Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hoyt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's not what I mean. I mean requirements for LOS blocking terrain. Because we effectively don't play with much. A bit in each deployment zone is about it.

Well, thats why you are having problems with razorbacks, you should have a lot more terrain on the table. In my local club a general rule of thumb is a couple of pieces of terrain that block LOS and that every 2 x 2 square part of the board has at least one good sized piece of terrain on it, like a forest, a hill, a ruin etc. It lets assault armies more viable.

But that's an arbitrary rule of thumb. Or rule of thumb is lots of "firing lanes". And basically the admission that razorbacks have to hide like cowards because they can't stand up to real units.

You just Ned terrain. 4+ cover increases the lifespan of tanks 50%

 raiden wrote:
You just Ned terrain. 4+ cover increases the lifespan of tanks 50%

Standard cover is only 5+. Only ruins are 4+.

 Hoyt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's not what I mean. I mean requirements for LOS blocking terrain. Because we effectively don't play with much. A bit in each deployment zone is about it.

Well, thats why you are having problems with razorbacks, you should have a lot more terrain on the table. In my local club a general rule of thumb is a couple of pieces of terrain that block LOS and that every 2 x 2 square part of the board has at least one good sized piece of terrain on it, like a forest, a hill, a ruin etc. It lets assault armies more viable.

We do sort of the same using the old 1d3 worth of pieces unless someone has a specific concept in mind. I even have a few 18"x18"x12" Building and mountains to play around with. One even on me a game when I managed to land a Drop Pod [with a Deathwind] on it with my Plasma armed Grey Hunters.

Martel732 wrote:

 Hoyt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's not what I mean. I mean requirements for LOS blocking terrain. Because we effectively don't play with much. A bit in each deployment zone is about it.

Well, thats why you are having problems with razorbacks, you should have a lot more terrain on the table. In my local club a general rule of thumb is a couple of pieces of terrain that block LOS and that every 2 x 2 square part of the board has at least one good sized piece of terrain on it, like a forest, a hill, a ruin etc. It lets assault armies more viable.

But that's an arbitrary rule of thumb. Or rule of thumb is lots of "firing lanes". And basically the admission that razorbacks have to hide like cowards because they can't stand up to real units.

Depends on the height of the terrain and the set up, but I haven't played on any boards which are essentially just firing lanes. Its not too hard to get some terrain you can shoot through.

Also, "cowards"? I'd like to its just playing it smart and carefully to make sure your units survive enemy fire for as long as possible.

Well the problem is that there is no standardized way to do that, so it's totally arbitrary. So I have to deal with a reality of being very exposed to enemy firepower the entire game. I find it very aggravating that I have to depend on arbitrary terrain to be able to have a comparable game experience.

Martel732 wrote:
Well the problem is that there is no standardized way to do that, so it's totally arbitrary. So I have to deal with a reality of being very exposed to enemy firepower the entire game.

Yes, but you don't have to follow the rulebook 100% of the time. Making up some rules for placing terrain to make it more fair for an assault army against a shooty army is fine IMO.

Anything goes as long as you and your opponent agree on it.

 Hoyt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Well the problem is that there is no standardized way to do that, so it's totally arbitrary. So I have to deal with a reality of being very exposed to enemy firepower the entire game.

Yes, but you don't have to follow the rulebook 100% of the time. Making up some rules for placing terrain to make it more fair for an assault army against a shooty army is fine IMO.

Anything goes as long as you and your opponent agree on it.

None of my opponents agree to it. Evidently, most tournament boards are sparse and so then ours have to be as well. I've basically quit running BA as an assault list. Which... yeah. And we also follow the rule book 100% of the time as much as possible.

You want help with Razorback read some WWII Tank Destroyer Tactical Manuals.
The Las-Back or Plaz-Back should be ran like a M-18 Hellcat.
Shove some Sternguard/Vanguard/Tactical s/ASM in 2-3 of them and use them as Flankers [The football term not the rule. I like using them in 3s giving you the option to use the Rhino Rush Cover trick.

 Anpu42 wrote:
You want help with Razorback read some WWII Tank Destroyer Tactical Manuals.
The Las-Back or Plaz-Back should be ran like a M-18 Hellcat.
Shove some Sternguard/Vanguard/Tactical s/ASM in 2-3 of them and use them as Flankers [The football term not the rule. I like using them in 3s giving you the option to use the Rhino Rush Cover trick.

Yes, I'm aware. But it doesn't really matter if they don't live past turn 2, now does it? We're just playing different games, where the lifespan of my units is much shorter, and so your advice is going to be basically invalidated.

Martel732 wrote:

 Hoyt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Well the problem is that there is no standardized way to do that, so it's totally arbitrary. So I have to deal with a reality of being very exposed to enemy firepower the entire game.

Yes, but you don't have to follow the rulebook 100% of the time. Making up some rules for placing terrain to make it more fair for an assault army against a shooty army is fine IMO.

Anything goes as long as you and your opponent agree on it.

None of my opponents agree to it. Evidently, most tournament boards are sparse and so then ours have to be as well. I've basically quit running BA as an assault list. Which... yeah. And we also follow the rule book 100% of the time as much as possible.

Then it is not a rule issue, it is a META Issue.
Myself, I would use my Fortification to buy Fortification(s) that are big enough to block and place them where I wanted Blocking Terrain.

Rule book states 1d3 Peices of terrain per section. Alternating players placing it.

If the rules forced there to be a certain percentage of LOS blocking terrain on the board, they wouldn't have the option to not agree. So I see it as a rules issue.

I'm not giving GW $$ for a fortification. Feth that.

The sad part about all this is that none of it would make Vanguards good.

Martel732 wrote:
If the rules forced there to be a certain percentage of LOS blocking terrain on the board, they wouldn't have the option to not agree. So I see it as a rules issue.

I'm not giving GW $$ for a fortification. Feth that.

Get foam-core and make your own, sheets can be found at the local $ store.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If the rules forced there to be a certain percentage of LOS blocking terrain on the board, they wouldn't have the option to not agree. So I see it as a rules issue.

I'm not giving GW $$ for a fortification. Feth that.

Get foam-core and make your own, sheets can be found at the local $ store.

So I can make my own fortification, pay army points for it, and probably still lose to Eldar? Didn't you say that no one even plays them in your play group?

I shouldn't have to hide my entire army just to have a chance. I should be able to somewhat compete with open firing lanes. But I can't, really.

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If the rules forced there to be a certain percentage of LOS blocking terrain on the board, they wouldn't have the option to not agree. So I see it as a rules issue.

I'm not giving GW $$ for a fortification. Feth that.

Get foam-core and make your own, sheets can be found at the local $ store.

So I can make my own fortification, pay army points for it, and probably still lose to Eldar? Didn't you say that no one even plays them in your play group?

I shouldn't have to hide my entire army just to have a chance.

Are you playing against competitive Eldar lists?

 Hoyt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If the rules forced there to be a certain percentage of LOS blocking terrain on the board, they wouldn't have the option to not agree. So I see it as a rules issue.

I'm not giving GW $$ for a fortification. Feth that.

Get foam-core and make your own, sheets can be found at the local $ store.

So I can make my own fortification, pay army points for it, and probably still lose to Eldar? Didn't you say that no one even plays them in your play group?

I shouldn't have to hide my entire army just to have a chance.

Are you playing against competitive Eldar lists?

Yes. A little less after necrons came out, but they're all coming back soon. And don't forget the triple Riptides.

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If the rules forced there to be a certain percentage of LOS blocking terrain on the board, they wouldn't have the option to not agree. So I see it as a rules issue.

I'm not giving GW $$ for a fortification. Feth that.

Get foam-core and make your own, sheets can be found at the local $ store.

So I can make my own fortification, pay army points for it, and probably still lose to Eldar? Didn't you say that no one even plays them in your play group?

I shouldn't have to hide my entire army just to have a chance.

Eldar, not at the moment, but that does not change that blocking terrain creates survivability for any unit, especially Jump units like ASM and VV.

Martel732 wrote:

 Hoyt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If the rules forced there to be a certain percentage of LOS blocking terrain on the board, they wouldn't have the option to not agree. So I see it as a rules issue.

I'm not giving GW $$ for a fortification. Feth that.

Get foam-core and make your own, sheets can be found at the local $ store.

So I can make my own fortification, pay army points for it, and probably still lose to Eldar? Didn't you say that no one even plays them in your play group?

I shouldn't have to hide my entire army just to have a chance.

Are you playing against competitive Eldar lists?

Yes. A little less after necrons came out, but they're all coming back soon. And don't forget the triple Riptides.

No game is better then a 1 sided bad game.

It's much better against static shooters, though. JSJ and 12" movers don't care as much.

"No game is better then a 1 sided bad game."

That's where I'm headed, again, yes. The BA are just so BAD, even compared to C:SM or Tau, much less Necrons or Eldar.

Martel732 wrote:
We're just playing different games, where the lifespan of my units is much shorter, and so your advice is going to be basically invalidated.

This goes both ways. If what others are saying are invalid in your 'game', then what you're saying is equally invalid in their 'game'.

On-topic, I find the best way to run them is as Assault Marines+1. One Power Weapon (not on the Sarge so they're challenge proof) per 5 guys for some reliable wounds, and just bp/ccw on the rest of them. Use them to take out small units and/or the ones that are cut off, avoid dedicated CC units and MCs as they will beat you. Shoot the choppy, chop the shooty and remember that in KP missions, a 5-man Devastator Squad is worth as much as a 400 point Unit of Doom in deciding the outcome of the game.

Martel732 wrote:

 Hoyt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If the rules forced there to be a certain percentage of LOS blocking terrain on the board, they wouldn't have the option to not agree. So I see it as a rules issue.

I'm not giving GW $$ for a fortification. Feth that.

Get foam-core and make your own, sheets can be found at the local $ store.

So I can make my own fortification, pay army points for it, and probably still lose to Eldar? Didn't you say that no one even plays them in your play group?

I shouldn't have to hide my entire army just to have a chance.

Are you playing against competitive Eldar lists?

Yes. A little less after necrons came out, but they're all coming back soon.

Well, it's no wonder you're razorbacks are dieing easily then, I swear those WAAC Eldar lists put out more firepower in a couple turns than my IG army during an entire match.

Maybe ask your opponents to tone it down a little? Vanguard are bad when they face those kinds of lists. In more casual metas they are perfectly fine, top tier level 40k games is where they are almost pointless.

 Paradigm wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
We're just playing different games, where the lifespan of my units is much shorter, and so your advice is going to be basically invalidated.

This goes both ways. If what others are saying are invalid in your 'game', then what you're saying is equally invalid in their 'game'.

On-topic, I find the best way to run them is as Assault Marines+1. One Power Weapon (not on the Sarge so they're challenge proof) per 5 guys for some reliable wounds, and just bp/ccw on the rest of them. Use them to take out small units and/or the ones that are cut off, avoid dedicated CC units and MCs as they will beat you. Shoot the choppy, chop the shooty and remember that in KP missions, a 5-man Devastator Squad is worth as much as a 400 point Unit of Doom in deciding the outcome of the game.

Even on a table where they survive, a regular ASM squad would do just as well since you are just trying to be a bully. Of course, everyone KNOWS this, so they will make sure you run into an MC or a HTH unit and they won't let you be a bully. The last Vanguard squad I actually saw got introduced to my DC and I haven't seen that guy use one since. I had his list outgunned, so he had to come to me, and I dictated terms of engagement. You don't have to let the bully units bully.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Vanguard are bad when they face those kinds of lists. In more casual metas they are perfectly fine, top tier level 40k games is where they are almost pointless."

Thank you. That's all I was trying to say. And no, they wont' tone it down. Because it's competition to see who can table the fastest against Astartes lists w/o Gravstars. The whole point is to make as many enemy units as bad as possible. Which in the case of C:BA is damn near the whole thing.

Now in an attempt to get back on subject:

With the Angles Wrath Intervention Force I am thinking of building my Spartan Vanguard Vets [Power Spear/Storm Shield].
It looks like it can be fun to build and play.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Now in an attempt to get back on subject:

With the Angles Wrath Intervention Force I am thinking of building my Spartan Vanguard Vets [Power Spear/Storm Shield].
It looks like it can be fun to build and play.

Is 'Spartan' an actual unit tag somewhere, or is that just something you call them since they're using spears and shields?

They'll definitely look cool in any case.

 Phyrekzhogos wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Now in an attempt to get back on subject:

With the Angles Wrath Intervention Force I am thinking of building my Spartan Vanguard Vets [Power Spear/Storm Shield].
It looks like it can be fun to build and play.

Is 'Spartan' an actual unit tag somewhere, or is that just something you call them since they're using spears and shields?

They'll definitely look cool in any case.

The only way I could be better if i could get them to be exactly 300 points each.

Just his name for them, I assume.

Free power weapons certainly get around the issue of overpaying for both damage and protection compared to the normal +30ppm for both weapon and Shield. It would also allow them to engage more elite enemy units right off the bat, if they can charge without first taking shooting and all have the 3++.

When equipping Vanguard Vets, the best rule I find to adhere to is to never go overboard on upgrades. A few SSs, couple of power axes or fists and maybe a couple of other PWs. Keep them as cheap and as killy as you can.

^This

I'm running a carcharodon list, I've considered trying them out for fun for the extra CC attacks they can get, 2 base, +1 for two WPNs and +1 on the charge and if they end up getting rage its 5 attks on the charge each so who knows how impressive that can be in a game.