Card Comparison: Vindicator vs. Tiger

Tips, Tricks and Pearls of Wisdom

Card Comparison: Vindicator vs. Tiger

Postby Keypunch » Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:32 pm

I was thinking of building a deck based on the cool-looking Vindicator, when I took a deeper look at that card. I had not included it much before, perhaps in some kitchen sink decks, but never really gave it thought.

So, in order to decide how it rates, I decide to put it next to a more staple "heavy hitter", the Tiger Tank, which, unlike the Vindicator, is included in the Imperial starter deck.

Let's duke it out between the two:
Artwork:
Vindicator: a medium-size mecha in full action, details of heavy combat in the background. Dynamic!
Tiger: A tracked metal lunchbox with a short fat turret on top. Some generic smoky air and the hint of a ruin in the background. A bit dull.
It's a matter of taste, but the Vindicator has more attractive artwork. Perhaps it's just that a Mecha inspires more awe than "yet another tank", but the Vindicator wins this round.

Cost:
Vindicator: 8 AP, 1 H, 4 M, 4 E, 4 T
Tiger: 8 AP, 2 H, 2 M, 4 E, 4 T

The Tiger is slightly cheaper (12 vs 13 resources). I prefer a decent spread of resources rather than a pile of a single resource, but the difference is small. I'd say the Tiger has a narrow advantage.

Stats:
Vindicator: 6 attack, 6 defense, 3 resistance, 2 movement, 9 hit points, 2 range.
Tiger: 7 attack, 7 defense, 4 resistance, 2 movement, 10 hit points, 2 range.
The Tiger clearly has the edge in combat capability, and the extra resistance die and hit point will boost its durability. Round won by the Tiger.

Fitting with the deck:
Their point costs are identical, so they'll fit in the same point-size decks.
The tech and genetics card you can make for armor/mecha are identical. Both are considered "large" and "biological". I can't recall any special cards that would advantage one over the other. I'd call this a tie.


Special abilities:
A tough field to compare, because it's hard to decide what's 'better' objectively. Both units have shock attack, which neatly cancels eachother out (although shock attack on the Tiger is more likely to connect).
Which leaves compairing anti-air 5 vs. breakthrough.
Now, in my games, it's not all that often that there even is a back-row. Then again, I don't come under air attack all that much, either.
When faced with enemy artillery, a breakthrough with the Tiger is close to a guaranteed kill.
When faced with enemy aircraft, the 5 attack dice will not impress that many aircraft. You might wear down some fate, but that's that.
Also, there's decent alternatives for AA, like interceptors, base defenses and even the Puma mobile AA.
The breakthrough ability however, is unique amongst the humans, and no other unit will have a chance at making a full-dice attack against rear area units.

I'm gonna give the advantage to the Tiger here.

With 3 losses, a tie and a round won purely on aesthetic grounds, my judgement is final: The Vindicator is inferior to the Tiger, unless you are really desperate for mobile AA.
Keypunch
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:05 am
Location: The Netherlands. That's not a tile, it's a country!

Re: Card Comparison: Vindicator vs. Tiger

Postby dave866 » Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:01 pm

Best use I can see for the Vindicator is to deter helo harassment. Against a defense of 3 or 4, and assuming you are in the field where the helo is already taking a hit for each mission, it will drive up the cost. And of course, if you have the tactics, you might be able to wipe the helo out. Those helos, especially the xeno precision one, can really aggravate. Any artillery you might have in your stack won't be there long if the Xeno helo can get at them.
dave866
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:50 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Card Comparison: Vindicator vs. Tiger

Postby Vide » Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:33 pm

I actually favor Vindicators as a static defense unit in my HQ. As I usually take the Imperial Fortress, having a second AA attack, even "only" strength 5, can often spell the death of an enemy aircraft. The unit itself is fairly tough, and will usually get some defense bonus if I don't need to break a siege. True, the Tiger is tougher, but I generally see less artillery in the units that get to my home base, whereas I see tons of aircraft. Last game I played had the Xenos deplete a 275-point deck of aircraft trying vainly to hit anything in my HQ.

If I use the assumption that I'll intercept hostile superstacks in the field, I'd rather take the Tiger and leave the Vindicator at HQ (or a forward base that seems likely to take air raids). But I definitely include both in my decks.
Vide
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:26 pm

Re: Card Comparison: Vindicator vs. Tiger

Postby dave866 » Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:03 pm

That's interesting, I like to see how other people play. I will sometimes add a unit to the deck that I don't even think that highly of, just to force myself to make the best use of it. It's how I learned that Skeletors Mk I is a great collector guard - cheap to deploy and enough to scare off the recon units, which are mostly what hit your collectors anyway.
dave866
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:50 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Card Comparison: Vindicator vs. Tiger

Postby Midknight » Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:45 pm

I actually tend to prefer the Vindicator for armies and the tiger for garrison duty. There are plenty of heavy hitters in the Imperial list, but very little decent anti-aircraft; if the AI is persistent, chances are you won't have, or won't want to, burn the energy for multiple aircraft inercepts. The Vindicator gives you an AA unit that is actually fairly effective in the field. Generally, I'm more worried about the AI airstriking my army to death than my firebase.
Midknight
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:22 am


Return to Strategy & Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron