is a stupid reason to use Bikes instead of ASM in such conditions. Now, maybe you'd want to use Vanguard instead of Bikes in those situations, but that's an entirely *different* discussion.
Vanguard will usually outperform ASM. From a purely mechancial standpoint, ASM are rarely the superior option (although there are some very solid non-mechanical reasons), but there are some niches. Against most targets, VV and ASM with the same kit have the exact same effect. They both fail miserably against any CC or anvil unit. They both bully almost exactly the same targets with very similar results. The VV get a few more kills, for a few more points. So if you're really short on points, you might want ASM. For min naked squads, you're talking something like killing 4 Guardsmen instead of 3 on the charge. But in every other metric they perform identically. They move the same. Tie up units the same. Die the same. You don't take this squad - VV or ASM - to kill units, you take them to bully/skirmish. So paying some extra points to kill 1 guardsmen in a unit not intended to kill things isn't all that much of a win.
Also, if you're swinging 1A with the Eviscerator, you're using ASM wrong. It means you're getting charged, not charging. Which should not be done with VV or ASM.
Few more kills for a few more points is precisely the problem. Vanguard are not much more points for double the attacks (let's be real, the Bolt Pistol is basically worthless)
Min naked ASM squad: 11 attacks on the charge
Min naked VV squad: 15 attacks on the charge
Unless I fail at math, 15 is not double 11. 20 after dropping the Bolt Pistols is kinda close to double, but you're trading away 5 equal attacks from the pistols before your charge (with both upsides/downsides), so it's more 16 : 20 - still not double.
And, all that said, double "almost no killiness" is still "Not a lot of killiness". You go from killing ~4 Guardsmen to killing ~6 Guardsmen. Congratulations? Not what you take naked ASM/VV for. You take them to tie stuff up and skirmish. They move the same. They die the same. They tie up the same. So both ASM and VV do just as well at what you take them for.
If flamers were better this ASM vs. Vanguard discussion wouldn't exist. Assault Marines used to butcher GEQ with their flamers, and made great little terror squads.
Maybe flamers should just do a flat number of hits. If basic flamers were assault 4, they would be really scary to chaff units. Specialy for units that can take two and a combi flamer on the sgt.
although post PA and the marine codex, it would probably end up as something OP.
d6 hits is bad though. maybe they should have 2d3 hits per shot?
But then there's not a reason to take them over Vanguard. That's the grand point that's being missed. It would be one thing if there were any reason to list being able to take Flamers or Eviscerators as a benefit, but basic Flamers are still bad for the points and only become useable via a Successor Tactic, and Eviscerators are still only being bought for a one attack model.
Slightly cheaper and slotting are the only space they can occupy. There's probably a very narrow set of lists that would care. I don't know what else could change that would get them on the table more though.
With the current detachment system, battlefield role isn't a good argument. They're also REALLY not that much cheaper as they'll always require some upgrade, whereas Vanguard are content just taking dual Chainswords.
Not much cheaper, but with the same kit they're not much killier either. If you want a blender, ASM aren't even in the running, but for a cheap 5 Pistol/Chainsword bully? It's only a couple more points for 33% more killy. But 33% more of "almost 0" is still "almost 0".
Though with A3 base you can get away with buying the Sergeant something more blingy.
Certainly, if you want a bigger/stronger bully than bare-minimum, paying more-than-minimum can give you more. Not sure why that needs to be pointed out.
And I still don't get the problem of sorcerers costing the same as librarians. How many psychic spells and disciplines do loyalists have access to now?
I personally have no problem with sorcerers/libs at 80. I just get a little annoyed at an exalted paying 32 points for 1 wound, 1 attack, and reroll 1s to hit.
Mostly. You could run 5 man JP - melta bombs & fist / eviscerator for 100 points. Doesn't hurt to lose that much, its small enough to hide well, and you will out fight most equally pointed units.
Both RG and BT offer layers that could make them more interesting in a forward leaning army. Nobody will really bother though, because you won't see them tackling things like centurions.
Two big reasons to take ASM over Bikers:
1. For not that many points, you get 5 highly mobile PA bodies. Enough to to tie up a shooty or support squad. It won't take on a deathstar or a dedicated CC unit, but they're quite the bullies. And they can maneuver through any terrain, helping them get into position - 'Fly' is incredible on terrain-dense boards. And they have a much smaller footprint - so LOS is a lot easier, cover is a lot easier, and fitting in a blindspot is a lot easier. They're just a lot more adaptable and capable of dealing with dense terrain. Good luck getting Bikers to move through a city block or such.
2. They are freaking marines with freaking rockets strapped to their backs. How can you not want freaking marines with freaking rockets strapped to their backs?
On a more serious note, Bikers and ASM fill different variants of a similar niche: Bikers are bullies who cover open ground fast. ASM are bullies who cover any ground fast. They're different tools for a similar but different job. Like a maul and a fencepost driver. You can do just about any job that requires one with the other, but not as well.
But then there's not a reason to take them over Vanguard. That's the grand point that's being missed. It would be one thing if there were any reason to list being able to take Flamers or Eviscerators as a benefit, but basic Flamers are still bad for the points and only become useable via a Successor Tactic, and Eviscerators are still only being bought for a one attack model.
"There's no reason to take them over Vanguard" is a stupid reason to use Bikes instead of ASM in such conditions. Now, maybe you'd want to use Vanguard instead of Bikes in those situations, but that's an entirely *different* discussion.
Vanguard will usually outperform ASM. From a purely mechancial standpoint, ASM are rarely the superior option (although there are some very solid non-mechanical reasons), but there are some niches. Against most targets, VV and ASM with the same kit have the exact same effect. They both fail miserably against any CC or anvil unit. They both bully almost exactly the same targets with very similar results. The VV get a few more kills, for a few more points. So if you're really short on points, you might want ASM. For min naked squads, you're talking something like killing 4 Guardsmen instead of 3 on the charge. But in every other metric they perform identically. They move the same. Tie up units the same. Die the same. You don't take this squad - VV or ASM - to kill units, you take them to bully/skirmish. So paying some extra points to kill 1 guardsmen in a unit not intended to kill things isn't all that much of a win.
Also, if you're swinging 1A with the Eviscerator, you're using ASM wrong. It means you're getting charged, not charging. Which should not be done with VV or ASM.
Few more kills for a few more points is precisely the problem. Vanguard are not much more points for double the attacks (let's be real, the Bolt Pistol is basically worthless)
Min naked ASM squad: 11 attacks on the charge
Min naked VV squad: 15 attacks on the charge
Unless I fail at math, 15 is not double 11. 20 after dropping the Bolt Pistols is kinda close to double, but you're trading away 5 equal attacks from the pistols before your charge (with both upsides/downsides), so it's more 16 : 20 - still not double.
And, all that said, double "almost no killiness" is still "Not a lot of killiness". You go from killing ~4 Guardsmen to killing ~6 Guardsmen. Congratulations? Not what you take naked ASM/VV for. You take them to tie stuff up and skirmish. They move the same. They die the same. They tie up the same. So both ASM and VV do just as well at what you take them for.
1. There's no upside to the pistol. We can pretend there is one, but if that were true, Vanguard wouldn't be ditching them the moment they can, nor would Biker variants do the same. It's because Pistols suck. That's just the nature of the game. Were falling back much harder, then maybe they'd have merit.
2. The numbers are off. On the charge, Assault Marines will have 16 attacks. Assuming all Chainswords, Vanguard have 26. Taking the numbers you presented as well, a minimal investment to kill 8 more points of Infantry (which is more than the invested cost by the way) is a significant improvement.
Vanguard can no longer take two Chainswords. They get one melee weapon and one pistol.
Bikers ditch the pistol because they already have better guns.
But if you're going to measure by points killed, you might be better off spending the few points saved on ASM (5 or 10, no codex atm) on a Plasma Pistol or Melta Bombs. Because killing an elite trooper or knocking some wounds off a vehicle will net you more points than killing another 2 GEQ.
I think sometimes people need to let go of the idea of always making points back. Sometimes units exist to put pressure, exploit holes, and cause your opponent to make mistakes.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think sometimes people need to let go of the idea of always making points back. Sometimes units exist to put pressure, exploit holes, and cause your opponent to make mistakes.
Agreed. Just thought it funny to point out that 5 point Melta bombs could do a heck of a lot more poimt damage than 5 chainsword swings.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think sometimes people need to let go of the idea of always making points back. Sometimes units exist to put pressure, exploit holes, and cause your opponent to make mistakes.
Agreed. Just thought it funny to point out that 5 point Melta bombs could do a heck of a lot more poimt damage than 5 chainsword swings.
Can't only one dude use his melta bomb?
I thought they clarified that the "One model may attack with their grenade" rule applied to the assault phase too, and essentially gutted the various bomb-oriented anti vehicle units such as Tank Bustas and ASM with bombs.
Insectum7 wrote: Vanguard can no longer take two Chainswords. They get one melee weapon and one pistol.
Where are you getting this idea?
Codex: Space Marines, Page 133 wrote: Any Space Marine Veteran can be equipped with one of the following and have a storm shield, or be equipped with two of the following, instead of 1 bolt pistol and 1 chainsword: 1 weapon from the Pistols list; 1 weapon from the Melee Weapons list.
There is no limit to how many times an individual option can be chosen, only that you pick no more than two in total.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think sometimes people need to let go of the idea of always making points back. Sometimes units exist to put pressure, exploit holes, and cause your opponent to make mistakes.
Agreed. Just thought it funny to point out that 5 point Melta bombs could do a heck of a lot more poimt damage than 5 chainsword swings.
Can't only one dude use his melta bomb?
I thought they clarified that the "One model may attack with their grenade" rule applied to the assault phase too, and essentially gutted the various bomb-oriented anti vehicle units such as Tank Bustas and ASM with bombs.
Errr.. what? You've never been able to use Grenades during the Fight Phase in 8th. If you mean using a stratagem to shoot in the Fight phase, you're still limited to one grenade weapon because that is part of the rules for shooting, not a Shooting Phase rule.
I'm a little surprised at the default assumption of using Vanguard Vets as Chainsword-blenders, mine are set up with Stormshields and a mix of Hammers and Chainswords so they can act as backups to Captain Smash, esq.
Even if I wasn't taking the Hammers I'd still take the Shields over the second Chainsword because a 3++ on a unit that's very likey to be going in first to absorb overwatch seems like it's well worth ten more points and losing five low-quality attacks.
Insectum7 wrote: Vanguard can no longer take two Chainswords. They get one melee weapon and one pistol.
Where are you getting this idea?
Codex: Space Marines, Page 133 wrote: Any Space Marine Veteran can be equipped with one of the following and have a storm shield, or be equipped with two of the following, instead of 1 bolt pistol and 1 chainsword: 1 weapon from the Pistols list; 1 weapon from the Melee Weapons list.
There is no limit to how many times an individual option can be chosen, only that you pick no more than two in total.
When it says "1 weapon from melee" and "1 weapon from pistols".
That's how I've read it, anyways. I also think the wording is different between the two SM books.
If I'm wrong, great. It means I can field my dual Plasma Pistol Vanguard again.
It's a list, not a sentence. It doesn't say "1 weapon from the Pistols list and 1 weapon from the Melee Weapons list". It's a list and you get to pick twice from it.
BaconCatBug wrote: It's a list, not a sentence. It doesn't say "1 weapon from the Pistols list and 1 weapon from the Melee Weapons list". It's a list and you get to pick twice from it.
Unfortunately I can't go by your interpretation alone. If you can find a FAQ that confirms it, or a list that has played in a high profile tournament. . . perhaps. Because I have to wonder why the language changed between books. The older book says "you may take two items from the pistols and/or melee weapons lists" which is more permissive language.
Given GW and their issues with clarity, and seeing as the language did change, I'm forced to go with a more conservative interpretation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote: If we treated it as 1 from pistols and 1 from melee and nothing else, double lightning claw vanguard vets would not be possible.
That's a really good point, but then why change the language?
BaconCatBug wrote: It's a list, not a sentence. It doesn't say "1 weapon from the Pistols list and 1 weapon from the Melee Weapons list". It's a list and you get to pick twice from it.
Unfortunately I can't go by your interpretation alone. If you can find a FAQ that confirms it, or a list that has played in a high profile tournament. . . perhaps. Because I have to wonder why the language changed between books. The older book says "you may take two items from the pistols and/or melee weapons lists" which is more permissive language.
Given GW and their issues with clarity, and seeing as the language did change, I'm forced to go with a more conservative interpretation.
Do you have an FAQ that states what a roll is too? Or what kind of inch to use? There is a minimum level of English Language parsing that is needed for the rules to work and one of those is list and sentence structure. The reason the language changed is because GW attempted to make the rules more technical (see the wording for re-rolling 1's that didn't change anything but just confused people) and they failed at that just like they fail at everything.
Insectum7 wrote: Vanguard can no longer take two Chainswords. They get one melee weapon and one pistol.
Where are you getting this idea?
Codex: Space Marines, Page 133 wrote: Any Space Marine Veteran can be equipped with one of the following and have a storm shield, or be equipped with two of the following, instead of 1 bolt pistol and 1 chainsword: 1 weapon from the Pistols list; 1 weapon from the Melee Weapons list.
There is no limit to how many times an individual option can be chosen, only that you pick no more than two in total.
When it says "1 weapon from melee" and "1 weapon from pistols".
That's how I've read it, anyways. I also think the wording is different between the two SM books.
If I'm wrong, great. It means I can field my dual Plasma Pistol Vanguard again.
Dual Plasma Pistol was okay when I tried it with updates Shrike.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Newman wrote: I'm a little surprised at the default assumption of using Vanguard Vets as Chainsword-blenders, mine are set up with Stormshields and a mix of Hammers and Chainswords so they can act as backups to Captain Smash, esq.
Even if I wasn't taking the Hammers I'd still take the Shields over the second Chainsword because a 3++ on a unit that's very likey to be going in first to absorb overwatch seems like it's well worth ten more points and losing five low-quality attacks.
Storm Shields are okay here and there, but for the most part Hammerguard are not durable enough to make it across the table and deliver the goods. Otherwise Blood Angel's would've been doing that instead of Slamguinus.
BaconCatBug wrote: It's a list, not a sentence. It doesn't say "1 weapon from the Pistols list and 1 weapon from the Melee Weapons list". It's a list and you get to pick twice from it.
Unfortunately I can't go by your interpretation alone. If you can find a FAQ that confirms it, or a list that has played in a high profile tournament. . . perhaps. Because I have to wonder why the language changed between books. The older book says "you may take two items from the pistols and/or melee weapons lists" which is more permissive language.
Given GW and their issues with clarity, and seeing as the language did change, I'm forced to go with a more conservative interpretation.
Do you have an FAQ that states what a roll is too? Or what kind of inch to use? There is a minimum level of English Language parsing that is needed for the rules to work and one of those is list and sentence structure.
The reason the language changed is because GW attempted to make the rules more technical (see the wording for re-rolling 1's that didn't change anything but just confused people) and they failed at that just like they fail at everything.
Which is why a "technical reading" isn't something I put too much stock in.
The Newman wrote: No they are not. ...two Lighning Claws are not considered one item I mean, not Tacticals are not worth getting.
Yeah. The Lightning Claw thing convinces me that being able to take two identical items is the way to read it. I can't imagine GW would knowingly remove that loadout.
But then there's not a reason to take them over Vanguard. That's the grand point that's being missed. It would be one thing if there were any reason to list being able to take Flamers or Eviscerators as a benefit, but basic Flamers are still bad for the points and only become useable via a Successor Tactic, and Eviscerators are still only being bought for a one attack model.
Slightly cheaper and slotting are the only space they can occupy. There's probably a very narrow set of lists that would care. I don't know what else could change that would get them on the table more though.
With the current detachment system, battlefield role isn't a good argument. They're also REALLY not that much cheaper as they'll always require some upgrade, whereas Vanguard are content just taking dual Chainswords.
Not much cheaper, but with the same kit they're not much killier either. If you want a blender, ASM aren't even in the running, but for a cheap 5 Pistol/Chainsword bully? It's only a couple more points for 33% more killy. But 33% more of "almost 0" is still "almost 0".
Though with A3 base you can get away with buying the Sergeant something more blingy.
Certainly, if you want a bigger/stronger bully than bare-minimum, paying more-than-minimum can give you more. Not sure why that needs to be pointed out.
And I still don't get the problem of sorcerers costing the same as librarians. How many psychic spells and disciplines do loyalists have access to now?
I personally have no problem with sorcerers/libs at 80. I just get a little annoyed at an exalted paying 32 points for 1 wound, 1 attack, and reroll 1s to hit.
Mostly. You could run 5 man JP - melta bombs & fist / eviscerator for 100 points. Doesn't hurt to lose that much, its small enough to hide well, and you will out fight most equally pointed units.
Both RG and BT offer layers that could make them more interesting in a forward leaning army. Nobody will really bother though, because you won't see them tackling things like centurions.
Two big reasons to take ASM over Bikers:
1. For not that many points, you get 5 highly mobile PA bodies. Enough to to tie up a shooty or support squad. It won't take on a deathstar or a dedicated CC unit, but they're quite the bullies. And they can maneuver through any terrain, helping them get into position - 'Fly' is incredible on terrain-dense boards. And they have a much smaller footprint - so LOS is a lot easier, cover is a lot easier, and fitting in a blindspot is a lot easier. They're just a lot more adaptable and capable of dealing with dense terrain. Good luck getting Bikers to move through a city block or such.
2. They are freaking marines with freaking rockets strapped to their backs. How can you not want freaking marines with freaking rockets strapped to their backs?
On a more serious note, Bikers and ASM fill different variants of a similar niche: Bikers are bullies who cover open ground fast. ASM are bullies who cover any ground fast. They're different tools for a similar but different job. Like a maul and a fencepost driver. You can do just about any job that requires one with the other, but not as well.
But then there's not a reason to take them over Vanguard. That's the grand point that's being missed. It would be one thing if there were any reason to list being able to take Flamers or Eviscerators as a benefit, but basic Flamers are still bad for the points and only become useable via a Successor Tactic, and Eviscerators are still only being bought for a one attack model.
"There's no reason to take them over Vanguard" is a stupid reason to use Bikes instead of ASM in such conditions. Now, maybe you'd want to use Vanguard instead of Bikes in those situations, but that's an entirely *different* discussion.
Vanguard will usually outperform ASM. From a purely mechancial standpoint, ASM are rarely the superior option (although there are some very solid non-mechanical reasons), but there are some niches. Against most targets, VV and ASM with the same kit have the exact same effect. They both fail miserably against any CC or anvil unit. They both bully almost exactly the same targets with very similar results. The VV get a few more kills, for a few more points. So if you're really short on points, you might want ASM. For min naked squads, you're talking something like killing 4 Guardsmen instead of 3 on the charge. But in every other metric they perform identically. They move the same. Tie up units the same. Die the same. You don't take this squad - VV or ASM - to kill units, you take them to bully/skirmish. So paying some extra points to kill 1 guardsmen in a unit not intended to kill things isn't all that much of a win.
Also, if you're swinging 1A with the Eviscerator, you're using ASM wrong. It means you're getting charged, not charging. Which should not be done with VV or ASM.
Few more kills for a few more points is precisely the problem. Vanguard are not much more points for double the attacks (let's be real, the Bolt Pistol is basically worthless)
Min naked ASM squad: 11 attacks on the charge
Min naked VV squad: 15 attacks on the charge
Unless I fail at math, 15 is not double 11. 20 after dropping the Bolt Pistols is kinda close to double, but you're trading away 5 equal attacks from the pistols before your charge (with both upsides/downsides), so it's more 16 : 20 - still not double.
And, all that said, double "almost no killiness" is still "Not a lot of killiness". You go from killing ~4 Guardsmen to killing ~6 Guardsmen. Congratulations? Not what you take naked ASM/VV for. You take them to tie stuff up and skirmish. They move the same. They die the same. They tie up the same. So both ASM and VV do just as well at what you take them for.
1. There's no upside to the pistol. We can pretend there is one, but if that were true, Vanguard wouldn't be ditching them the moment they can, nor would Biker variants do the same. It's because Pistols suck. That's just the nature of the game. Were falling back much harder, then maybe they'd have merit.
Pistols are often worth less than a chainsword, but they're certainly not worth nothing. You're counting the benefits of the Chainsword, but not the costs. There are very few situations where you charge without shooting your pistols. So you're trading 1 attack per model on the attacker on the charge turn for 1 attack per model on each combat round. Blenders would want the CC attacks, but skirmishers could go either way. Again, I'd likely take chainswords over pistols on VV, but pretending the Chainswords cost nothing is silly.
2. The numbers are off. On the charge, Assault Marines will have 16 attacks. Assuming all Chainswords, Vanguard have 26. Taking the numbers you presented as well, a minimal investment to kill 8 more points of Infantry (which is more than the invested cost by the way) is a significant improvement.
I suppose I missed the update that made ASM 2A base, or VV 3A base. When did that happen? Regardless, even skewing entirely in favor of the claim (2A ASM, 3A VV, ignore pistols), we're still at 16:26. Nowhere close to double. Now, going from 16 attacks to 26 for +10 points would still often be the right choice. But not always. If you're looking for a minimum points skirmisher to bully/pressure, they both do the same job. 10 points could mean a nicer choice elsewhere in your list. It comes down to where else you're spending the 10 points - and there are a lot of cases where 10 points are best spent elsewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Newman wrote: I'm a little surprised at the default assumption of using Vanguard Vets as Chainsword-blenders, mine are set up with Stormshields and a mix of Hammers and Chainswords so they can act as backups to Captain Smash, esq.
Even if I wasn't taking the Hammers I'd still take the Shields over the second Chainsword because a 3++ on a unit that's very likey to be going in first to absorb overwatch seems like it's well worth ten more points and losing five low-quality attacks.
Depends on what you want them for.
If you want to soak AP, VV beat ASM because ASM can't do that.
If you want heavy melee weapons, VV beat ASM heavily.
The only time you're really comparing ASM vs VV are when you want a budget bully/skirmisher/pressure.
oh ffs.
