robbypk wrote:
Part of the fluff of RG is that there is not a lot of ranged firepower. This was reflected in the previous list by making tactical assault units cheaper than regular tactical units to reflect the lack of missile launchers, but also raising the cost of a tactical unit above that of a codex SM army. By keeping the cost of a tactical unit at 275, the only real difference I see between tactical unit and tactical assault is the missile launchers....and 50 points for 6 long-range shots is always worth it to me, even though it goes against the fluff. But by making them 300 points in the previous list...made me think twice.
The cost reduction from the Codex list does mess with them inernal to this list, ya. I don't know if 200 would be too cheap for them though. We could test and see, and if so bump the Tacticals back to 300.
Code:
Second, I am going to maintain that the Commando/Vanguard Veteran units should have FF of 4+, not 5+. Here is my reasoning:
Vanguard Vets are armed with Bolt Pistols in the fluff, same as Assault Marines. I think FF4+ for them would be a stretch, considering everything else armed with them is FF5+. Different CC options (2@4+,1@3+ MW) would probably be a better way to make them stand out above assault marines.
What you're looking for seems like it would be a better fit for Sternguard vets (A4+, CC3+, FF4+, armed with a heavy bolter or missile launcher).
Quote:
The new list created by Dave only has Vanguard Veterans armed with bolt pistols, but that then does not explain their CC3+. The previous RG list had them armed with bolters and chainswords. (I am going to assume that this was an error by Dave)
Chainswords (and all Assault Weapons that don't have a special rule attached to them) have been removed from all the approved lists because they are superfluous from a rules stand point. This isn't something new, it's been that way for two years.