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.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/25 12:06:29
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?
Or are two lightning claws a single item?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/25 16:55:09
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/25 20:55:43
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/25 22:45:59
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/27 16:58:31
oh ffs.
