PDA

View Full Version : force composition?



austen powers
05-11-2014, 15:20
It got brought up in my last post, about foc shenanigans and what constitutes a "proper" army.

Im playing an inquisition force using codex inquisition & scions,and thats when I got brought up,fair play to the guy,he wasnt bashing me for it, and he gave me his reasoning behind it,but does anyone else feel thus way about certain atm builds (not just the above example).

Charistoph
05-11-2014, 16:21
A "proper" army depends on what you are using, really.

A "proper" Ultramarines army will have a squad of Assault Marines and a squad of Devastators to every three squads of Tacticals. Then add Vehicles and Veterans to suit the task at hand.

While a White Scars army will have a stronger emphasis on bikes, mechanized forces, and hitting and running.

Either of which could expect to have some Imperial Guard and Navy support in most operations.

In your case, Inquisition + Scions just says to me that you are bringing the old 'Hunters Inquisition army in the only way you know how with the current system.

It's not like you're running Grey Knights and Chaos Daemons or Eldar and Necrons together.

Lord Damocles
05-11-2014, 18:04
A "proper" Ultramarines army will have a squad of Assault Marines and a squad of Devastators to every three squads of Tacticals. Then add Vehicles and Veterans to suit the task at hand.
Unless it's not primarily drawn from a Battle Company...

HelloKitty
05-11-2014, 18:11
The problem is that "proper" is in the eye of the beholder. I can justify almost any build narratively if I want. Some more easily than others.

Sir Didymus
05-11-2014, 18:23
Proper armies should be reserved for proper battlefields, where infantry weapons can shoot further than you can spit and artillery isn't used for shooting your next door neighbor :P

As the cute little kitty points out; any army build can be justified with a narrative.

Horus38
05-11-2014, 18:31
It got brought up in my last post, about foc shenanigans and what constitutes a "proper" army.

Im playing an inquisition force using codex inquisition & scions,and thats when I got brought up,fair play to the guy,he wasnt bashing me for it, and he gave me his reasoning behind it,but does anyone else feel thus way about certain atm builds (not just the above example).

I've found it's pretty easy to spot those players that cater to a broken/skewed/OP minded build and those who just like a fun/narrative/themed battle. Those same players also usually have a deeper understanding of the background material and where their force composition fits into it.

Charistoph
05-11-2014, 18:37
Unless it's not primarily drawn from a Battle Company...

Hence the quotes.

What is proper is not always appropriate. Or to quote a phrase, "The Codex Astartes does not support this action."

I was speaking on two fronts, one is the mix that the codex-adherent Ultramarines would make use, and one in which their Tactics get full play.

Scribe of Khorne
05-11-2014, 19:37
The problem is that "proper" is in the eye of the beholder. I can justify almost any build narratively if I want. Some more easily than others.

And due to this (and I agree, its very easy to do with 40K's huge universe) we have Unbound.

You can bring whatever you want and make a game of it, a proper army like Kitty says is completely subjective.

otakuzoku
06-11-2014, 02:51
the main gripe i have had from people is how open to abuse unbound lists are. and to be honest is stinks of GW being lazy and there refusal to draw a line in the sand in case they louse a few sales. new and different FOCs fine. but some defined limits please. eg if some one wants to mix demon and chaos space marine codex's up fine but require devotion to 1 chaos god.

WomBone
06-11-2014, 05:17
the main gripe i have had from people is how open to abuse unbound lists are. and to be honest is stinks of GW being lazy and there refusal to draw a line in the sand in case they louse a few sales. new and different FOCs fine. but some defined limits please. eg if some one wants to mix demon and chaos space marine codex's up fine but require devotion to 1 chaos god.

you are worried about the abuse Unbound brings?

I see you haven't faced a ThunderStar, SerpentSpam (both times) or TauDar then?

The things you can do in CAD's and not unbound is more abusable than unbound.

WarsmithGarathor94
06-11-2014, 07:32
the main gripe i have had from people is how open to abuse unbound lists are. and to be honest is stinks of GW being lazy and there refusal to draw a line in the sand in case they louse a few sales. new and different FOCs fine. but some defined limits please. eg if some one wants to mix demon and chaos space marine codex's up fine but require devotion to 1 chaos god.
Why should it require devotion to one god aside from the world eaters etc most warbands worship chaos undivided

insectum7
07-11-2014, 01:16
I've played nearly every week for most of the past year at a local club and I have yet to see an unbound army.

Five Wave Serpents though? Oh yeah. Couple of Knights? Definitely. Warhound Titan or Stompa? Seen em both! Space Marines summoning daemons? Guilty!

Still, no unbound at all.

mongoosedog300
07-11-2014, 10:42
I've played nearly every week for most of the past year at a local club and I have yet to see an unbound army.

Five Wave Serpents though? Oh yeah. Couple of Knights? Definitely. Warhound Titan or Stompa? Seen em both! Space Marines summoning daemons? Guilty!

Still, no unbound at all.

But! Unbound will kill us all! Haven't you heard! The sky is falling and warhammer is ending and we're all dead!

I've had similar experiences, playing at least a game a week (probably averaging 2 actually) since 7th came out, and there has been maybe 1 or 2 unbound games we've had, and those have been agreed upon before hand, and are just for a bit of fun. The game hasn't been ruined (Infact, both 40k AND fantasy have taken off in my area, and a local club/store has opened, which gives us even more excuse to play), and myself and heaps of others have been having more fun playing GW games than ever before.

On the issue of army composition, I too think you can justify anything narratively. There is no "proper" army, because anything is an "army" if it's down on the board, from kill teams to apocalypse, it's all fun and games.

Ironbone
07-11-2014, 11:25
any army build can be justified with a narrative
Any can does not mean any should. Army of 2 slanneshi DP leading scores of plague marines and Obliterators is one of lest fluffwise possible armies, yet for years it was one of most commonly encounterd.

Ofc, same fluff supports flexible armies. If other player don't mind what you fielded, then you are doing right job. Or, if you do not care what other side may think, than just field whatever rules allow you, and fell fancy.

Simply said, I adwise to not abuse rules you have. Just follow generic, commonsense guidelines, like "do not spam unit's, especialy ones described as rare or unique".

Good example for that would be double chapter masters. It's perfectly legal to do so by rules, but looks incredibly sily in fluff terms. There exist one-in-whole-freaking-galaxy chapter that have 2 chapter masters (White Consuls). Ofc, one can try to argue that represents to diffrent chapters fighting together, but than again could it not be represented as well simply by fielding another SM detachment, possibly with diffrent chapter tactics ( especialy as there is a lot of them to choose from ). You will be battle bronies anyway, but dosen't this look much better ?

Konovalev
07-11-2014, 17:01
Part of the problem with this "proper army" idea is that most people are not playing games which represent typical battles. You can't look at the army being fielded and expect it to represent what that faction typically fields for battle.

Just because I run a list with Draigo in it doesn't imply that Draigo personally leads every single Grey Knight sortie. Player battles are the exception to warfare in 40k, not the standard. For every battle you play there are a thousand, a thousand thousands, other battles going on before during and after in-universe. You're playing the battle in which the tide of the war turns, the planet is taken or lost, etc.

If 2 armies of roughly equivalent strength, often containing characters of importance, fighting in a meeting engagement were the norm - all races in the 40k universe would have attritted themselves into shambles ages ago.

WomBone
07-11-2014, 19:19
Part of the problem with this "proper army" idea is that most people are not playing games which represent typical battles. You can't look at the army being fielded and expect it to represent what that faction typically fields for battle.

Just because I run a list with Draigo in it doesn't imply that Draigo personally leads every single Grey Knight sortie. Player battles are the exception to warfare in 40k, not the standard. For every battle you play there are a thousand, a thousand thousands, other battles going on before during and after in-universe. You're playing the battle in which the tide of the war turns, the planet is taken or lost, etc.

If 2 armies of roughly equivalent strength, often containing characters of importance, fighting in a meeting engagement were the norm - all races in the 40k universe would have attritted themselves into shambles ages ago.
to play a game with Draigo in at all is the very rarest of times, considering he is out pimp slapping greater daemons and Primarchs.

HelloKitty
07-11-2014, 19:26
I have played the very rarest of battles the majority of the time then ;)

Dr.Clock
07-11-2014, 19:44
Yeah... everybody's going to have a different view of 'propriety'... and I personally think that in army building, as in modeling generally, 'rule of cool' should usually win out.

Inquisition and Scions is flipping COOL. It's pretty much precisely the way I envision an Inquisitor using a 'personal army' of the best elites that (regular) humanity has to offer.

As far as 'foc shenanigans' goes, that argument is to my mind a pretty stale... people may 'prefer' playing 40k-lite with only one book fielded per side per game, but I really LOVE that GW has come down firmly on rewarding people for thinking about the 40k universe in a bigger way ON THE TABLETOP.

All armies of the Imperium will fight together on a regular basis. The rules reflect this.

Eldar are a vast and complex race who take common cause with each other before any other concerns. The rules reflect this.

Chaos armies are usually as varied as the name suggests. The rules reflect this.

Various xenos will form alliances as they see fit (or not, in the case of tyranids lol). The rules reflect this.

I am absolutely LOVING using my Eldar and Dark Eldar together as pirate webway-masters + Ulthwe strikeforces into the eye as essentially a single force.

I love the fact that I can make 3 Khorne armies from 3 different books and use them all together for maximum variety.

Finding synergy between books and units requires significant planning and commitment. It often rewards variety as OPPOSED to simply spamming the best thing in a single book.

"Over-specialize, and you breed in weakness." - The Major

"Variety is the spice of life" - Dr. Clock

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

WarsmithGarathor94
08-11-2014, 21:09
Agreed with Dr Cloak im planning to bring a mono tzeench force which utilises codex csm crimson slaughter and chaos daemons it probably wont be optimal but who cares

austen powers
08-11-2014, 21:25
Exactly,fluff and fun is always more important than winning,although if I do win,I ain't going to complain