Vanguard v. Assault terminators

[DarkGuard]

I agree with you Leonaides in general, but I see the point spartan is making here. Hammernators are not as effective against light infantry as a properly tooled up Vet squad which can deal with them faster and possibly even for less points. Hammernators have often described as having a niche, which makes them katana like in target selection, whikle the Vanguard, thanks to weapon options, can deal with a lot more types of enemies, making them more like a sledgehammer.

[Leonaides]

But a katana has both a pointy end and a sharp edge. A hammer has weight. You actually have more options for hurting something with a katana than a sledgehammer. Although it is possible to sever a limb with a sledgehammer, I wouldnt recommend it. Its not necessarily the point he's trying to make, its the confusing analogy. And all of those weapon options that make a Vanguard to versatile against a wide variety of enemies - they tend to go away at the point of army creation. i've never seen a Vanguard tooled to take on anything - that simply becomes far too much of a generalist squad that actually isnt very good against any one type of target, but can have a stab at anything.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

I would have thought with the obliged Tacticals and the popular Typhoons and Rifledreads, that light infantry ability from the VV is like a third wheel on a bicyle?

You already have X amount of LightAI enforced on you and then as a result of good choices, so does it really matter if the VV can get through them better than Hammernators?

 

Marines, generally, are not great in mêlée, and against dedicated mêlée units especially. Would it not make sense to cover that deficit?

I mean, the VV are supposed to be a combat unit, but would you really send them into combat against power Halberds, or Monsters, or Blood Letters?

 

I think people try to make a maligned unit work, just to say "nyah nyah" to those who say they are terrible. Okay, including the unit in your lists doesn't make it an auto-lose one, but is that really the "it"? - the zing behind all those posts?

 

Ward has realised he faux pas'ed with a] Assault Marines b] Vanguard Veterans and c] Devastators, and amended them in C:BA.

Isn't that proof of admission by action that the ones in C:SM are not as good as they should be, and therefore you are trying to restore an old car when you could spend the same money on a new you-beaut one?

Ward improved all three of those AND made Hammernators more expensive. I guess only Hammernators really benefited from the Sang Priests and Red Thirst then....

 

Its like trying to argue that a revolver is as valid as a fully automatic rifle in battle. Yes, it could do all the things that the rifle can and even outclasses it in a regard - it can be shot with one hand.

But you'd never argue that it is a swap for the rifle, right?

 

It is like people are "having compassion" on the bad units, and with a lot of work and effort, they prove that they work. Well, I can ride a bicycle to school too - "look it achieves the same result as the car you guys all bought". Yeah, not really. You have to dig up circumstances like a short commute time, or traffic jams happening, for it to break even. Then how about the times when its raining, or over 40ºC, or you have to get home in time for an appointment and don't want to smell like a brute, or when the buses nearly run you over? etc.

 

It is great for you guys to get something of worth from something without much potential, but people pooh poohing Net Lists, Tournament play and the "meta" and saying others have it all wrong, really comes across as "I think the way they play is dull and so it must be wrong" much like when people get pwned by better lists and say "your list isn't fluffy, your list is beardy, you are power gaming" when really they just got beaten. I lost, therefore you are wrong.

 

If Tourneys and Net lists are so full of fail, why aren't you, or others, going out and creaming all of these stooges?

"Oh it's wrong, it's wrong, but we we don't have to prove our opinions, so we'll keep on naysaying."

Show us Tourney winning lists that you guys have devised, played and had good success with.

 

"Oh, but you just have to use it right, the list is fine, you just can't use it properly."

Mmhmm.

 

That's like saying nunchuks are as good as sword. Yeah Bob Ninjaboss might beat down Jonny sword-swinger. The reason why swords win is because they are easy to use and require great skill to master - thereby having great potential. Nunchucks are clumsy and awkward, but yes, Bob might even beat a Sword master.

But who'd argue nunchucks are greater than a sword?

 

I guess all those armies for some 4K years were investing in the wrong weapon, huh?

 

Yes, you can make VV work. But have DoA if you're being serious about it.

[thade]

Nunchucks are far more difficult to wield properly than a sword, but can be used to strip or even sunder a katana; the reverse is not true. This doesn't really fit the analogy however. :lol:

 

The changes to the units you mention in C:BA isn't any kind of admission; it's a rebalancing to help BA be more melee centric. As for Dev recosting, I suspect that relates to their competing for list space with shooty Dreads.

 

I don't assert that Vanguard are uniformly better than Hammer Bros or vice versa for all use cases; consider however how many use cases there are. Each unit has its differences and they come up. Heroic Intervention is not the only advantage VV have; in fact, I strongly recommend against HI without DoA and/or a list otherwise filled with locator beacons.

 

Vanguard can effectively multi-assault and eat two (sometimes more) infantry units in a turn (wipe the first, sweep the second). They can also have more models in a LR and thus can physically engage (and prevent from hiding or effectively engaging your attached ICs) more enemy models in an assault.

 

They have their uses, which are more than common belief.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Nunchucks are far more difficult to wield properly than a sword, but can be used to strip or even sunder a katana; the reverse is not true. This doesn't really fit the analogy however. ;)

 

The changes to the units you mention in C:BA isn't any kind of admission; it's a rebalancing to help BA be more melee centric. As for Dev recosting, I suspect that relates to their competing for list space with shooty Dreads.

 

I don't assert that Vanguard are uniformly better than Hammer Bros or vice versa for all use cases; consider however how many use cases there are. Each unit has its differences and they come up. Heroic Intervention is not the only advantage VV have; in fact, I strongly recommend against HI without DoA and/or a list otherwise filled with locator beacons.

 

Vanguard can effectively multi-assault and eat two (sometimes more) infantry units in a turn (wipe the first, sweep the second). They can also have more models in a LR and thus can physically engage (and prevent from hiding or effectively engaging your attached ICs) more enemy models in an assault.

 

They have their uses, which are more than common belief.

 

I wasn't talking about the katana sledgehammer thing.

 

Sword = Hammernators. Easy to use, and effective.

Nunchucks = VV. Hard to use, some can use it well.

 

A sword can chop the hand off, but I guess the hand hasn't surrendered the nunchucks....

A sword can kill with a glancing blow, via cut or concussion, whereas the nunchucks only by concussion.

It is clear that a sword is greater than nunchucks in most applications.

 

You are saying that BA are given 'good units' but cheaper, merely to 'compel' players into playing mêlée style, and not that there is something wrong with VV and Assault squads in the first place?

That UM Devs are not overpriced, and both SW and BA having much better value for money units doesn't show this?

They say you can lead a horse to water....

 

How can BA be able to have just as shooty a force as UM, but the only reason those units were made cheaper was "to get people to play with them"? No, GW realised that C:SM has uneven points for some units.

"We wanted players to be able to use Assault Marines in C:SM, but we don't think it is fluffy, so we made them expensive for their abilities, same with VV. We went to the trouble of coming up with a coolzors unit and its parallel buddy in Sternguard, but we didn't want people to use it, so we made them expensive. It is not really fluffy for C:SMs to use Devs, so we used something like the old 4th ed pricing."

"Oh, C:BA, yes, we realise people would never use Assault Marines for BA, so we'll give them better options, because people wouldn't have used regular Assault Marines to support the already heavy commitment with DC and Sang Guard....

We'll go to the trouble of telling people they are really very much a Codex following Chapter, its just that those lucky chaps in the Assault squads see 24/7 action, whilst the Tacticals who outnumber them 3:1 are on light duties."

 

If you have been with GW when WD were actually a hobby aide, you would know that GW very much stumbles through things and patches things up as they go. What you are saying is plausible, if we didn't know GW's proven track record - they fix things as they go along.

 

C:SM is always inferior to Wolves and Bloods. The only thing that broke that mould was C:DA for 4th ed. as for some reason they lead the charge into C:Simple with them, then realised it was a bad idea. And changed that design philosophy. Which backs my point, GW fixes as it works.

Unless you are saying that GW deliberately builds C:SM to have Fighting style:poor as its mantra?

 

GW wobbles between hit and miss. Cruddace certainly powered up Guard with Valkyries and Vendettas to sell them, and conveniently had Meltavets on hand to make a nice one-two with them. With Guard, is it supposed to be: "it's a rebalancing to help BA Guard be more melee flying centric." No, because fluffwise, only a whisper of Guard use such l33t units. 95% of them are grunts and tanks. GW didn't make Guard more fly centric anymore than they made BA mêlée centric. GW realised that those units in C:SM were poor and changed it.

 

Cruddace then wrote the over priced C:T. Sure there are some things that work in it, like the way VV work. When you compare it to the Hammnernator C:IG you see that they blow hot and cold and even one writer is not reliable. Sometimes they only get better if they get to work on a similar thing again, a lá SM then BA.

 

GW gives C:SM Rifledreads, Devs and Preds. They then give BA Rifledreads, Baal Preds and more expensive Preds. You'd think that the costing from C:SM would be fine, as being forced to take a more expensive Pred all the time is not actually that great. I've even seen you say that SM Devs are the right price because they are durable and cannot be one-shot'ed. If it is fine enough for the supposedly shooty Marines to pay X points for them, then the "melêe focused" BA certainly wouldn't mind paying the same price, as they are getting better bang from the Assault Marines and VV, right?

Which undermines the 'they got it cheaper because that if their playstyle' idea. If I applied the same logic, C:SM would get cheaper tacs and Devs 'to encourage people playing that way'. But they didn't, so no.

 

Giving VV DoA in a UM army is no biggy, as they are not coming down with their buddies like a BA list would. They are both VV and they both pay the same price for things, iIrc, and BA VV are going to work better because they will be supported by DC and Sang Guard and Assault Marines, yet BA VV also get the benefit of actually being able to use the very expensive HI [which is why both are paying so much for Jump packs] as well. So a buff on a buff on a better list for the BA.

[DarkGuard]

@Marshal Wilhelm, no one is saying that Hammernators are not good and that you should not take them. And no one is saying that VVs are amazing units which can easily get into a tournament list. In fact I believe the general consensus is that Hammernators are some of the best melee units out there, combining a fantastic defence with terrific offence, and with a Land Raider they can get around well. They can easily fit into any Marine lists, especially as those lists do lack decent CC support.

 

However, this does not mean that you shouldn't take VVs. If people want to take them, that's fine. And if people want to take them to a tournament, that's also fine. The internet can not and should not dictate the units people feel they should put in lists. The internet tells me Hammernators in a Raider are the best unit for melee. I ignore the internet because I don't want to use the Land Raider, and I also don't want to use an overused unit. And I think that's another problem with Hammernators, they're used by a lot of people, and aren't incredibly original.

 

I'm sorry, but the way your post came out made it sound like Hammernators are the only way to fill the CC void in C:SM, but they aren't, and if people are getting results from using other units then there's no reason why others can attempt to emulate those results.

[thade]

A sword can also cut off a hand that holds a sword; this is kind of weird conjecture, don't you think? It's not adding value.

 

Vanilla marines do shooting better than BA. Telion. Techmarines with the IC rule...on bikes with conversion beamers. Cheaper sternguard...which can be troops. Shooty dreads that don't occupy heavy slots. Combat Tactics.

 

Basically everything I miss from the vanilla dex. FNP and Fast Rhinos are nice, but retreating my Devs from combat and firing on the assaulting unit with heavies the next turn is something I miss.