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.

 FistusMaximus wrote:

 GreyHamster wrote:

 FistusMaximus wrote:

umm... i do think you may have missed that outside of mega-über-competitive "ineedtotableyoubeforeturnthreeorilosemyselfconfidenceOMG"-gameplay, in the casual games people enjoy, that is actually EXACTLY the reasons for ANY unit being on the board.

Riptides look awesome. I want to field five.

okay, that was funny, i admit it

but realistically speaking, if a tau player comes up to me and says he wants to field a (means one) riptide because he likes the model, i'd have no problem with that. i agree, i kinda like the model.
but if he says "i want to field five, but believe me, ONLY because i like the looks", i'd only walk away. i would not even waste my time by laughing at him or saying anything. just walk away and find someone else to play against.

See, you're rejecting the unit based on percieved power level, which is no different from what we're doing with VV, just on the other side of the spectrum. What if all five are actually painted to a fantastic standard with cohesive unit markings, wonderfully and creatively posed and based, complete with O'vesa even having a converted torso and gorgeous lettering to indicate him? They look so awesome, and by your own logic, deserve to be fielded.

There's a binary condition in play here. Either you care about competitiveness for selecting units, or you do not. If you do, then unit power level should be a factor in your decision making. If you do not, then your opinion doesn't take power level into account at all and is thus irrelevant to a discussion on power level.

For the record, I personally own Vanguard Veterans and Warp Talons because they are pretty. They only show up when I'm softballing a game so I can pull punches without the younger kids catching on that I did so. Competitiveness is still a factor in this decision, but in the other direction. I'm deliberately neutering the list so the youth can have a closer, more engaging game with their woefully uncompetitive collections. Dangling victory tantalizingly close is a better motivator to improve than a whitewashing. This logic only works BECAUSE of awareness of how bad the units are and even includes teaching moments like when Warp Talons charge someone in cover ("And this is why you need grenades").

 FistusMaximus wrote:

 GreyHamster wrote:

 FistusMaximus wrote:

umm... i do think you may have missed that outside of mega-über-competitive "ineedtotableyoubeforeturnthreeorilosemyselfconfidenceOMG"-gameplay, in the casual games people enjoy, that is actually EXACTLY the reasons for ANY unit being on the board.

Riptides look awesome. I want to field five.

okay, that was funny, i admit it

but realistically speaking, if a tau player comes up to me and says he wants to field a (means one) riptide because he likes the model, i'd have no problem with that. i agree, i kinda like the model.
but if he says "i want to field five, but believe me, ONLY because i like the looks", i'd only walk away. i would not even waste my time by laughing at him or saying anything. just walk away and find someone else to play against.

I play against a guy that fields 4 riptides because "they look like gundams"
I sure am glad he's not very good

 GreyHamster wrote:

 FistusMaximus wrote:

 GreyHamster wrote:


See, you're rejecting the unit based on percieved power level, which is no different from what we're doing with VV, just on the other side of the spectrum. What if all five are actually painted to a fantastic standard with cohesive unit markings, wonderfully and creatively posed and based, complete with O'vesa even having a converted torso and gorgeous lettering to indicate him? They look so awesome, and by your own logic, deserve to be fielded.

i see you point, and i can partly agree. if it would be 3 of them, which fit in a normal list. but when he maxes it out with allies shenanigans to 5, then it does get a bit too much.

There's a binary condition in play here. Either you care about competitiveness for selecting units, or you do not. If you do, then unit power level should be a factor in your decision making. If you do not, then your opinion doesn't take power level into account at all and is thus irrelevant to a discussion on power level.

untrue. power level IS a factor in my decision making. in a way that i avoid putting too much power into my list to not overdo things depending on my opponent. and also, in a discussion about power level, shouldn't you take into account what the opponents are? because even an OP unit might have a unit its bad against. or an otherwise bad unit might have certain situations and opponents its good against.

For the record, I personally own Vanguard Veterans and Warp Talons because they are pretty. They only show up when I'm softballing a game so I can pull punches without the younger kids catching on that I did so. Competitiveness is still a factor in this decision, but in the other direction. I'm deliberately neutering the list so the youth can have a closer, more engaging game with their woefully uncompetitive collections. Dangling victory tantalizingly close is a better motivator to improve than a whitewashing. This logic only works BECAUSE of awareness of how bad the units are and even includes teaching moments like when Warp Talons charge someone in cover ("And this is why you need grenades").

pretty much what i said before about "lowering" list for weaker opponents, isn't it?

All this being said, I like VV better in 6th ed than 5th. Conceptually, they are very coo, but they can't help being meqs.

Martel732 wrote:
All this being said, I like VV better in 6th ed than 5th. Conceptually, they are very coo, but they can't help being meqs.

i cant think of a reason why they are better in 6th than in 5th, apart from the points reduction... why do you think they are better? would like to hear that, maybe i am overlooking something?

 FistusMaximus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
All this being said, I like VV better in 6th ed than 5th. Conceptually, they are very coo, but they can't help being meqs.

i cant think of a reason why they are better in 6th than in 5th, apart from the points reduction... why do you think they are better? would like to hear that, maybe i am overlooking something?

Points reduction, cheap storm shields, multi-assault, and DS is/was crap, even with descent of angels. The VV 5th edition ability was a gimmick that got you to throw away expensive meqs. Although the bottom line with meqs, the cheaper the better, because they are gonna die.

Martel732 wrote:

Points reduction, cheap storm shields, multi-assault, and DS is/was crap, even with descent of angels. The VV 5th edition ability was a gimmick that got you to throw away expensive meqs. Although the bottom line with meqs, the cheaper the better, because they are gonna die.

i do disagree with the DS being crap, but it is a bit risky, yeah.
and the cheaper weapons options, points on you, didn't realize that until now.

one thing that blows is that they are now elites instead of fast attack, them being fast attack was cooler since it kept space in the elites for other stuff...

That's perfect for my purposes, as I think most marine elites suck out loud. Dreads: garbage, Terminators: garbage, Assault cents: garbage. Sure, there are sternguards, but unless I'm going drop pod, my elite slot is usually pretty empty.

Caveat: Iron clad dread w/double heavy flamer is okay. It's like a crappy fragnought.

The thing with assaulting from deepstrike was it was more expensive then it looked. And VV were overpriced to start. If you wanted to reliably use the heroic intervention you needed to seed the table with locator beacons. Or have a much healthier relation to your scatter die then I do. BA could get a little bit more from it with the whole DoA thing. Vanilla Vanguard Veterans were just too random to rely on without a massive points investment.

Infiltrating these guys is potentially brutal with Shrike, but Shrike himself is a useless tool. So much fail in C:SM.

As a Raven Guard player, I love Vanguard Veterans. But I havn't played in 2 years since 5th Ed, nevermind 6th.

I'm planning on eventually making a small 5 man squad all armed with Stormshields and the Sgt equipped with a thunder hammer (though they'll all be magnetised so I can swap out the weapons) to act as a bodyguard for my Captain/Chapter Master to soak up fire and allow him to do the real damage. The Captain would use the Shield Eternal and Burning Blade or a Relic Blade.

I think that squads of 10 with 3-4 stormshields that move in front in case of ion accelerators would be more efficient. Give them meltabombs to threaten any target.

Martel732 wrote:
I think that squads of 10 with 3-4 stormshields that move in front in case of ion accelerators would be more efficient. Give them meltabombs to threaten any target.

Well I'm more of a fluff player than competitive & efficient . I'm making an absurdly expensive (though magnetised) beatstick melee Captain with a bodyguard of 5 Vanguard Veterans with storm shields not because I expect it to be effective but because it'll be cool and fluffy.

Edit: I'll also use lots of fast MSUs Infiltrating (Scouts), Scouting (Rhino borne Sternguard and footslogging Devestators), Deepstriking (Tactical Squads in Drop Pods) or just outright fast (2 x 5 Assault Squads and a Storm Talon) to create Target Saturation and draw fire away from the Captain and Veterans.


I'm very much a casual player, so I don't expect to be playing Escalation or Stronghold Assault.

 FistusMaximus wrote:
well, if the OP still reads all of our rambles, here is my opinion on the initial question lol

Not gone, just had a paper that needed working on last night. Also didn't expect to see the thread revived on a scale such as this. Looks like the big spiel now is competitive play vs playing for the sake of fun. I consider myself a member of the latter, especially with 40K. I mean come on, if we wanted to be playing a balanced game there's plenty of other options both historical and fictional. The main reason I even got back into 40K is for the great looking models and the insanity that makes up this game and I feel in the end thats why many of us have stuck around or gotten into this game as well despite the outrageous prices. Is it annoying as feth sometimes to face a cheesy list that we've seen copied and pasted in countless forums and army comp videos.

Opinions aside I think I can agree now, even if some of the arguments got repetitive, that Vanguards don't meet the standard set for assault troops anymore between price and fragility though I do want to play devil's advocate for a moment. Let's say that the squad makes it to enemy lines relatively intact, say 2/3 of the original squad size, do we see a chance for them to earn their points? Maybe this is just from my 3 years of playing Warmachne but there were plenty of times when my Doom Reavers (berzerking criminals with broadswords as large as themselves) would get wiped out or suffer heavy casualties before reaching another unit. If the first happened I was fine with it as people were frightened of what they COULD do should they close the gap so the rest of my army was relatively unscathed those first two turns. The latter option wasn't a big deal either since even at reduced strength they would continue to cause havoc with my opponent, even if it only kept a unit from shooting.

Now I'm not saying Vanguard's cost is justified but if played smart does anyone else feel that even the top tier armies (Tau, Eldar, etc) would focus fire on them as they would be frightened of what they COULD do?

I think any fast moving troop will be focused by Tau/Eldar. The actual CC power doesn't matter, they just stop stuff from shooting. But any REAL CC troops will beat up ASM or VV.

 Verstaka wrote:


Opinions aside I think I can agree now, even if some of the arguments got repetitive, that Vanguards don't meet the standard set for assault troops anymore between price and fragility though I do want to play devil's advocate for a moment. Let's say that the squad makes it to enemy lines relatively intact, say 2/3 of the original squad size, do we see a chance for them to earn their points?

as i said, it depends on enemies and loadout. my 140 points 5 man with meltabombs earned their points back in multitude, just killing a single russ made them be worth their points. still a risky gamble, but definitey a fun one in casual games!

Now I'm not saying Vanguard's cost is justified but if played smart does anyone else feel that even the top tier armies (Tau, Eldar, etc) would focus fire on them as they would be frightened of what they COULD do?
they would, but due to tau and eldar's pretty heavy shooting, given its a very competitive list, it would be a short attention they'll need to give to the vanguard to wipe them out. not worth it, really.
now, back in casual games, the distraction they cause can be massive lol

 FistusMaximus wrote:

 GreyHamster wrote:


See, you're rejecting the unit based on percieved power level, which is no different from what we're doing with VV, just on the other side of the spectrum. What if all five are actually painted to a fantastic standard with cohesive unit markings, wonderfully and creatively posed and based, complete with O'vesa even having a converted torso and gorgeous lettering to indicate him? They look so awesome, and by your own logic, deserve to be fielded.

i see you point, and i can partly agree. if it would be 3 of them, which fit in a normal list. but when he maxes it out with allies shenanigans to 5, then it does get a bit too much.

There's a binary condition in play here. Either you care about competitiveness for selecting units, or you do not. If you do, then unit power level should be a factor in your decision making. If you do not, then your opinion doesn't take power level into account at all and is thus irrelevant to a discussion on power level.

untrue. power level IS a factor in my decision making. in a way that i avoid putting too much power into my list to not overdo things depending on my opponent. and also, in a discussion about power level, shouldn't you take into account what the opponents are? because even an OP unit might have a unit its bad against. or an otherwise bad unit might have certain situations and opponents its good against.

For the record, I personally own Vanguard Veterans and Warp Talons because they are pretty. They only show up when I'm softballing a game so I can pull punches without the younger kids catching on that I did so. Competitiveness is still a factor in this decision, but in the other direction. I'm deliberately neutering the list so the youth can have a closer, more engaging game with their woefully uncompetitive collections. Dangling victory tantalizingly close is a better motivator to improve than a whitewashing. This logic only works BECAUSE of awareness of how bad the units are and even includes teaching moments like when Warp Talons charge someone in cover ("And this is why you need grenades").

pretty much what i said before about "lowering" list for weaker opponents, isn't it?

5 Riptides is straightforwardly legal. Any problems with it would relate more to potential weaknesses like wound saturation and scoring potential.

If power level is a factor to you, then you are evaluating the competitiveness of the unit. If there is a unit that the so-called OP unit is bad against, then you have to take into consideration the power of that potential counter. If it's only countered by some awful unit that no one takes due to extreme cost inefficiency, you can probably entirely disregard it. If the situation arises freqeuntly enough that a bad unit is useful, then it's not actually a bad unit, it's just poor initial evaluation. If it's not frequent enough, then the unit is still bad. If a unit is only useful against other low efficiency units, they can be written off. 40k doesn't have bizarre edge cases where generally awful things suddenly become useful, like the card One with Nothing in Magic the Gathering. In general, units are strong because they are very broadly useful and strong against pretty much anything you might expect to run into. A Screamerstar or seerstar can fight just about anything and take minimal damage. An ion accelerator is a threatening weapon against almost any list construct. This makes them good. Vanguard Veterans have a very narrow band of targets they are efficient against and are bad. Because, say, a Centurion Dev squad could kill everything in the same target band AND kill a substantial number of other things at the same price point.

If you're avoiding overloading power in the list as I am during instructive games, you're still acknowledging that a unit is bad. When I lower the list power level, the goal is to teach the youngsters WHY such units are weak and allow them to up their game down the line. The point is to encourage better play later, because they're still in the learning phase of the game. You are saying, 'My opponent is bad, so I'll just be bad." I am saying "My opponent is inexperienced, so I will teach him why things are bad.'


As to the OP's return question, you won't be able to make VV threatening enough that the top armies will be forced to deal with them inefficiently. They're too expensive and will get fed disposable fire warrior squads or jetbike units so they can never make a meaningful charge.

 GreyHamster wrote:


5 Riptides is straightforwardly legal. Any problems with it would relate more to potential weaknesses like wound saturation and scoring potential.

i know it's legal? i am just saying i will not believe somebody who uses fluff for explaining why his army is 80% of his points in riptides.

As to the OP's return question, you won't be able to make VV threatening enough that the top armies will be forced to deal with them inefficiently. They're too expensive and will get fed disposable fire warrior squads or jetbike units so they can never make a meaningful charge.

this repeats exactly what i have stated.

To strike a balance, I think 10 VV with 3-4 stormshields and melta bombs led by a character with 2+ armor can be a threat. This is not cheap, and bikers led by characters are better, but it's still got some punch to it. In a "casual" game, this could actually be pretty brutal.

Casual players who only possess knowledge of casual play should stick to making comments and observations that are related to their field of specialty, which makes for a largely irrelevant and unhelpful discussion.

If you're not a competitive player, you don't exactly have the knowledge, experience, or reason to discuss a unit's uses from a competitive standpoint.

And all tactics that aim to improve generalship or increase chance of match wins are competitive in nature.

Spamming VVs with wargear, or taking VVs at all might be fun and fluffy for casual play, but it's simply not good or competitive. How you guys can have 4 pages of arguing over Vanguards is beyond me.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
Casual players who only possess knowledge of casual play should stick to making comments and observations that are related to their field of specialty, which makes for a largely irrelevant and unhelpful discussion.

If you're not a competitive player, you don't exactly have the knowledge, experience, or reason to discuss a unit's uses from a competitive standpoint.

.

besides this being pretty insulting, essentially calling all non-competitive players incompetent (thanks a lot for that, sir), may i politely remind you that just a couple posts up, the OP stated he is a casual player and such wants this answered from a casual standpoint?

 FistusMaximus wrote:

 GreyHamster wrote:


5 Riptides is straightforwardly legal. Any problems with it would relate more to potential weaknesses like wound saturation and scoring potential.

i know it's legal? i am just saying i will not believe somebody who uses fluff for explaining why his army is 80% of his points in riptides.

As to the OP's return question, you won't be able to make VV threatening enough that the top armies will be forced to deal with them inefficiently. They're too expensive and will get fed disposable fire warrior squads or jetbike units so they can never make a meaningful charge.

this repeats exactly what i have stated.

I started writing before you posted, so I left it there. It's a forum, that obviously happens from time to time, no need to get snippy about it.

And frankly, what's wrong with the fluff? The guy made an experimental Cadre that's testing mass deployment of the suits, overseen by Farsight and the most qualified of the Eight to observe. Besides, giant mecha are awesome.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
Casual players who only possess knowledge of casual play should stick to making comments and observations that are related to their field of specialty, which makes for a largely irrelevant and unhelpful discussion.

If you're not a competitive player, you don't exactly have the knowledge, experience, or reason to discuss a unit's uses from a competitive standpoint.

And all tactics that aim to improve generalship or increase chance of match wins are competitive in nature.

Spamming VVs with wargear, or taking VVs at all might be fun and fluffy for casual play, but it's simply not good or competitive. How you guys can have 4 pages of arguing over Vanguards is beyond me.

This is why you read more than the thread title before posting. It's possible to be aware of competitive play while playing casually.

You're free to interpret the post however you want. The fact that "if you're not a competitive player...you're not a competitive player" remains is something neither of us can change.

If you haven't noticed, Carcharodons aren't exactly the most competitive army.

And even the "well for casual play..." excuse is bogus. The minute any player wisens up and uses any sort of decent strategy, regardless of how casual or competitive that player is, a lot of stuff gets sunk. Your argument is essentially "If my opponent doesn't try to win and doesn't do anything remotely efficient, then this will work!".

 GreyHamster wrote:


I started writing before you posted, so I left it there. It's a forum, that obviously happens from time to time, no need to get snippy about it.

okay, makes sense, i apologise then for being a bit harsh.

And frankly, what's wrong with the fluff? The guy made an experimental Cadre that's testing mass deployment of the suits, overseen by Farsight and the most qualified of the Eight to observe. Besides, giant mecha are awesome.

i think we both should stop and call it a day now, as we both wouldn't give in an inch on this debate about fluffyness of 5 'tides (and you know that as well as i do! )

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
Casual players who only possess knowledge of casual play should stick to making comments and observations that are related to their field of specialty, which makes for a largely irrelevant and unhelpful discussion.

If you're not a competitive player, you don't exactly have the knowledge, experience, or reason to discuss a unit's uses from a competitive standpoint.

And all tactics that aim to improve generalship or increase chance of match wins are competitive in nature.

Spamming VVs with wargear, or taking VVs at all might be fun and fluffy for casual play, but it's simply not good or competitive. How you guys can have 4 pages of arguing over Vanguards is beyond me.

Riiiiight.

So you're only allowed to voice your own opinion if you can prove your expertise at 40K.

My Ignore list grows once more.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
Casual players who only possess knowledge of casual play should stick to making comments and observations that are related to their field of specialty, which makes for a largely irrelevant and unhelpful discussion.

If you're not a competitive player, you don't exactly have the knowledge, experience, or reason to discuss a unit's uses from a competitive standpoint.

And all tactics that aim to improve generalship or increase chance of match wins are competitive in nature.

I must say that I entirely disagree with this.

Firstly, there is a huge difference between knowing what is the best/most competitive/OP choice/tactic and using that yourself. I only ever play casual games myself, but spend enough time reading/watching batreps and forums to be familiar with the competitive side of the game. I (and many others) am perfectly capable of discussing competitive tactics from a theoretical standpoint, despite not participating in this myself.

If the question was purely 'can I take Vanguard Veterans to a top tournament and use them to win?', I would join the chorus of people saying 'no', because at the level where you see the likes of Screamerstars, Triptides and Seer Councils left right and centre, Vanguard veterans do not stack up. All the points that have been made against them are valid in this regard.

However, the OP has stated that he is not looking to play at this level of competition, and has expressed an interest in using Vanguard Veterans as well as other SM assault units. Therefore, this indicates he is aware of but not bothered by the perceived lack of competitiveness, and is asking not 'should the units be used?' but rather 'how to use them?'. In this respect, the posts about how they are going to fall apart to top-level competitive builds is largely irrelevant. It's like saying that paintball gear won't save you from a sniper rifle. Therefore, while we can all accept said units are far from the optimum choice, that does not mean discussion of how to get the most from them is irrelevant. Just in the last page, there have been a couple of ways suggested that would make them useful, if not perfect, for a list, and that's probably far more useful to the OP than all those saying 'don't bother with them'.

To your last point, yes, anything that aims to improve the chance of success is competitive by definition, but I think everyone on these boards is aware that, in this particular context, competitive refers to tournament-level gaming.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
Casual players who only possess knowledge of casual play should stick to making comments and observations that are related to their field of specialty, which makes for a largely irrelevant and unhelpful discussion.

If you're not a competitive player, you don't exactly have the knowledge, experience, or reason to discuss a unit's uses from a competitive standpoint.

And all tactics that aim to improve generalship or increase chance of match wins are competitive in nature.

Spamming VVs with wargear, or taking VVs at all might be fun and fluffy for casual play, but it's simply not good or competitive. How you guys can have 4 pages of arguing over Vanguards is beyond me.

Riiiiight.

So you're only allowed to voice your own opinion if you can prove your expertise at 40K.

My Ignore list grows once more.

THIS.
thank you sir, now i know i am not the only person who thinks his statement is a slap into the face of large parts of the gaming community.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
If you're not a competitive player, you don't exactly have the knowledge, experience, or reason to discuss a unit's uses from a competitive standpoint.

Wow, had no idea that just because I don't like spamming Riptides, Heldrakes or Wave Serpents I have no knowledge or reason to discuss a way to make a unit that sees no play potentially effective on the table. I will concede experience since I haven't even read the entirety of the 6th ed rulebook yet but I like to think I have a good grasp on tactics since I've been playing various wargames since 2007.

 Paradigm wrote:

Firstly, there is a huge difference between knowing what is the best/most competitive/OP choice/tactic and using that yourself. I only ever play casual games myself, but spend enough time reading/watching batreps and forums to be familiar with the competitive side of the game. I (and many others) am perfectly capable of discussing competitive tactics from a theoretical standpoint, despite not participating in this myself.

this is true for me too, but apparently, not wanting to play in a super competitive way somehow magically makes me unqualified in the eyes of Tyberos.

However, the OP has stated that he is not looking to play at this level of competition, and has expressed an interest in using Vanguard Veterans as well as other SM assault units. Therefore, this indicates he is aware of but not bothered by the perceived lack of competitiveness, and is asking not 'should the units be used?' but rather 'how to use them?'. In this respect, the posts about how they are going to fall apart to top-level competitive builds is largely irrelevant. It's like saying that paintball gear won't save you from a sniper rifle. Therefore, while we can all accept said units are far from the optimum choice, that does not mean discussion of how to get the most from them is irrelevant. Just in the last page, there have been a couple of ways suggested that would make them useful, if not perfect, for a list, and that's probably far more useful to the OP than all those saying 'don't bother with them'.

i tried to make that point several times now, but up to now without effect.
i fully agree with what you said, especially regarding the OP's intention with the question (jeez, he even said it by himself that he is not a competitive player, why do people STILL continue rambling about VV not being a powerful unit against Taudar?)

Anyway, I thought the consensus was that Warhammer 40K was a horribly unbalanced and poorly written though fun game with GW's intended target demographic being casual beer & pretzel gamers, not Competitive tournament players?

Being GW's main target demographic, surely my opinion is at least partially relevant?

Have I gone through the Looking Glass and arrived in a world in which Warhammer 40K is a game written by and for competitive gamers?