Building GT army ... Maybe Armoured Co. good/bad idea?

[BoosterX]

My gaming group is hitting the GT later in the year and I want to participate.

However, my first army in this hobby was unfortunetly my space marines. My painting has improved quite considerably and I will be accompanying a Golden Demon winner.

So, I want to paint up to snuff and that means building a new army from scratch.

I'm a bit of a tank freak and I basically had two options I wanted to explore.

Armoured Company with maybe 2 transport tanks or 3 max. 1 with storm troopers, 2 with normal IG.

Mechanised Infantry with maybe 4-5 transports max.

I'm going to do a lot of conversions.




NOW ... my question is, how bad of an idea is this? I'm not going to win the best General I know this.

What I want to know is, how would you score me for my army selection?

What I do know is that this army is corner case hit or miss.

I don't want to be marked down for being mostly tanks with little foot sloggers.


So people, please chime in !

Thanks

[blood angel]

I would have to say that using an AC is not the best way to win friends at a GT. Of course soft scores are incredibly manipulatable. You will just have a stigma to overcome, but it is possible.

[BoosterX]

I don't see it being any worse than a whole horde army of IG, Nids...

I'll die quick to high powered SM/Tau armies...

[blood angel]

You can justify all you want, but the stigma will still exist. It will really be up to you to 'sweet talk' your opponents to not get dings on your score.

[BoosterX]

So they see multiple tanks and think they are going to get crushed?

I see Armoured company as being fragile.

[Puffin Magician]

I don't see how a competant player could give a bad score to an army just because of what list it uses [why would Black Templars ever get Composition scores?]. Does the player not see the army he's scoring? Anyone who sees an IGAC army and sees the infantry will probably immediately give them a higher score.

Personally I'd take no infantry in an Armoured Company/Battlegroup list, to me the whole point of the list is not having to rely on them. However, that's not for everyone and this list looks alright; depending on the game size you might want to change the amount of infantry you use [I'd take no more than 2 Mechanized units in a game smaller than 1850pts].

What other units are you planning on taking? Vanquisher, 3 Russes, Demolisher, Basilisk? It's unfortunate not many have access to the IA1 Armoured Battlegroup list, there's some rather fun kit in there...

[x-esiv-4c]

I love playing against and playing with the AC. It's a great challange. I personally don't think they are overpowered, lack number and easily bogged down. Good stuff!

[angelspast]

Nothing wrong with AC. The glancing 6's might be a problem for you though.

[Minister]

If using the most recent list, which he should be doing, the glancing 6s are no longer in use.

Bear in mind that many tournaments will not allow armoured companies. This being the case I personally would advise using a tank-heavy mechanised infantry force rather than a full armoured list. For reference, the minimum number of Chimeras for this would be five (three for the platoon, one for the armoured fits, one for the command), but then again an armoured company is hardly going to be light on the bank account in any case.

Of course, if you are designing it for a specific tournament and it has been stated that the AC is legal, the choice is once again yours.

[hallon_apl]

Anyone who does an "odd" list (and does it fluffy) would get my scores.
Although both my Tyranids and my Thousand sons would have trouble w/ all the tanks..

[worldshatterer]

Armoured company has a very bad reputation, people will instantly label you a power gamer for fielding it . Its also very hits and miss as to whether you win with it, often the first turn decides it . also theres the whole issue of tournament legality .

If your starting from scratch on the mdoels front, rather than going mechanised guard, why don't you field a mobile stormtrooper army . with the stormtrooper and grendadier doctrines you have the option of fielding up to 5 squads of tough troops, with a weapons fit well suited to hopping out of a transport to rapid fire . give em vet srgs with power weapons and they might even survive the ensuing close combat . the rest of your force can have as many tanks as you want . it also means that rather than skimping on the heavy weapons squads which would have to have attatched chimeras in a mechanised list, you can invest in a couple as the extra lascannon and heavy bolters always help .

as for conversions, have you seen the chimera they converted on the us website/black gobbo by giving it a predator turret? it truly is a thing of beauty .

[Wolflord Bloodangel]

Yeah, taking Armoured Company will probably instantly down you one bracket in the 'army comp' department, and there is NOTHING you can do about that.

Theres nothing necessarily wrong with that, you can make those points up with your sportsmanship, painting, and conversions...

Ive actually seen a huge rise in popularity of the Armour-based Imperial Guard lists. At our last State Tournament there was only one Armoured Company list, and I dont think it managed to win a single game. Since then Ive seen numerous Armoured Company, Armoured Battalion, and Steel Legion lists... and theyre very.... interesting. I havent seen them do too well on generalship, but theyve still walked away with 'best army' and 'best sport' from time to time, so its not going to stop you. And its different, so you should have some fun, and Im sure your opponent will appreciate the change from another chaos/space marine army

[BoosterX]

Well, on the US GW website it clearly states that Armoured Company from WD 294 is chapter approved and stated it is allowed.

It was used in I believe Seattle GT and Minni-GT..

I want my force to be all in a type of transport/tank.

What are my other choices? Mobile tau is just way too many transports...

What about Chaos?

I'd look into Orks but their vehicles are just too much on the nasty side.

I have a basilisk at home waiting to be used or converted...

[Kotobuki]

I was under the impression that the army comp score was based entirely on how you took your force, and was not up to interpretation. I.e. ratio of Troops to Fast/elite/hq, etc. Can your score actually be judged based on which army you choose to play?

[Grimtuff]

I was under the impression that the army comp score was based entirely on how you took your force, and was not up to interpretation. I.e. ratio of Troops to Fast/elite/hq, etc. Can your score actually be judged based on which army you choose to play?

No, but some armies are "tarred with the same brush". Good examples of the are Iron Warriors and Black Templars

If said player was playing against an AC, they are under the impression that the person they are playing is a powergamer, even if they do not take the Peniferous Pie Plate Plattering army simply on the basis of what list that they chose

certain players obviosuly have lists that they would prefer to play against, i for one never have fun games vs. the aforementioned IW and also WE (for example I will never play a BT player with my Eldar due to plast experiences, once bitten, twice shy as the case may be) so I will always be vary wary when playing an opponent with these lists

The same goes for the AC, if you brought an entire army of tanks to a game, you lose the usefullness of most of your army as it just ends up being a shooting match between your heavy weapons and the tanks

see what we mean here?

[BoosterX]

It's sort of a catch 22.

You go to a tournament hoping that everyone brought balanced lists.

So you do the same, make it balanced. Everyone is there to win, atleast partly.

So what do you do, take poor choices to get decent scores but get plastered when you face that 'Power gamer army' which is always the case? i.e. Space wolves, Iron warriors maxed out HS, IG with GK allies, drop pod marines, etc.

If you can't beat them join em, seems to be the prevailing rule. Do you sacrafice something that's open to a huge variance by fielding AC with weak choices. Or do you go all Lemun Russ, give up the choice score but come home with the better 'General' score?

Lame.

Another reason why I hate 40K sometimes. The game punishes the people who want to have fun and not the power gamer. This same mentality is brought over to Tournaments.

Best General is always the first to receive award, congrats and always on top of the results page.

Let's reward 'People's choice', Sportsmanship and painting rather than the people who make 40K look like the broken mess it seems to be now.

Rant off.

[Hokkaido23]

I took an AC to the Seattle GT and placed 8th. My sportsmanship was 51/50, my selection 28/30, and my paint 40/40. My 1850 list consisted of the following:
HQ Vanquisher w/ hull las, Ace Gunners doctrine
Destroyer Tank Ace w/ Ace Gunners
3 Leman Russ w/ hull las
1 Exterminator w/ hull + sponson heavy bolters, Ace Gunners
2 Basilisk w/ Indirect
2 Armored Fist squads w/ Multilaser + Heavy bolter, 1 squad ML + GL and 1 with LC + Plasma
2 Mars Pattern Sentinels

Most of the commments I got were of the 'cool army' variety, although some of my opponents cringed when I started laying down AV14. Before each game I went over my list with my opponent, explaining what tanks did what, what the doctrines meant, and what went where in the FOC (to let them know I wasnt fielding the minimum, and that the composition actually fit the background). No one said anything negative to my face and my scores reflect that -- one guy did give me 3/5 for comp and said "I cant give you full marks, cause you have so many tanks"...I wanted to point out thats the point of an armored company but bit my tongue.

My battleswent as follows:
Game 1 vs cultist heavy chaos. He deployed mainly in the open and set out cross the board (playing diagonally) straightaway. Not much shooting for him, he had 2 Havoc squads with tank hunter so those died first. My next priority was the Raptors, I managed to get my AF squads in their way to absorb the damage. He did manage to get one Raptor with a meltagun in close but in the end it was a solid victory for me.

Game 2 vs Mech Tau. Bad game for my opponent. Target priority is huge for an AC, so I went after the Broadsides and Hammerheads first. Once those were dead, I never really felt in much danger and used cover and maneuverability to shield my fragile side armor. Victorious slaughter for me.

Game 3, min-max chaos. 3 Infiltrating 5 man Havoc squads with lascannons and stealth adept. 2 5 man troops. 1 8 man unit of raptors, some furies, and the obligatory 226 point daemon prince. I rained death on his army and watched it bounce off his troops in cover, the infiltrate + stealth adept was a nice combo you dont see very often (I dont, anyway). In truth it didnt matter much, his daemon prince did all the work and despite destroying the majority of his army I lost.

Game 4, guardian heavy eldar. I really missed having Hellhounds in this game. My opponent had 2 large (15+) defender guardian squads with conceal and fortune making them very resilient. A CTM falcon was highly annoying, 2 wraithlords with brightlances were annoying, a 3 man team of shining spears (read: brightlance exarch delivery system) was annoying, but in the end it came down to a squad of guardsmen charging, beating, and running down one of the guardian squads (with warlock and farseer, how embarassing) and I was able to break one of his flanks and roll my army from one side to the other. Good game and good army, took 2nd players choice.

Game 5, drop pod marines. 6 tac squads with pf / meltagun, 2 dreads with AC/DCCW, 1 Ven dread w/ LC + ML, and a librarian + chaplain command squad, all in drop pods. I spread out as much as I could, but when he dropped he would kill whatever was next to him. For 2 turns we traded blows where he would drop a squad and kill a tank and next turn my return fire would kill the squad but turn 4 night fight took over and the game went downhill rapidly. Great opponent though, and a very challenging game with a tactic I was not used to, and I really had to think during this game. He ended up taking best general so theres no shame in losing to him, what?

All in all, there are flaws and advantages to the AC. Obviously, presenting a full line of AV14 is very daunting and negates alot of your opponents strength. The ability to place multiple templates allows you to shred conventional infantry. On the other hand, often times I got an enemy squad down to one or two men and didnt want to waste a battlecannon on one man, but not doing so would be the difference between half points or full points for the squad. Your shots are powerful but they come at a premium, and it is easy to get overwhelmed against a numerous enemy. Also, once that one Raptor with a meltagun or the Daemon Prince with a 2+/4+/4+ ignore gets inside your line, you can kiss the game goodbye in most cases. Also, it gets crowded very quickly in your deployment zone and often I found myself placing important tanks in less-than-optimal position just cause I didnt have any room.

I would rate the Armored Fist squads as very important -- the ability to absorb a charge and allow your expensive tanks time to redeploy is critical. Also able to take out lower priority targets such as the previously injured squad, letting your big guns move on to more threatening targets. A combined arms approach is a key to victory, simply lining up Leman Russ isnt going to win consistently. The 45 point Sentinels did a great job of getting side shots and attracting fire that would otherwise kill a 300+ point tank. The Destroyer attracted major attention with its S10 gun -- far more useful than a Demolisher IMO because of the 72" range. Basilisks were useful when fired directly, alot of people forget they can do that and it takes them by surprise when it wheels forward from behind cover and lets loose with the big gun. If I could have added one thing, it would have been a Hellhound.

My opinion to your original question -- take the AC. People dont like it and are opposed to it because its new and they are unfamiliar with it. Its not an overbalanced army, and its more than a row of AV14 battlecannons. The only way the army will gain acceptance is by people using it, so go for it.

[mostholycerebus]

I don't see it being any worse than a whole horde army of IG, Nids...

I'll die quick to high powered SM/Tau armies...

The truth is, the current AC is a weak list. There have been plenty in recent GT's and RTT's and they haven't done well at all. However, the ignorant still believe that AC is 'unbeatable', despite the scaled-back list, over priced doctrines and vehicle-deadly changes to 4e. So when you (rarely) win you will see your soft scores tanked by bitter opponents.

But it is an incredibly fun list to field (especially when you use doctrines), looks excellent on the board, is quick to paint, and offers lots of room for customization. When fielding only 6 or so models, you can really go overboard acessorizing and detailing them.

My opinion to your original question -- take the AC. People dont like it and are opposed to it because its new and they are unfamiliar with it. Its not an overbalanced army, and its more than a row of AV14 battlecannons. The only way the army will gain acceptance is by people using it, so go for it.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Wolflord Bloodangel]

Best General is always the first to receive award, congrats and always on top of the results page.

Let's reward 'People's choice', Sportsmanship and painting rather than the people who make 40K look like the broken mess it seems to be now.

Rant off.

No! Look, great armies, great sports and all that mess are what makes a tournament fun. But what makes a tournament a tournament is the competitive play. Gaming clubs and mates are where you can muck around all you want, but at a tournament its almost insulting to the other player if youre not taking the game seriously.

Personally I think generalship is devalued at tournaments, a mere 40% of your score comes from actually playing games (in most cases). (dont get me wrong, I take fairly balanced lists and always do very well in sportsmanship)..

[Puffin Magician]

If you brought an entire army of tanks to a game, you lose the usefullness of most of your army as it just ends up being a shooting match between your heavy weapons and the tanks.

Not true [in my cases], it ends up being "where and when can I safely move my Land Raider?" or "when's the best time to deep strike my Assault Squad to take out the Baneblade?" and other tactical questions. I agree 100% with the argument saying most players hate the IGAC because it's uncommon and they don't know how to deal with it. There's no magic weapon [like Starcannons or Heavy Bolters] that'll rake through the army and take out big chunks at a time, so they need to resort to more clever tactical thinking like maneuvering and timing, rather than just hauling ass towards the army and mindlessly throwing units into an assault; which, sadly, is normally the case in a 40k game.

...at a tournament its almost insulting to the other player if youre not taking the game seriously.

You'd be happier if I brought a more competative list and smeared you with 8 Battlecannons, rather than fielding something more fair [AF Squad, LR Conqueror, Thunderer, etc] and having a better [ie: more fun] game? And where does the idea come from that a non-competative game isn't serious?

What makes a Tournament a Tournament is the games; what makes a Tournament unappealing is the competativeness. And if people expect Tournament play to be rigourously competative, why are they surprised to see Armoured Companies?