Tell Me All About......

[Bannus]

Building upon and complimenting the Elemental Styles of armies is the general build of the army. While there are numerous variations to any given theme, I've placed them in some rather simplistic categories as follows:

 

1) The "Gun Line" Army (also known as the "shooty" army)

 

2) The Mechanized Army (also known to as "the Rhino Rush")

 

3) The Biker Army (a favorite of White Scars armies)

 

4) The Drop-pod army (a favorite of Raven Guard armies)

 

5) The "Balanced" Army (most favored by Water players and employs a little of everything)

 

6) The Assault Army (or close combat army)

 

If you wish to discuss a variation that is not specifically mentioned here (or applies as part of the elemental styles), let me know. It may fit as a variation within one of the preexisting topics or I can generate one if it doesn't mesh well with what we already have.

 

 

The threads on the elemental styles focus on how the army army plays (and a bit on builds favored by each style), while these threads will focus on on favored builds and tactics based on the actual build of the army. In the end, I hope we will have a good foundation of raw material to build upon.

 

So while the elemental threads focus on tactics first and then builds, these threads will focus on builds first and then tactics.

 

What we need to know here is what works and what doesn't work for a particular build of army - the genius and folly.

 

This particular thread focuses on the Balanced army.

 

Normally, I would post links to other extant threads that relate to the subject, but time is a bit tight this week, so feel free to post links to related topics within the tread and I'll move them to the first post later.

 

I appreciate all your help!

 

Let the discussions begin.....

[Grey Mage]

I think there is a misconception that a balanced army has a "little bit of everything". Having Three DPing squads, three rhino mounted squads, 3 attack bikes and a bike squad doesnt make a balanced army if all your transported units are tacticals and everything has heavy bolters and flamers.

 

On the other side of the coin, a balanced army doesnt have to include as many possible elements as you can get- C:SM is perfectly capable of making a balanced Mech, Footslogging, combined arms or DPing force. Biker armies will probly always be air-aspected, but even so they can be brought into balance with a bit of effort.

 

There are four main things that a unit can add to an army- Durability, Firepower, Melee, and Speed. The key to a balanced army is blending these four things in the appropriate amounts so that no matter what your opponent throws at you you have no glaring weakness, and enough of everything to get your objectives accomplished.

 

Unlike say a "water aspected" unit, the units in a balanced army have less of a need to multi-task. You can bring in units with only one real bailiwick and succeed. That being said, its rare that a balanced army doesnt play with a water style, simply because your own strengths are directly correlated to your opponents weaknesses.

 

Things that a "balanced" SM army should always have:

 

Bodies- without enough boots on the ground, you will die from attrition.

Meltaguns- powerful close range anti-tank is a must.

Lascannons- The ability to penetrate the heaviest armor at the longest available range shouldnt be left out except in the smallest of games.

Powerfists- The ability to harm anything youll see in melee is important.

Some Transports- Mobility is often the key to victory.

Weight of fire- Bolters, bolters, bolters are your friends.

Redundancy- you dont need to take two of the same unit, but make sure that you have atleast two units that can accomplish the same task, three in larger battles.

Psychic Defense- these days no all rounders list can truely be said to be complete without something to protect against the growing plethora of psychic powers.

[Captain Idaho]

***Reason for edit: When I talk about a balanced army I talk about the same 4 things meantioned by Grey Mage,

Durability, Firepower, Melee, and Speed

 

Whilst I agree with your points on the whole, I would like to emphasis that a balanced Space Marines list absolutely needs some ultility units to add weight to a particular aspect of the armies' capacity.

 

What I mean by this is whilst having a collection of units that are deft at being able to do a single unit, working as a team together to achieve your goals, is perfectly balanced, the expence of a Space Marine army means redundancy is difficult to achieve in a balanced list. What you need to do is add some units that can do multiple roles that complement the abilities of your role specific units.

 

As a basic example; if you have a fast moving, strong close combat unit of some sort, plus a Devastator squad with Thunderfire and Vindicator, you have the capacity to shoot and assault your opponents. However if your opponent can out shoot you then he will target your assault unit, neutralising the balance you paid all those points for. However, if you add a mobilised Sternguard squad or Dreadnought to the combination, perhaps at the replacement of the Devastator squad or Vindicator respectively, then you retain that balance as both Sternguard and the Dreadnought can be used in assault roles where possible and still provide shooting capacity. (remember against some opponents even the shooting ability of Sternguard should be dropped in preference to assault)

 

Another part I want to add to this topic is that the army needs to be able to do everything to be balanced, but not neccessarily in every phase. This is a contraversal idea I know. Like I said earlier, Space Marines are so expensive that it isn't always possible to do everything in every phase of the game. As another example, a list can have most of it's long ranged anti-vehicle capacity and it's primary anti-infantry capacity being short ranged and assault based. My own balanced list has 5 Lascannons in it, mounted on 2 Vehicles (Landraider can fire at separate targets) and 2 Tactical squads, or it will be slightly different and replace the Landraider with 2 Typhoons (amongst other things...), which hits the enemy at range. My firepower can deal with vehicles at range I can deal with infantry up close with bolter shock and assaults from close combat units.

 

However, it should be worth pointing out that I have utility units, in the form of 2 Dreads, the Typhoons can move fast and engage infantry and vehicles and the Tactical squads carry close ranged melta weapons plus are mechanised so can keep up with the assault elements and support them with either assault, short ranged firepower or just increased numbers.

 

What's more it should also be mentioned that even though my list has units that favour one thing over another (i.e. long ranged anti-tank and short ranged anti-infantry), I do have the capacity to contribute my anit-infantry at long range and anti-tank in close range. A smattering of melta guns, powerfists and assaults with Krak grenades means I don't want for close ranged anti-tank, whilst Assault Cannons and Heavy bolters assist in ranged anti-infantry killing ability.

[Ryjak]

To me, Space Marines can do a "balanced" army better than anyone else, and for good reason. Marines are the generalist army, but they certainly don't master anything. There are better Gunline Armies, better Assault Armies, etc. If you field a SM Gunline, for example, what are you going to do if you face an IG or Tau Gunline? Probably pretend to be an Assault army, as you're almost guaranteed to loose a shoot-out. Same idea for a SM Assault Army facing Tyranids, most Chaos, Orks...

 

Sure, you can win by playing your opponent's game, but SM usually win by keeping their opponent from playing their game.

 

That's what a "balanced" army is all about, really. Facing a Gunline? Get into Assault so they can't shoot you, and be mobile and durable to get there. Facing a bunch of assault maniacs? Use your mobility and firepower to stay away and weaken them so your durability wins in the eventual assault.

 

To facilitate this, I usually take a bunch of "utility" units as Captain Idaho describes them. Just about every unit in my army has a Str 8+ Weapon, which usually gives them some capacity against Monstrous Creatures and high AV targets. Everything has a way to move 12" a turn, or can move 6" and fire at full effect. All units have some decent firepower, even if it's Assault Marines with two flamers. And Marines are durable by their nature, even Scouts are hard with a T4, 4+ save.

 

This also gives me a lot of redundancy, as just about every Unit is a small army in it's own right. Sure, I don't want to try to take down a Greater Demon with a Tactical Squad's Powerfist Vet, but sometimes, that might be exactly what I need to do this turn with that unit. At least they have a shot of doing some damage, or at least slowing it down. Besides, even I get lucky sometimes with my dice-rolling.

[Brother Captain Josef]

I have been reading and thinking a lot about all these topics and having just come back from a tourney at Warhammer World I would like to throw in my own thoughts...

 

 

I have to be honest - I have been reading all these topics with great interest and an open mind and the last thing I want to do is insult the effort everyone has gone to but I just don't really get the elemental metaphors for army styles. I don't believe there are 4 types of army and this is why there is so much argument over what each 'Element' represents, to me it makes far more sense to say there are three styles: 'Aggressive', 'Balanced' and 'Defensive' and every army fits on a scale with Aggressive and Defensive at each end.

 

Aggressive armies want to kill everything as fast as possible so should tend to go for assault for the simple reason you get two combat phases per player turn and the opportunity to run down whole squads in one go. (basically it's the fastest way to kill stuff.)

 

Defensive armies want to stay back and pummel their opponent at a distance and so should try to dominate the shooting phase and capitalise on the fact that it will take at least a turn or two for an opponent to get up in their face and actually assault by which time a defensive army will have tried to whittle it down enough to beat in assault. Interestingly by this rationale a bike army can be played both ways depending on whether they are tooled up for combat or range. Either way you are going to be outnumbered...

 

Everything in between is a Balanced army that sits on the continuum between Aggressive and Defensive.

 

 

So with that out of the way, balanced armies...

 

To me the balanced army epitomises what a good army should be: An army that keeps its options open. This is the fundamental premise on which a balanced force fights on. It is an army that allows itself the luxury of out shooting the choppy and out chop the shooty but accepts it can never outclass a specialist army in its field. (Specialist squads yes; assuming you can outmanoeuvre and mob them).

 

A Balanced style is one of the more difficult to operate as you need to know your own and your enemies capability and be able to quickly work out the likely outcome of any course of action. As a general rule your game plan and therefore decisions get easier as you move towards either end of the spectrum and therefore a truly balanced force requires finesse and objectivity - you may generally wish to avoid combat with howling banshees (a good rule of thumb I'll admit) but they are only S3 T3 Sv 4+...

 

Therefore it is not necessarily as simple as "shoot choppy; chop shooty" - remember that you can still outfight a CC specialist hard hitters with a Tac Squad if they have been weakened by fire prior to the assault with cheap heavy firepower... Codex Marine's speciality anyone? ;) ) The important questions therefore become: "At what point do I reach this critical mass and divert my fire to something else nasty knowing when I take the charge I <probably(!)> will win? Should I charge them or stand and shoot? What is the likelihood I will win in either scenario and what am I risking if I don't".

 

These are all tough questions that you should be able to reliably answer and you must accept that everything is situational, there is no hard and fast course of action for a Balanced army and all depends on the scenario you find yourself in. I shall reiterate: It is critical to keep your options open so no matter who you fight, you shall have a reasonable chance of beating them.***

 

This also opens up the opportunity for close exciting free for alls where acts of heroism can make you grin like a madman - like when my captain charged a Nightbringer and between lucky rolls to wound, fluffed return attacks and No Retreat saves kicked its head off. My opponent was like :eek I was like :o but my captain was just :D

Have that Uriel smegging Ventris.

 

 

Anywho...

 

In army selection you must have the capacity to do all things: shoot, combat and manoeuvre but do not be deceived in that you must have even numbers of squads for each - Codex Space Marines benefit from having relatively cheap gun platforms and you should take advantage of this in your army selection. How you best do that is up to you and your preferred play style.

 

In army selection I have identified a further 3 categories of Balanced army: 'Efficient', 'Opportunist' and 'Generalist'.

 

An 'Efficient' army will have units specifically designed to take on one type of foe and takes only what it needs and lets other units deal with other things. For example the TROOPS section of an Efficient Balanced army may look like:

 

2x Tac Squads with flamer, combi-flamer, Heavy Bolter, + Rhino

TOTAL = 430pts

 

Fairly obvious here: Tac squads sort out infantry making the most out of its standard issue 8 x bolters while other elements deal with the other stuff et al.

 

 

A 'Generalist' army will mix what its squads are loaded up to deal with:

 

1 x Tac Squad with Powerfist, Combi-flamer, meltagun, Lascannon + Rhino with extra Storm bolter = 255pts

1 x Tac Squad with Powerfist, Combi-plasma, Flamer, Plasma Cannon + Rhino with Hunter killer missile = 255pts

TOTAL = 510pts

 

Every unit has the capacity to take on and damage pretty much anything. You will notice however it's 80pts more expensive and when you are shooting your lascannon or meltagun at a tank your bolter shots are wasted.

 

 

An 'Opportunist' army will have squads designed to do a specific role but will have one weapon that will stand out for 'shots of opportunity':

 

1 x Tac Squad with Power weapon, Combi-flamer, Plasma gun, Plasma cannon + Rhino = 230pts

1 x Tac squad with Combi-flamer, Flamer, Lascannon + Rhino = 225pts

TOTAL = 455pts

 

And almost as if I planned it the Opportunist army units come right smack in the middle. Obviously these are generalisations of a complex ordeal in equipping your Tactical Squads which could be a whole topic on its own (and a quick searchy will tell you it is... on many threads... forever... ad nauseum) but I shall limit myself to saying that the best weapons of opportunity are usually heavy weapons as combi weapons fit too snugly with their specific counterparts to ignore their synergy - the only exception I can think of at the moment is the example I have given above - (In the voice of Brian Blessed)

"PLASMA CANNON?!?! FIVE..... LESS THAN SIX POINTS?!?! BAHAHAHAHAAA!" *yoink*

 

 

Each of the sub categories has it's own advantages. Efficient squads are good because you are wasting as little as possible but vulnerable to an opponent who quickly identifies what is the main threat to their particular build and eliminates it. Generalist squads are the opposite as they can have a go at everything - excellent but you do pay through the nose for this versatility and doubly so as you are invariably forfeiting some of your firepower Opportunist squads try to get the best of both worlds. A good tactic for example against an aggressive opponent is to have a anti infantry unit hiding in a Rhino with a lascannon firing at vehicles and opening transports etc until the infantry gets close then it hops out, hoses them down with special weapons fire and bolt shells then goes for a beer.

 

 

In conclusion however you do it versatility is key and the best balanced armies tend to have a mix of both Aggressive and Defensive and should have a variety of Efficient, Opportunist and Generalist squads to fulfil these roles and remember to be pragmatic - just because a Dreadnought doesn't have a DCCW doesn't mean it shouldn't be in a Balanced or Aggressive army as 2 x TL Autocannons can be very useful to either in the right hands.

 

 

***

If you are having trouble identifying what is really a threat to your army and how to prioritise targets etc I can heartily recommend:

Warp Angel's Killhammer Theory

It's pretty damn useful and he has loads of topics based on Killhammer at the bottom of his sig too. They are insightful and a good read.

 

So what do people make of my thoughts on a balanced army?

[Bannus]

I have to be honest - I have been reading all these topics with great interest and an open mind and the last thing I want to do is insult the effort everyone has gone to but I just don't really get the elemental metaphors for army styles. I don't believe there are 4 types of army and this is why there is so much argument over what each 'Element' represents, to me it makes far more sense to say there are three styles: 'Aggressive', 'Balanced' and 'Defensive' and every army fits on a scale with Aggressive and Defensive at each end.

Actually, you can classify armies in a variety of ways: Shooty/Assault, Drop Pod/Mechanized, Troop-heavy, etc., etc. etc.

 

This classification process can be influenced by the most basic of decisions: Does the elements dictate the fighting style or vise versa?

 

Can we (or should we) even attempt to classify armies in these (or any) ways? All good questions.

 

I chose to follow two paths: the elemental (fire, earth, water, air) and build philosophies (drop pod, mechanized, etc.) as the foundations of these threads because they seemed to be the most basic or foundational elements of building an army - and explains why we are getting such divergent responses in many of them. I don't view this as a bad thing, but as a means of collecting data - and to establish patterns for setting up a 'database' that will serve as the ultimate guide to Space Marine tactics.

 

By making the catagories as basic as possible, it allows everyone's input to fit somewhere without being forced immediately into thinking in a pre-set way. This is intentional so that the inital brainstorming is not inhibited in any way.

[Brother Captain Josef]

sorry, quoting went wrong ;)