Theorycraft: What Are The Elements of All Successful Armies?

[Kozemp]

One thing to say in advance.

 

My definition of "successful" is not necessarily the same as all others, so to wit: I define a "succesful" army as one that, broadly, will defeat players who are worse than me, lose to players who are better than me, and against players of equal skill come out about 50/50. I'm not talking about tournament play, which is simply not my thing. Strictly kitchen table/Saturday at the shop sort of stuff, though perhaps the same principles apply.

 

Here's where I'm coming from:

 

I'm trying to determine what the things are that EVERY army needs, regardless of race, and in what basic proportions they are necessary.

 

I'm trying to determine this because over the years I have learned that though I have a lot of FUN painting and modeling and playing I don't think I'm very GOOD at the game necessarily, and I'm wondering if that isn't because my armies are doomed from the start because I have constructed them poorly. So I'm trying to find what I guess you'd call an army building baseline, from which I (and anyone else) can extrapolate how to fine tune a specific army.

 

Here's an analogy that might help explain what I mean: a soccer team has 10 outfield players (the goalie, for our purposes, doesn't matter). That is the only TRUE limit on the team, 10 players. But, within that limitation, some broad trends apply. You need a defense and an attack, and a midfield to link them and do a little of both. You need players both in the center and out wide. You need some specialty players - for example a target man center forward, or a fullback who puts in good crosses, or a precision passing midfielder - and players with more broadly defined duties - defend, score goals, hold up the ball in midfield any way you like. The breakdown is something around a ratio of four defenders to four midfielders to two forwards, and though you can move the occasional person around to make a 4-5-1 or a 4-3-3 or a 3-5-2, you never see outlandish setups like 8-0-2 or 1-8-1. And each strategic choice has essential strengths and weaknesses. No team can do EVERYTHING well. If you play 5 at the back, your attack suffers. If all your strength is in pacy wingers and fullbacks, you're going to perform poorly in the center of the park.

 

This kind of very basic strategic thinking applies to any sport, really, I just picked soccer as an example I know well. And I don't mean basic as in "simple," I mean literally basic. The BASE from which other more advanced strategies flow.

 

I'm wondering if there isn't a similar sort of basic strategy for 40K. (And fantasy, I suppose.) If there aren't basic requirements every army needs - anti-infantry, anti-vehicle, anti-character, whatever - and what proportions they might go in. What specialties are there, and what you gain and lose by valuing some things over others. And - I think this is a key area where novice list builders falter - what proportion different parts of an army exist in w/r/t the other parts.

 

Obviously there are some restraints - certain armies may be particularly bad at one specific thing, and the force org chart is an external limitation - but I can't help but think that there is SOME sort of underlying logic to solid army construction.

 

I'm interested to hear the thoughts of other (better) players.

[Brom MKIV]

Not sure if im a "better" player but I like the topic so im game for a short response. Keep in mind Ive been away from the game for a little while.

 

First, all my armies are built primarily with my local metagame in mind. This is the first place I think people make a mistake and Ive done it too. We read the web for awhile then we start to tool up against those boogyman lists that no one locally even uses. Just focus on what you can reasonably expect to face.

 

Regarding the things that all (my) armies have/should have, I would list these...elements; not necessarily in order and certainly not a comprehensive list:

 

1. Gameplan. I feel too many armies lack a specific plan. Over the years I have noticed a definite and tangible benefit to writing lists that focus on a specific plan. Conversely I have noticed an advantage in gameplay when I impose my armies will against another that otherwise has equally powerful elements. Its worth noting that some armies are simply carried on the power of their units alone, GKs can be a good example of this.

 

2. Synergy. When I evaluate lists I rarely look for "minimum scoring units at X pts" etc. The number one deciding factor for me is does the list jive. If your units do not directly contribute/support the gameplan the list overall will be weaker.

 

3. Mobility. This game might be moving more towards the shooting phase but the game is still usually won or lost in the movement phase. I will sometimes count forward and alternate deployment abilities such as infiltrate and deepstrike as pseudo mobility depending on overall list composition.

 

4. Redundancy. If gameplan and synergy are important then naturally maintaining the elements you need to forward the plan is equally important. Functional overlap is acceptable here and often preferred. When evaluating other players lists I try to look for functional overlap because these can sometimes be disguised at first glance causing me to dismiss an otherwise well thought out and viable list.

 

5. Psychic ability and defense. Not really sure how much of an impact this has on 6th edition yet tbh but from what I gather the emphassis has increased. This is still the catagory that I feel is completely optional, and rarely have I found need to include this element.

 

Now for specific unit types that I feel are essential in greater/lesser degrees. The balance between these units is often a reflection of your play style, i.e. aggressive or reactive although anyone can build any type of list they desire but lists built with a specific style of play dont always fair well when controlled by someone who doesnt use it for the intended purpose. The types, again not comprehensive:

 

1. Scoring elements. This one is obvious but its worth noting that many lists include too many. Im of the opposite philosophy. At the end of the day 1 objective to none is a win. I guess what im saying is dont over do it on fluffy units that cant fight off a wet fart. Except in rare (less rare lately) cases, scoring units should not be doing the majority of the killing. These I usually divide into two parts: smaller and cheaper holding units intended to stay on my side of the table (in optimal situations) and larger sturdier units designed to survive slightly longer and intended to operate deeper into enemy territory.

 

2. Dedicated ranged elements. I like to seperate these into two catagories: anti-tank and suppression although now

a 3rd designation exist: anti-aircraft. Anti-tank is often found on infantry but is usually preferred on fast platforms or with some form of pseudo mobility. Suppression however is always better on cheap spammable units (IMO) due to the expendable nature, redundancy and ability to fire at multiple targets with multiple units. When evaluating these elements I look for what I need then compare cost of similar options. Finally I also measure the availability of these options from the start of the game (as opposed to reserves), FoC slots taken and so on.

From what I gather 6th edition has mixed up the game a little which effects these elements but overall there is still only 1 best option for each role. Ati-tank duty goes to melta. Suppression goes to missiles. Everything else for me falls into functional overlap or cornercase applications. Either way my suppression elements invariably stay in the backfield while my anti-tank elements tend to go hunting.

 

3. Threats. I dont want to call these "combat elements" or similar because many perform multiple roles. The point of these units is to cause serious concern in your opponent preferably without a real good answer...and to do the killing. In my experience many lists are light on these elements and heavy on scoring units, which is ok too. However I tend to go the opposite direction. My philosophy is if all my scary :) is in your guys faces you wont be picking on my weak scoring units. Threat units IMO should usually have the potential to steamroll the entire board if left unchecked. These elements should almost always be operating on your opponents side of the table barring extenuating circumstance. This keeps pressure off of the suppression elements and allows them to keep firing longer.

 

Anywho thats all I have for now hope this gave you some insight. At the least it shows I take this game way to seriously, at least according to my wife. L8

[spartan249]

Your question simply does not have an easy answer like a small list of traits. There are, however, army archetypes that focus on different ways to achieve objectives, and everyone's army can be characterized as either a single archetype or a fusion of two (or maybe even more) archetypes. All these archetypes choose a strategy to fight for objectives and commit fully to that strategy, ideally taking units that fulfill and support the achievement of said objectives.

 

Silent Requiem used the concept of the four elements as a metaphor for said archetypes, and those are definitely descriptive enough. Just in case you don't want to go dig those articles up...

 

First up is the Earth. Armies of the Earth archetype bring an army focused on extreme resilience and stationary mobility (read: long range firepower, relentless, barrage, etc) in order to achieve the objective of outlasting their OPFOR. IG often fall into this category, as do some Space Marine and most Necron armies. While Earth armies are typically never tabled, they can be often outmaneuvered and can even lose because of their general lack of mobility.

 

Second would be Air. Armies of the Air archetype focus their forces on extreme functional mobility in order to achieve the objective of local superiority and control of the battlefield. Armies like Saim-Hann Eldar and White Scars are the exemplars of this type of list, as they rely on having an army able to position themselves where they will be superior to the forces arrayed against them constantly in order to stay ahead. Air armies typically lack numbers to compete in a battle of attrition, and when the advantage of mobility is negated by skillful positioning and local superiority denied, they very often fold soon after.

 

Third is Fire. Armies of the Fire archetype focus their forces on destruction in any way, shape, or form with the sole objective of wiping their OPFORs off the table as quickly as possible, no matter the cost. Dark Eldar exemplify this archetype pretty well, as they bring great offensive capability in return for very little defensive quality. Fire armies gamble the most out of all the army archetypes. Should they fail to achieve their objective quickly, the durability they have sacrificed will very quickly come to haunt them as they are quickly destroyed themselves.

 

Fourth is Water. Armies of the Water archetype take a step back and prepare ways to counter whatever comes their way. Grey Knights are a pretty good example of a Water type army, as they have the ability to engage in a shooting war, are fairly resilient, and have the means to defend themselves in close quarters, all at the same time. Water armies require the best player judgement, experience, and decisiveness IMO, as the success of a water army depends completely on knowledge of self, knowledge of the OPFOR, and implementing a course of action that hits the OPFOR's weakness decisively. A single mistake in the identification of the OPFOR can prove fatal, as an unforeseen action or strategy can negate the water army's plan of action completely.

 

In the end, each element in the army must either advance the strategy of the army or support other elements in the advancement of the army's goals. Honestly speaking, that's about as specific as I think it goes, as each archetype can be manifested in a countless number of ways. An element that may be invaluable to an Earth type army can be absolutely useless to an Air type army, as a versatile unit is gold in a Water type army while simultaneously being trash in a Fire type army.

[DarkGuard]

I love that football analogy, thank you! :P

 

But anyway, 40K time. I've said this in another thread recently, and I've said it before. There's three main phases or groups or whatever of gameplay that an army can follow. Mobility, Shooting, Assault. It's rare and a little unrealistic to expect an army to be good at all three, so I always say to make it good at two, and have some capability in the third. For example, my Marine list takes plenty of Rhinos for mobility, plenty of shooting units in Tactical squads, Sternguard, Typhoons, Vindicators, Devs etc. But only a little combat ability in the odd power fist, maybe the odd unit if I run my Honour Guard as well. So when playing I'm looking to maximise my mobility and my shooting. And that army does really well. By contrast, my Terminator/Scout list focusses on both shooting and assault, but no mobility, and that army still does well.

 

Of course, you've then got all the things that Brom has mentioned (good to see you again Brom) which are just as valid. Synergy and redundancy are important things to an army. You need the whole army to work as a cohesive whole, but you also need units that can pick up the slack of other units if need be. The simplest way to do this is to spam units. The more effective way IMO is to include multiple different units with similar roles. That way your opponent will find it harder to prioritise.

 

When making a list you also need a healthy balance of Elite killing power, objective holding units and support for them. I see support as the one dimensional but cheaper units like multi-melta attack bikes, Typhoons etc, while Elite killing power are things like our Sternguard, Terminators etc.

 

And finally, you need to be thinking of the mission. In 6th Edition, that means you need to include a healthy amount of scoring units and denial units, as most games focus on objectives. Killing power can sometimes be secondary to holding ground. Of course, some games do also need you killing things, so don't let killing power go to waste.

[Panda_]

I love this kind of discussion.

 

In every posts above, I can see a trend. Many have tried to sort /evaluate armies into specialities defined by the game phases : Shooting, Assaulting, Moving, Resilience (Durability). I tend to agree, I think those categories miss some important elements. Using the elementalist analogy is going to a new level of abstraction. However, it fails the same way as it relies on the same basis : Fire is Shooting+Assault, Earth is Resilience+Shooting, Water is Moving+Resilience, Air is Moving+Shooting. Those generalities leads to the most focussed armies (one quick/water element is crap in an otherwise static/fire army).

 

While I value those, I've got the feeling we are missing something important. Something not in the rulebook, but from the game flow, something under the radar. This is where the soccer analogy bring some more value. Midfielders bring something more than linking Defence and Forwards : they control the pace of the game. Defenders do something more than to defend : They initiates attacks. Forwards do something more than scoring : They stick defenders to to their primary role. Nothing of those belongs to the rules of the game, but when you watch at a game this is underlying. For instance, Barcelona (I expect readers to understand there : They won almost everything for 3 years focussing first on great midfielders) don't win their games by providing better links between Forwards/Defenders. They win their games because they pace the game to their will (forcing their opponents to defend).

 

Sadly, I don't have any examples ready under my sleeves, but I would think there is some rôles in every well built lists (those needs refiement) :

- Area Denial (easy to avoid Ranged / CC but troublesome)

- Killers (Ranged and CC)

- Synergy / Reaction power

- Controlers of the game flow

 

Perhaps more later,

[Kozemp]

Lots of really good stuff here, please keep it coming.

 

Let me refine my query a little bit with two quick questions:

 

1) Do armies more often fail because of a lack of synergy between units (deviating from the Elemental philosophy) or because of a misallocation of resources within the army (too many/few scoring/killing/etc units)? Are these actually two ways of describing the same problem?

 

2) If points are the "resource" of an army list, is there an optimal distribution of them? This probably isn't possible across all armies - they behave too differently - but is there a level at which generalizations can be made? (A level less specific, obviously, than Joe's Necron Army #14.)

 

When I think of the second question I look at a game like Magic. After you learn the actual rules of the game and get into deckbuilding, the ABSOLUTE first thing you learn is that your deck should be 1/3 land. From there you have tons of options, but that is the baseline that everyone starts with. To my knowledge 40K does not have a similar baseline, or at least not one that is widely taught, and I think it's something that steepens the learning curve of the list-building part of the game. Hell, I've been playing for a couple years and I'm still not good at it.

 

I really appreciate the thought people have put into this.

 

(I would also like to note, as someone who spent a certain weekend this past May in Munich, that Barca has not won EVERYTHING the last few years...)

[spartan249]

1: It's the same problem. Mis-allocation of resources in a list is slotting in something that does not contribute to the overall strategy of the army.

 

2: Other then the minimum FOC requirements, I really don't think there is such a thing as a general optimal configuration. There is simply the most effective choices for your chosen strategy and tactics you choose to use to achieve your objectives. Having an "optimal distribution" of points implies that the same guidelines work for every single kind of army out there, which is not the case (if my experience has any merit, anyway).

 

M:TG is a good example of the elemental archetypes made literal. Decks are defined as one of three archetypes (or a hybrid of two), and each slot must be considered very carefully so that dead weight is not included. All the GT winners and runner ups had decks that chose a specific strategy and committed fully to it. I think the same is true of 40k, in that the army lists that really rock socks off commit fully to a particular strategy and go all out for it.

 

If we want to focus in to the specific archetypes and what we're looking for in elements of those kinds of armies, we can get much more specific about what is the most optimal method of choosing and equipping those elements (a lot of writing will occur at that point).

[Kozemp]

I have no objection to lots of reading or writing.

[ShadowHaunt]

1) Do armies more often fail because of a lack of synergy between units (deviating from the Elemental philosophy) or because of a misallocation of resources within the army (too many/few scoring/killing/etc units)? Are these actually two ways of describing the same problem?

 

I would say neither. Armies most often fail because of a lack of synergy between the strengths of the list, and the way the elements are used on the table. This is, to a certain extent, what Brom is talking about when he mentions gameplan. When you build a list, you're selecting and configuring units and weapon loadouts with the expectation that you'll use each unit in a particular way. You pack 2 flamers, a combi-flamer, and a Power Sword onto a squad of Assault Marines, because you want that unit to be going up against lightly armored infantry blobs, like Ork Boyz, or IG squads. When you put that unit on the table, and it ends up spending 80% of it's time facing down squads of Terminators, Nob Bikers, or Chimeras, you're hurting yourself. When the bulk of your army is unable to operate against the preferred matchups the unit was built for, the Army fails rapidly.

 

List building only gets you so far. How you use the force on the table is at least as important, and I for one would argue that it's more like 2-3 times more important.

 

 

2) If points are the "resource" of an army list, is there an optimal distribution of them? This probably isn't possible across all armies - they behave too differently - but is there a level at which generalizations can be made? (A level less specific, obviously, than Joe's Necron Army #14.)

 

I don't think there's a universally optimal distribution. There probably are distributions tied to specific playstyles, though. For example, a successful Earth army, as described above, probably has a minimum percentage of points spent on scoring units to be successful, while a Fire army could potentially be entirely non-scoring, without significantly limiting it's success.

 

When I think of the second question I look at a game like Magic. After you learn the actual rules of the game and get into deckbuilding, the ABSOLUTE first thing you learn is that your deck should be 1/3 land. From there you have tons of options, but that is the baseline that everyone starts with. To my knowledge 40K does not have a similar baseline, or at least not one that is widely taught, and I think it's something that steepens the learning curve of the list-building part of the game. Hell, I've been playing for a couple years and I'm still not good at it.

 

List building and deck building don't compare very well, because in MtG, 90% of your strategy goes into your deck building, because you have fewer options at each individual decision point, during the time you play. A significant portion of the strategy of crafting that deck, is to maximize the available options, for which the Land is critical. 40K, by comparison, provides a greater degree of available options at each decision point, pushing more emphasis onto the gameplay, as compared to the building phase. In part, it does so by not limiting how much of your army is available at any given time, except as a result of your own previous decisions. Packing your deck with a minimum allocation of Land is done primarily to ensure that you decrease the chances of having none of it show up in your hand, thereby limiting your options too dramatically. An analogy might be made to putting units in reserve, as a player loses options when doing so. However, in 40k, this has a positive tradeoff, as well. A unit in reserves is effectively immune to damage for one or more turns, and in many cases, it will be placed there to capitalize on additional benefits, such as Deep Strike or Outflank options. In this case, the player is actually choosing to defer some of their options from earlier turns, to later, more so than surrendering options entirely.

 

It is precisely because so much of the game is around what happens on the table, rather than what's in your list, that many players can take a heavily optimized netlist, and not be able to win a single game with it. If you don't understand how the list is played when it's set out on the table, you can't take advantage of all those optimizations. And there's a world of difference in how you successfully play a biker army vs a foot slogging gunline vs a drop pod army vs a mech'd up armor force.

[Kozemp]

It is precisely because so much of the game is around what happens on the table, rather than what's in your list, that many players can take a heavily optimized netlist, and not be able to win a single game with it.

 

I don't disagree with this point, but I would point out, to use another analogy: it is said that poker is a game of 80% luck and 20% skill, and that the 20% skill is what makes good players win in the long run, all other things being equal (luck, broadly speaking, equalizes over time). If playing 40K is 80% table decisions and 20% list building, then once again all other things being equal, the player with the better list will be more successful.

 

Which is a long-winded way of saying that I don't mean to minimize the importance of actually playing the game, but at the same time I want to go into the game with the best possible chance of success.

 

For the record, I am not a netdeck sort of player (of anything). But I have the feeling, especially from reading this thread, that a lot of my struggles with 40K come not from "bad" listbuilding - I can spot an under/over powered/costed unit as well as the next man - but from UNFOCUSED list building. Things like adding a dreadnought because "dreadnoughts are awesome" or too-slavish adherence to fluff or trying to put in everything and the kitchen sink. That is the behavior I want to correct.

[Ming]

One of my favorite bloggers is much hated and despised.

 

But. He has an entire theory summed up nicely as - don't put anything in your list that cannot destroy another unit. Everything is about squeezing as much firepower into his army as possible. When he wins, it is because you try to out-shoot him (or.. he...well...nevermind).

 

Switching to a story with actual purpose:

 

I played a game last night vs a fairly new player. I knew he had no flyers and he has a limited model collection. I brought a bunch of units that would be pretty good dooing a little bit of everything, some just to try out. We rolled up a long-range kill point mission.

 

He looked at my force and was dismayed.

 

I looked at my force and knew I'd nerfed myself because I failed to follow the tennet of the much dispised theorist above - I had spent points on units that did absolutely nothing the entire game. And then I took some late game risks with them that made the game a bit closer in KP scores (on purpose, I wanted to try a few things and "see what would happen".

 

At the end of 5 turns of long range fire (and only one assault), he had a bunch of remnant survivors hiding behind buildings or ruins trying to keep from being kill points, and I'd lost a few cheap vehicles (2 razors, a rhino, a chimera) and my terminators, my right flank was collapsing, and the score...was 6 to 5...I won, but barely.

 

There was something to learn in that. Every unit needs to be reviewed for what it could do in the likely mission profile, and stayy orginized and on-mission in an optimal way. In this case, both of us had brought the wrong tools. Overall, it seems that long to mid-range high S low AP firepower should be a key element in a marine force of any kind, with the ability to assault the enemy survivors reasonably as needed. Twin linked weapons where possible bring greater success. The ability to do better than just glancing is also key.

 

How many points did I waste in this 1750 game? Something on the order of 400 points hunkered down watching the big guns play. Now, if there had been objectives to get or other mission parameters, these units might have had a purpose, but in this case, they were just kill point bait (although just their rides achieved that status). Considering the wasted points, there are all sorts of things that could have been done to provide a stronger outcome.

 

Another 200 points had no ranged weapons at all (assault terminators). They did their initial job (taking down a larger unit after charging out of their landraider), but then themselves became a KP by fire on the next turn. Again, something to learn there for list building and theory.