Balance in List-Building

[SgtBlaster]

This is my first post here after a long while lurking. With the recent rules reveals I've been seeing a lot of threads and posts approaching our rules and units from either a purely competitive perspective or a purely fluffy perspective. Obviously some people only play for fluff and some only play for the crunch, but the vast majority play with both in mind. As such I think we should look at our rules and units from both fluff and crunch perspectives. Personally I play semi-competitively but absolutely within the constraints of the fluff, so despite how competitively good the new phobos units are I won't use them for their cowardly sneaking mechanics. This is of course my opinion but I think this forum can be a perfect source for gamers looking for fluffy and crunchy choices for their crusades. 

[Apologies if this is a bit rant-y, was going to post my crusade and was sidetracked by this line of thought. I would love to hear y'all's thoughts on this]

[Marshal Vespasian]

I am with you. I will not change my army to 30 infiltrating scouts or a bunch of phobos dudes. Might incoorperate some, but well see. I want to play with what I got first.

 

I like reading and looking at the competetive angle, because I want to play well in a more fluffy/rule of cool setting. With the new SM codex we have good chances to take things that we find cool, but are not 100% competetively viable and still do well.

I like to play a traditional mechanized melee force in rhinos Backed up by some deepstrikers and a shooting core of Dreads and crusaders. My type of list got some buffs in getting into combat easier and grimaldus just being way better than before.

 

For example if one of my 3 rhinos gets shot up, I can still arrive where I want to go using the new stratagem. My deepstriking Veterans will get into combat easier because my Chaplain will be more likely to cast the +2'' charge aura.

If I want to deepstriken terminators or vanguard vets, I' ll give the accompanying character the +1'' charge trait.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Marshal Vespasian

[Marshal Reinhard]

I would like to claim a middle ground and say you can reasonably still field some vanguard phobos units.

 

I actually painted some up, though really with the intention of using them for kill team.

 

I'd like to being bring everyone's attention back to our old sword brethren unit entry from the 4th edition codex where one of the special units you could give them was infiltrate.

 

In the discussion of fluff vs crunch, doing so was perhaps considerably more of a crunch than a fluff move. But its colored my perception somewhat in that I at least don't think the option is strictly off the table. That said even with my primaris crusade the makeup I go with is pretty much a modern take on the mechanized strike force, with everyone in tactics or gravis army. Just wish they'd give us a proper chainsword unit already

[Hymnblade]

The thing is, there's not much widespread agreement on what constitutes a fluffy list. You have to try pretty hard to come up with one that is clearly not fluffy. I guess if you... soup in a Supreme Command detachment of psykers?

 

Some lists that people do hold up as fluffy are kind of questionable. I'm not aware of any fluff precedent for the "Black Tide"; that's fond rememberance of the meta of an earlier edition, not fluff. And maybe this is my roots as a 3E player when all special characters required opponent permission (and most kind of sucked anyway), but seeing Helbrecht and Grimaldus in every other list for a chapter that supposedly has 5000+ members is super weird to me.

 

And on the other hand, some lists that people see as not fluffy are pretty defensible. For one, there are multiple crusades that operate pretty independently, so there is plenty of room for variation in tactics. For another, infiltration was in our codex even in 4E; the fact that we don't have Scout squads is to represent a knight/squire relationship at least as much as disdain for stealth. And hey: if you field Incursors alongside Scouts, bam, you have the knight/squire thing back. Having one of those knights riding his noble steed an Invictor warsuit is even better. In a warzone with snipers and artillery, concealment is not cowardly, it's just basic tactics.

 

But what is much less open to interpretation is what works well in gameplay. And unless our rules get turned on their head, that's going to continue favoring basically how Templars should play: we like getting into combat, especially via vehicles and drop pods; we dislike psykers and instead use more chaplains; our most dangerous units are our veterans.

[Marshal Vespasian]

Eh I dont really 'feel' the Argument for sneaking is dishonourable when in the 41st Millennium we Lack honourable foes anyways. The templars are zealous, yes, but not stupid. Theyll use what they can to get to their goal: dead xenos.

After all they are also Masters of void warfare and the Bolter is still a holy Tool.

 

But those considerations aside: I really dont like how a lot of phobos stuff looks. I think replacing knives with swords will do a lot for the models in my eyes. I also really dont wanna paint a lot of templars right now. I am Kind of fed up with Black Power armour and focussing on 30k. That being said, some more intercessors and Charakters will be done down the line, as will agressors.

[SgtBlaster]

I should clarify that my point here is not that we have an ironclad list of fluffy units to use, we can leave restrictions like that to our codex compliant brethren. My favorite part about our fluff is that with few exceptions every option is fluffy, because that is how you as a marshall have decided your crusade operates. If you decide to bring infiltrating units I don't think that is wrong by any means, as long as that play style feels right for your crusade. I won't use them personally because it doesn't feel like templars on the tabletop to me. The point I was attempting to make in the OP isn't that Phobos units are unfluffy, but that listbuilding for most purely based on crunch is not a good idea. (On the most basic level even just because crunch constantly changes)

[MarshalMittermeier]

I am with you. I will not change my army to 30 infiltrating scouts or a bunch of phobos dudes. Might incoorperate some, but well see. I want to play with what I got first.

 

I like reading and looking at the competetive angle, because I want to play well in a more fluffy/rule of cool setting. With the new SM codex we have good chances to take things that we find cool, but are not 100% competetively viable and still do well.

I like to play a traditional mechanized melee force in rhinos Backed up by some deepstrikers and a shooting core of Dreads and crusaders. My type of list got some buffs in getting into combat easier and grimaldus just being way better than before.

 

For example if one of my 3 rhinos gets shot up, I can still arrive where I want to go using the new stratagem. My deepstriking Veterans will get into combat easier because my Chaplain will be more likely to cast the +2'' charge aura.

If I want to deepstriken terminators or vanguard vets, I' ll give the accompanying character the +1'' charge trait.

 

 

personaly i also claim a middle ground.

 

i will either form a brigade or a "battalion + support elements" because thats what an army would do. i almost never use scouts as troop units. while i do not like infiltrating/most phobos units, i adore Reivers (whats more Templar than "terror troops" that drop with grav chutes to assault an enemy? ).

i find filling a brigade with reivers and jump pack units, while using troops as support elements, is powerful AND thematic. 

Edited November 20, 2019 by MarshalMittermeier

[Hymnblade]

My favorite part about our fluff is that with few exceptions every option is fluffy [...] The point I was attempting to make in the OP isn't that Phobos units are unfluffy, but that listbuilding for most purely based on crunch is not a good idea. (On the most basic level even just because crunch constantly changes)

I mean, I agree, but when basically every option is flavorful, that means the only thing to really talk about in terms of list-building is what actually works well mechanically. I don't think we even see an especially limited scope of discussion here - just in the last few days, I've seen people talk about how they plan to run footslogging armies, deep strike armies, mechanized armies - in addition to building around units of jump pack troops, around a character cluster, around bike veterans, around terminators, or around an LRC or two.

 

If every list here was built around the same thing, sure, that would be a problem. But I'm really not seeing that.

[Link2edition]

When I want to build a list that is fun without being too weak I do the following:

1. Put away battlescribe and pull out your collection.
2. Put models that look like a lot of fun on a table, stop when you think its around your point limit.
3. Check to see if these models fit into a force org, swap units as needed.
4. Check to see if these models fit into the point requirement, swap units as needed.
5. Enjoy your new army list made up of stuff you actually like.

I highly recommend doing this every so often, as its a good way to find combos you hadn't considered before, while also making for simply enjoyable games.

[Palmu]

Enjoyable friendly games, mind. A concept which doesn't apply to everyone for a reason for another.

 

Sometimes I hate living in a tourney-focused area.

[Link2edition]

Enjoyable friendly games, mind. A concept which doesn't apply to everyone for a reason for another.

 

Sometimes I hate living in a tourney-focused area.

Preach Brother.

 

I have to be mindful of who I play against for this reason.

[Marshal Laeroth]

 

My favorite part about our fluff is that with few exceptions every option is fluffy [...] The point I was attempting to make in the OP isn't that Phobos units are unfluffy, but that listbuilding for most purely based on crunch is not a good idea. (On the most basic level even just because crunch constantly changes)

I mean, I agree, but when basically every option is flavorful, that means the only thing to really talk about in terms of list-building is what actually works well mechanically. I don't think we even see an especially limited scope of discussion here - just in the last few days, I've seen people talk about how they plan to run footslogging armies, deep strike armies, mechanized armies - in addition to building around units of jump pack troops, around a character cluster, around bike veterans, around terminators, or around an LRC or two.

 

If every list here was built around the same thing, sure, that would be a problem. But I'm really not seeing that.

 

 

Aye.  Everything I field is fluffy...is that bad?  I don't think so.  Back in the days of 5th Edition...I led a mini revolution of BT Gunline lists.  The "fluff" supported it, but it was viewed in a negative light due to previous restrictions we had on units.  Now we don't have any such restrictions, outside of librarians.  But I also view the game from a competitive lens.  I want to build my lists to compete in tournaments, so I don't take sub-optimal units (unless they are the only unit that can fulfill a specific role in my army).

 

SgtBlaster -- We have a great couple of books that give us a ton of flavor.  While the rules we have direct us to use certain units due to their increased efficiency, it doesn't mean we cannot have any number of ways to make those rules work.  While I would agree that tournament list building (or "crunch") is different, its not so much different nowadays because most units in our book are reasonably competitive.  In the past, this was not the case of our codices and we had to take certain sets of units to be competitive.  The only thing that really holds you back is your collection of models.

[Acebaur]

I'm in the middle ground as well. I want to field fluff/lore oriented lists, but I also want to be competitive enough to win some games. That said I won't be fielding 30 scouts.  The most I might do is one 10 man squad because they are a great choice to get a first turn charge. I just have to wrap my head around it fluff wise. Perhaps because my crusade takes place in the Jericho Reach where resources can be scarce a new batch of neophytes might have to take the field to support the main force. Or perhaps it is a test to see how well they can work together outside the Knight/Squire paradigm. 

 

Same goes for Phobos units, when they came out I thought, cool, never going to use those units. But now with the stuff we have available, units like Rievers and especially Incursors look good. I might run them as Sword Brethren though(as a throw back to our old infiltrating unit), not sure yet

[Schlitzaf]

So; for me with our new stuff, fluff wise there been for longest time one thing I’d basically never accept. Principle of the matter really was Scout Squads. Now to note scout squads have been “retconned” as older Neophytes seeming to prove themselves. With latest supplement and more specifically the latest strategam finally in a sense forcing me to accept them as flavorful. I do it begrudgingly. For now, I am gonna use Scout and Scout Bikers but by and large their number must match or less than the number of non-SB Marines of the field.

 

Phobo’s unit sense Reivars I have frankly completely embraced. I don’t see them as sneaky, I see them as the Angel of Death concept manifest. And for Incursors, they are “failed” knights, or Intercessors, or other Primaris Bros whom deserted or fled the field of battle instead of standing tall as Scions of Dorn and Inheritors of Sigismund legacy. So now they are first into the fray.

 

Eliminators, are marines who have seen their battle brothers killed and more by certain enemies. Pyskers, a rampaging Monster Nid or Warpstuff. So they take of the “dishonor” of seeking vengeance sense someone has to do it. Gathering together in like minded squads they take the field early to find and kill those high priority targets.

[Palmu]

My go is to play Scouts and Incursors together with the claim that the Scouts are mentored under the Incursors, but due to the methods used their formation is much looser - The scouts learn how to ambush and fight in close quarters, the Incursors support them with ranged fire as they do so.

[Link2edition]

My go is to play Scouts and Incursors together with the claim that the Scouts are mentored under the Incursors, but due to the methods used their formation is much looser - The scouts learn how to ambush and fight in close quarters, the Incursors support them with ranged fire as they do so.

One of the BL stories supports this.

 

5 neophytes are sent on a mission as recon snipers, an initiate observes them from afar. Then basically gives them a grade after the battle.

 

It is worth noting the neophytes end up charging and beating the enemy to death with the sniper rifles they were given. I think they got a good grade.

[Medjugorje]

As you said... After I played my first supplment game with just Firstborn I cannot wait to test my BT Primaris units

[Acebaur]

 

My go is to play Scouts and Incursors together with the claim that the Scouts are mentored under the Incursors, but due to the methods used their formation is much looser - The scouts learn how to ambush and fight in close quarters, the Incursors support them with ranged fire as they do so.

One of the BL stories supports this.

 

5 neophytes are sent on a mission as recon snipers, an initiate observes them from afar. Then basically gives them a grade after the battle.

 

It is worth noting the neophytes end up charging and beating the enemy to death with the sniper rifles they were given. I think they got a good grade.

 

 

Where can this story be found? I would love to read it

[Sword Brother Adelard]

I think it's called Circle of Honour?

[Link2edition]

I think its in "Crusaders of Dorn"

[Marshal Vespasian]

I think you are both thinking correctly

[Acebaur]

You are both correct. The story is called circle of honor and is in a collection of shorts called crusaders of Dorn