Excellent points, Pietia. Please, let me respond to each of your points.
Wrong approach, dmcgee1.
1) You're comparing elite squad to support models - to field a full squad of vulkans you need a small-sized squad of ducal militia (a very good grunt), to field a squad of e.g. orcas you need two squads of (say) light infantry (not so good - definitely too pricey compared to ducals, as well as less capable). To field two support squads (e.g. four Ronins) you need FOUR squads of grunts (mishima grunts - they tend to be quite expensive) - as a result you get as many MHMGs as you can field in a SMALL vulkan squad. This means, that it is easier to field large numbers of vulkans than large number of orcas or other support vehicles, especially in smaller games; What's more - you can field BOTH Vulkans and Victors in the same army (one as a support choice, the other as elite); If Vulkans were fielded as support squads with (say) 1-2 troopers and sgt. there would be a lot less complaining about them, I guess.
Wrong approach? Have you another approach? I can only compare what I am given to compare. The Atillas are the only Megacorporation squad that is a legitimate comparison - all camparisons to support units are noted. Being able to field both Viktors and Vulkans is a Bauhaus Megacorporation ability. How do
you propose to deal with that? Cancel the ability to be able to do so? Limiting the number of Vulkans may be the only real way to reign in Vulkans, and it is one to which I would not be opposed. But, would you then remove the ability to be able to a Scorpion to the Atillas? Would you make Viktors a support unit?
2) You don't take into account the differences between support models and elites. For example there's no problem in bringing a squad of vulkans into a night fight - you buy them very cheap nightvision gizmos and rule the battlefield. Try doing the same with Orcas or other models you've mentioned (ok, Atillas can take them - but they're the only ones on your list). In the case of other elites the same trick gets a lot more expensive - (IIRC) 5 points per an assault rifle armed 1 wound model compared to the same 5 points per an MHMG armed 2 wound model is a BIG difference. In the case of tournament armies you can include the nightvision on vulkans as a standard precaution and still have an relatively inexpensive, reliable fire support unit.
Also - a lot of the support squads and models (e.g orcas, great greys...) don't have sarges with tac sense, it is also impossible to "lend" them the tac sense from officer models (they would need comm links and you can't buy them). You CAN compensate for this with their mobility, but in the case of Vulkans you DON'T HAVE TO.
I understand, and have noted the criteria for having support units in an army. I guess that I should not assume that everyone adheres to building armies with a bit of flavor, and not for maximum firepower. Yes, I am the author of the Vulkan Army of Doom, but, I no longer use that army for tourney purposes. I build balanced forces. Yes, they usually involve a squad of Vulkans with Night Vision. The one time that Night Vision could have helped me, I was caught out of position on a subterranean board, and could not bring them to bear, so the points for Night Vision could've been spent better, that tourney.
Tac Sense was ignored. I agree with that part of the statement. Tac Sense can be a huge advantage. However, I still think that other units abilities (Orcas can have specs that can Form Fireteam, giving the player extra activations).
Vulkans
have no mobility - their MV is 3. Vehicles with the ability to move
and[/b] fire are, really, incomparable. I am not sure what you mean when you say, "...but in the case of Vulkans you DON'T HAVE TO."
3) It is the first time I see somebody trying to say with a straight face, that having multiple shots at any range is a disadvantage in any environment... Maybe you'd like a weapon swap (to an assault rifle for example)? It would be soo much better on the desert. BTW - you have that nice DAM 13 CC weapon as a backup (and 24 armor to protect you on the way to the enemy). Seriously - your per-shot chance of jamming the weapon is the same as in the case of an assault rifle, but you'll jam more often due to the number of shots. This means, that you'll have more actions to clear the weapon or do something else (move into cc, claim objectives etc), with the same number of shots, more damage and better accuracy than most other elite squads.
Would you prefer that I have a discussion on a topic of which I do not, firmly, believe? I am not saying that I am, beyong any doubt, right. I am discussing the issue with the facts that I have. I am trying not to skew the facts, and using them to make my points. The fact remains that the more dice that you roll, the more likely you are going to be to have to spend AC's to clear jams on environments where weapons malfunctions happen.
- For example, in the last battle I fought, on one particular activation, I rolled a hit, a jam, and a hit. Obviously, the third shot, a hit, was lost, as the weapon jammed on the second shot. I spent the second AC clearing the jam, only to jam, again, on the first shot of the next AC. That Vulkan was neutered that turn, and the others in the squad didn't fare much better. As they are not vehicles, they could not move to objectives, move for fire support, nor get out of the way of troops attempting to advance and provide cover. The AC were gone.
Sincerely, I think that part of the reason that many people have with Vulkans is that they play against them in ideal terrain and environments.
BTW - if you took some time to figure out the formula used to determine PC of units, you would know, that MHMGs are generally undercosted. This weapon costs roughly 12 points LESS than Mounted Autocannons (only few points more than regular HMGs) - while having comparable damage (only 1 autocannon has 15 damage, the rest is 13 - PC difference between them is very small), superior range and better range modifiers. The same goes for the vulnerability to radiant, 2 point vulnerability pays for more than 2 points of armor. I'd like such vulnerability on a lot of my models (if accompanied with appropriate AR upgrade and PC reduction).
The rubric is not public knowledge. The rubric (I've been told, by those who
have seen it) is not a straight-up cost-of-model rubric. It also takes into account extraneous factors, including how to unit affects the entire army. That is nearly impossible to figure. I have tried.
If all MHMG's are undercosted, does that not make all units that carry them undercosted? If so, are you saying that that entire mechanic is broken?
Most Autocannons do (x2) DM, forcing one to make multiple saves. Against Multi-wound models, such as the Vulkans, these weapons can be devastating. Not having to roll multiple dice to hit, they are less likely to jam while firing at the Vulkans.
AR is an Armor Rating - not an Armor Class. AR takes into account evasive manuevering, armor worn, etc.
Pietia, you raise good points, and I welcome the debate. It seems that I am debating from a disadvantage because so many people base their comments on experiences that they've had against Vulkans. When I started playing this game, I did not like Vulkans. I thought that they were
too expensive. Blame that on inexperience. Once I tried them, I realized that they cost 41 PC (on average) for a reason. That said, I went on to see just how many I could fit in a 1000 PC force - 16. That was fun for shock value alone.
I now play no more than a squad of Vulkans for every 750 PC, or so. However, I still see people build what many would consider to be cheese armies.
One of my more frequent adversaries plays a Cyber Army that includes an EDD, a squad of Atillas with a Scorpion specialist, and, sometimes, another Scorpion in support. I do not shy from this, but enjoy the challenge of defeating it.
We play in environments ranging form hazy jungles to arctic whiteouts, and everything in between. There is, always, a lot of terrain. If you manage to maneuver to a point where you can get a clean shot into LR, you are, obviously (in our games) using terrain, environment, and the other guy's mistakes to your advantage -
as it should be.
