Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Am I missing something? A Librarian in Phobos gets the Concealed Positions and camo cloak. A LT in Phobos does not (although I see the reaver options). Is there an explanation? Am I missing a FAQ?

Are we back to the word Phobos actually has zippo to do with anything beyond being a Keyword, and doesn't really stand for "Guy wearing camo/stealth" style armor?

The Librarian model is literally wearing a camo cloak and the LT isn't, simple as that.

The phobos lieutenant rules...are weird.

The reiver lieutenant makes sense rules wise, though he does kinda suck IMO. The base load out is all over the place. I am not sure what the thought process was.

He has the weapons of a incursor but doesn't infiltrate. He has a grav-chute which incursors don't get.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
The phobos lieutenant rules...are weird.

The reiver lieutenant makes sense rules wise, though he does kinda suck IMO. The base load out is all over the place. I am not sure what the thought process was.

Probably the thought process was they considered the Grav Chute enough to replace Concealed Position.

Note that the Reivers, which also have Phobos, don't have Concealed Position either.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
The phobos lieutenant rules...are weird.

The reiver lieutenant makes sense rules wise, though he does kinda suck IMO. The base load out is all over the place. I am not sure what the thought process was.

Probably the thought process was they considered the Grav Chute enough to replace Concealed Position.

Note that the Reivers, which also have Phobos, don't have Concealed Position either.

Reivers don't get the paired blades or the gun the lieutenant has.

The model's rules are all over the place.

Phobos represents the lighter armour worn as part of the vanguard and has nothing to do with wether a unit can infiltrate or not. Several things interact with the Phobos keyword, psychic powers etc, but that does not mean you auto infiltrate.
The Lt was poorly designed though, but thats a design studio issue, not rules.

I think it mismatched Phobos Lts comes down to they molded Grav Chutes on the wrong one. As far as I am concerned they could have had both have the option to have or not have Grav Chutes. That would require kit bashing to add or removing parts of the model piece to accomplish if a player absolutely had to be WYSIWYG. Which I don't think is that much work all things considered.

Me, I couldn't be bothered to remove them from the 'Infiltrator' Lt and don't add them to my Reivers already since Grav Chutes don't do anything (Kill Team excluded) once the mode is on the table anyways. As far as I am concerned, it is like modeling a teleportarium. Cool if a players wants to do it but really necessary as the models being held off the table should suffice that they are going to be deep striking.

Even with Reivers being my Primaris army's signature unit, I couldn't be bothered picking up the 'Reiver' Lt. since the model wouldn't ever be deployed with my Reivers anyways.

They probably just wanted to model a character with the deepstriking load out and the lieutenant got the nod.
It's marines though, give it a year and they'll have chaplains in inceptor armour, I'm sure lieutenant in camo cloak isn't far away.

Speaking of Phobos armour, lore wise, I don’t understand why a space marine should wear a Mark X instead of a Phobos.

Both the armours give the same protection, 3+, but Phobos give Advance Position or Deep strike-like ability.

I don’t see any reason for wearing a Mark X.

Maybe there is stuff that can't be represented in game rules. Like being able stuff more tech in to a mark X, or it having more lift and there for being able to carry more ammo etc

Plus the armour are both +3, but there is no way they are just as resilient. It is like comparing a full body military protection with full body sports one.

It’s the granularity of the d6 system. It’s lighter then regular armor, but not so light to go down to a 4+ save. I’m sure if they stated it out for a RPG, phobos armor might have less armor value on the lower torso and legs, but not give a penalty to hide/silent move skills. Or is 40k was d12 based, it would save on a 7+, rather then a 8+

But not a lot of wiggle room to differentiate things on a D6.