Some questions

[BraveSirRobin]

1. Why would you get Aspect of Swiftness instead of Strength on banshees? surely, a bit more dps isn't equal to a superior damage type.
2. Are ASM a bit weak right now? I feel like they can't beat any other melee unit in melee combat, even ones that are much cheaper. they can't seem to beat even sluggas up'd with burnas, and stock tics seem to give them a good run for their money. not even talking about the fact that they fail to do much in terms of damage, often set up teams and ranged squads can wait a few seconds before retreating and not risk losing a squad, or even major amounts of models.
3. When is it worth it to get sternguard veterans and when is it better to get something else? they just seem so universal, i'm having a hard time finding arguments one way or the other.

Thanks ahead of time to anyone who bothers to answer seriously.

[Lichtbringer]

Last patch, there was little to now reason for aspect of swiftness. Mabye agaist Spacemarines, because of the powermelee.

Now, Banshees lost their charge, and without the charge its very hard for them to harm enemy transports which was the main benefit of Aspect of strenght.
Aspect of Swiftness also gives them the ability to jump over cover.

[Sub_Zero]

1. Why would you get Aspect of Swiftness instead of Strength on banshees? surely, a bit more dps isn't equal to a superior damage type.

Against tyranids, for example. Or grey knights. Or space marines or even chaos. If you are certain that your opponent won't opt for vehicles. But all in all I agree with you that aspect of strength > aspect of fleetness. You didn't mention the ability to leap over obstacles that the aspect of fleetness provides. But I don't really see it that beneficial.

2. Are ASM a bit weak right now? I feel like they can't beat any other melee unit in melee combat, even ones that are much cheaper. they can't seem to beat even sluggas up'd with burnas, and stock tics seem to give them a good run for their money. not even talking about the fact that they fail to do much in terms of damage, often set up teams and ranged squads can wait a few seconds before retreating and not risk losing a squad, or even major amounts of models.

They are actually great. For T1 they have a good armor type and a huge health pool. They are durable enough to perform a second assault jump before losing models. Sometimes you use it to retreat and sometimes you continue breaching their lines. In T2 they get an invaluable ability to deter all these high-damaging squads from causing harm quick. The apparent lack of damage is compensated by their high health and the ability to disrupt targets. You may not believe it but ASM actually beat a lot of melee units if they manage to successfully land on them and then perform a merciless strike. Look at vanguard veterans. They wreck faces. Why? They combine disruption, high health and high damage. Imagine if assault marines did that. How OP it would be?

3. When is it worth it to get sternguard veterans and when is it better to get something else? they just seem so universal, i'm having a hard time finding arguments one way or the other.

Try using them in every match you play. The most preferable tactic for deploying them is a drop pod. It is the quickest way to get another squad of tactical marines. But I do not think that in their current state sternguard veterans are anything impressive. Probably the most prominent side of them now is their ability to kill on retreat commanders or light infantry. You may find them useful against any race that has a lot of such units (light infantry). And there is another point to use them - if you ever feel tired of losing and constantly replacing sergeants (the Emperor preserves mine, for example). All in all that is an interesting experience to use them. They will improve your micromanagement (you will have to constantly change round types and move them around while they do so to mitigate damage from another ranged unit or slip away from a melee unit) and you will start to think more about priorities (before any engagement you have to know what target needs to be killed first). You may find for yourself the perfect MU for this unit if you dedicate enough time to use them.

P. S. This topic is better for Strategy discussion

[BraveSirRobin]

They are actually great. For T1 they have a good armor type and a huge health pool. They are durable enough to perform a second assault jump before losing models. Sometimes you use it to retreat and sometimes you continue breaching their lines. In T2 they get an invaluable ability to deter all these high-damaging squads from causing harm quick. The apparent lack of damage is compensated by their high health and the ability to disrupt targets. You may not believe it but ASM actually beat a lot of melee units if they manage to successfully land on them and then perform a merciless strike. Look at vanguard veterans. They wreck faces. Why? They combine disruption, high health and high damage. Imagine if assault marines did that. How OP it would be?

well, their armor type is good for t1, but they still don't do damage. and since they have no sergeant in t1 they have no merciless strike either, which means that if the enemy player keeps a melee squad (banshees, hormagaunts, heretics etc.) near his ranged squads the ASMs are useless.
and since the ASMs cost a lot more than these other squads, i find them hard to justify.
in t2, while it is true that the sergeant and melta bombs make them more useful (keep in mind that these are expensive upgrades), their armor type becomes a drawback. pretty much every melee squad (some even in t1 if i am not mistaken) will have power melee by now, which will shred the ASMs, the ranged firepower becomes a much greater danger since in tier 2 there are damage types other than piercing_pvp.
i cannot deny that vanguard veterans are nice, but you lose the melta bomb which is a big drawback, and they are still a very expensive unit which makes me wonder whether those resources would be better spent somewhere else.

Against tyranids, for example. Or grey knights. Or space marines or even chaos. If you are certain that your opponent won't opt for vehicles. But all in all I agree with you that aspect of strength > aspect of fleetness. You didn't mention the ability to leap over obstacles that the aspect of fleetness provides. But I don't really see it that beneficial.

well, i'm still having a hard time seeing what are the benefits of getting fleetness. what advantages does fleetness have?

Try using them in every match you play. The most preferable tactic for deploying them is a drop pod. It is the quickest way to get another squad of tactical marines. But I do not think that in their current state sternguard veterans are anything impressive. Probably the most prominent side of them now is their ability to kill on retreat commanders or light infantry. You may find them useful against any race that has a lot of such units (light infantry). And there is another point to use them - if you ever feel tired of losing and constantly replacing sergeants (the Emperor preserves mine, for example). All in all that is an interesting experience to use them. They will improve your micromanagement (you will have to constantly change round types and move them around while they do so to mitigate damage from another ranged unit or slip away from a melee unit) and you will start to think more about priorities (before any engagement you have to know what target needs to be killed first). You may find for yourself the perfect MU for this unit if you dedicate enough time to use them.

well, again, this doesn't really answer my question. as i said myself, the sternguards are a very versatile unit. what i am looking for are arguments
in favor or against getting sternguards over something else.

[egewithin]

well, their armor type is good for t1, but they still don't do damage. and since they have no sergeant in t1 they have no merciless strike either, which means that if the enemy player keeps a melee squad (banshees, hormagaunts, heretics etc.) near his ranged squads the ASMs are useless. and since the ASMs cost a lot more than these other squads, i find them hard to justify.
in t2, while it is true that the sergeant and melta bombs make them more useful (keep in mind that these are expensive upgrades), their armor type becomes a drawback. pretty much every melee squad (some even in t1 if i am not mistaken) will have power melee by now, which will shred the ASMs, the ranged firepower becomes a much greater danger since in tier 2 there are damage types other than piercing_pvp.
i cannot deny that vanguard veterans are nice, but you lose the melta bomb which is a big drawback, and they are still a very expensive unit which makes me wonder whether those resources would be better spent somewhere else.

They are doing good damage actually. Their purpose is to jump into ranged units and tie them up, and to knockback when you want. Yes I do such thing. They are quite enough for Devs, Havocs, Lootas, etc. Also, a real good unit to tie up other ranged units like Tacs, Guardians, even CSM which has the highes melee damage of ranged squads. In that case, they can outsmack them. Their healtpool is another gift from our mighty Emperor just like the faster capping trait of Tactical marines. Yes, Emperor ordered it, not the Relic!

In the other hand, Banshee and Tic like melee based squads can hurt your ASM. True. But, you can easly evaporate them with your ranged squads. A flamer on Tacticals should be a solution for Banshees, Hormors, Tics and Sluggaz. The problem starts when they run to your Tacs. Shotguns and Devs I say now.

Also, their armor is not a drawback in later game, HOW DARE YOU IGNORE THE HOLY ARMOR OF ASTARTES?!! Armor is armor. Know the value, some people are missing it ( caugh caugh caugh eldar caugh caugh caugh )

well, i'm still having a hard time seeing what are the benefits of getting fleetness. what advantages does fleetness have

Their squad leader does insane power melee damage, they can jump over small walls, covers, etc and this is a great tool to use. Also, + on Torpids post.

well, again, this doesn't really answer my question. as i said myself, the sternguards are a very versatile unit. what i am looking for are arguments in favor or against getting sternguards over something else.

It depends on your plan. For example; if I think I need some serious amounts of anti-vehicle, I go 2 bazukas so no need for Stern here. Or I sometimes go 2 plasma into plasma+signum Techmarine for Terminator hunt. What I mean is; Sterns are fitting every role of Tacticals. The difference is, when Tacticals starts to counter something, they do it real good. But you have to pay for each weapon choice. You have the versitality on Sterns much easyer. It depends on a single moment.

Let me take in this way; you have a FC / Scouts / Tactical / ASM. If you belive in your self and say : '' I can bring much heavyer AV if I need later on '' go Stern. Because you may need a real long range bazukaa when you face with a transport and Sterns needs to get closer and keep firing untill it dies. Or here is another tactic. Bring a drop pod ( global ) into a situatinal place where you may want as a reinforce point. Sters will loose all levels that the Tactical that upgraded. Get the free Tactical and upgrade it to Stern. There you have one anti-everything squad and one anti-muchbetterbutneedsmoneytopay squad. Sounds good right? Yes it is.

[Dark Riku]

Also, their armor is not a drawback in later game, HOW DARE YOU IGNORE THE HOLY ARMOR OF ASTARTES?!!
Armor is armor. Know the value, some people are missing it ( caugh caugh caugh eldar caugh caugh caugh )

Dark Reapers, Wraithguard, shury plat
Nasty cough you have there.

[BraveSirRobin]

They are doing good damage actually. Their purpose is to jump into ranged units and tie them up, and to knockback when you want. Yes I do such thing. They are quite enough for Devs, Havocs, Lootas, etc. Also, a real good unit to tie up other ranged units like Tacs, Guardians, even CSM which has the highes melee damage of ranged squads. In that case, they can outsmack them. Their healtpool is another gift from our mighty Emperor just like the faster capping trait of Tactical marines. Yes, Emperor ordered it, not the Relic!

In the other hand, Banshee and Tic like melee based squads can hurt your ASM. True. But, you can easly evaporate them with your ranged squads. A flamer on Tacticals should be a solution for Banshees, Hormors, Tics and Sluggaz. The problem starts when they run to your Tacs. Shotguns and Devs I say now.

Also, their armor is not a drawback in later game, HOW DARE YOU IGNORE THE HOLY ARMOR OF ASTARTES?!! Armor is armor. Know the value, some people are missing it ( caugh caugh caugh eldar caugh caugh caugh )

Well, i'm sorry that i am unimpressed by a 400\50 melee squad that cannot beat a 350 squad in combat, and is very threatened by a 210 squad.
my point about their damage is that if you get, let's say, a slugga squad on top of a setup team and they retreat, there is a real chance they will lose the squad, or at least a couple models. on the other hand, if you get your ASMs on a setup team you are very likely not going to get even a single model.
lastly, as riku said, in t2 and t3 heavy infantry armour has a lot of hard counters. basically anything that does plasma/inferno damage or power melee damage is going to shred you hard.

[Swift]

That's because ASM are not a melee superiority squad. They are a melee disruption squad designed to handle ranged units and platforms. Shotgun Scouts are the melee deterrents.

[BraveSirRobin]

Still, for such a high cost squad they feel very underwhelming to me, what with not being an actual high damage threat nor being able to hold their on when counter initiated.

[Wise Windu]

They're very strong if you follow up with support from the rest of your army. The SM roster is able to capitalize on the disruption very well. The Apothecary especially can just move in and give the ASM that much more staying power while your ranged forces deal with any dedicated melee.

[BraveSirRobin]

That strat was popular around the midlife point of vanilla. not so much anymore. to tell you the truth, i'm not sure what changed it, probably some number adjustments. but i guess now it just comes down to opinion. i find it hard to justify a 400\50 squad that doesn't pose a real threat to SUTs, and cannot hold its own in melee. seems to me like very costly disruption compared to spotters or catachans, without the added benefit of the range or the anti-melee. and i know i'm talking a lot about the low damage output, but for they really only do 5 more dps melee than CSMs for example.

[Dark Riku]

ASM are 450/50.

[Wise Windu]

They bleed less than Catachans, and have more map sustainability than Catachans and Spotters, and both of those things are important. Not sure what else to say other than "don't use them for damage", like I have already. Seems like you won't accept that, so I dunno. They are good if they're used to compliment the SM composition. More DPS isn't needed imo.

[BraveSirRobin]

well, disagreeing is fine, i just wanted to start a discussion about some questions i had.
thank you all for the thoughtful comments!