Why troops are the key to making this game lore-friendly

[Tamiel]

Hello, today I'd like to talk about troops, and why they are one of the most important factors in deciding whether any edition of 40k is lore friendly or not. My theory is that an army that is designed to be lore friendly should use its troops (particularly the troops that are the iconic troops for that particular army) as the backbone of their force. Rather than being tossed aside as a tax unit, troops should be the driving force behind an army, and I propose that this will make an edition of 40k feel more lore friendly.

Consider any army from 40k. Whether you're thinking about Space Marines, Guard, Chaos, Orks, Eldar, Sisters of Battle, what is typically the first thing that pops into your head? For most, if not all armies, imagining them on the field brings to us an image of their troop choice. I was originally going to post some 40k art here to show how iconic the troop choices are (they are usually the most common sight in those amazing 40k pieces of art that we love) but I realized that there's no need for me to post anything here. That is because you probably already know what I'm talking about, and have seen the art that I would have posted to make this point.

The 40k lore is built around troops. The art reflects that too. The troop choice for each army is basically that army's philosophy and design boiled down to one unit. You could tell a lot about orks and space marines just by looking at their troop choices. Even without seeing the rest of the army, you'd get a good idea of what they represent.

Right now, troops aren't the big driving force behind all armies. Some, like the guard, get quite a lot of leverage out of them. But others, like Space Marines, are not picking their tactical marines so often. Many times, they are either taken as a bare minimum tax squad, or are pushed aside for scouts. Which is odd, as a side note. We live in an era where the scout has replaced the tactical marine as the go-to troop choice on the tabletop.

While some armies can make excellent use of their iconic troop choices, others are not in as good standing. If people had more incentive to take troop choices (especially the armies that need it), then I think we would see a more lore friendly game. No one is stopping me from picking tactical marines, but I'd be happy as a player if the game rewarded that a bit more instead of spamming scouts and razorbacks, for example.

I don't want to spend too much time talking about Space Marines, though. This is about 40k as a whole, and that includes all armies. My main philosophy is simple: If troops are more attractive choices for players to take, the game will represent the lore (and the artwork) and general feel of 40k a lot better. Some good things that GW has done so far are:

• Giving objective secured to troops
• Giving more CP to troop-based formations
• The orders that Imperial Guard have for their guardsmen, which allow their troops to be very mobile and flexible on the battlefield
   

It'd be good to see more changes like this for every army, so that instead of seeing troops as a "tax" unit, or instead of picking them just to deny space to enemy deep strikers, people can actually get excited about building an army with a strong backbone of troops. I want troops to be a "Hell yeah this unit is cool!" type of choice, instead of an "Ugh I have to take troops" type.

What do you guys think?

[Melete]

I think it's mostly a Tactical Marine problem. Intercessors share some of the problems that Tacticals have, but Scouts are amazing. You won't want to take 6 units of them, but I think starting any list with 3 units of scouts to claim space and exert early pressure is a very good idea in any style of list.

 

Scouts aren't an iconic unit like tactical marines are, though.

 

Similar story with the other big Space Marine faction. Chaos lists right now are very often built around their troop choices, whether that's Cultists, Poxwalkers, Tzaangors, your favorite Daemon unit, etc. Chaos Space Marines are pretty mediocre by comparison, for the same reasons Tacticals are.

 

Most of the other armies get a lot of use out of their troops. There's obviously Guard, but also Orks, Craftworld Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Custodes, and Tyranids. Not all of them have to rely on spamming infantry the way Orks do, but they all have pretty powerful troops that do important things for their armies. I haven't played much with Dark Eldar, but I believe their Kabalites (or at least their Raiders) are quite competitive, too. And for as many problems as Grey Knights have, Strike Squads are one of their best units.

[Deathwalker]

A few points.

1: I still see a lot of troopers, what I don't tend to see is a lot of is -troop choices-, simply because the actual "troops" section is so bland for pretty much every army. AM have 2 troop choices, SM's have 3, Orks have 2, Eldar have 4. I don't see the issue as lack of troopers, just lack of troop class choices.

 

2: I am not sure for many armies, the first thing you think of is troops. For AM, I think Tanks (lots of tanks), For BA, I think Assault Marines, DA, Deathwing and Ravenwing. For Orks, sure lotsa boyz, but also trukks and biker boyz

 

The problem is, even in friendly games, people want to win and troop choice troopers are simply not going to do the job.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

This will always happen as long as GW keeps on keeping on about how future-armour is the boxe deluxe, while simultaneously giving practically every weapon around the ability to shred even PA, easily. 

 

Why pay the cost for CSM/Tacticals when they die like Cultists/Scouts anyway?

[Deathwalker]

This will always happen as long as GW keeps on keeping on about how future-armour is the boxe deluxe, while simultaneously giving practically every weapon around the ability to shred even PA, easily. 

 

Why pay the cost for CSM/Tacticals when they die like Cultists/Scouts anyway?

And also le the board control of scouts............

[toaae]

Troops just have to be good at what they do. As an Ork player, Boyz are exactly what I want in a troop unit. I know, 8th is forgiving to hordes, but regardless of that, they are the meat and potatoes of an Ork army. Everything else we can take supports what the Boyz do.

 

EDIT: Realized I didn't really establish my point. Providing more "gimmicks" for taking troops like additional command points won't fix the issue that many troops aren't good enough on their own. It would just increase the amount taken to fulfill some tax level. Fundamentally, troops should be the ones doing the majority of the fighting and the killing (and the dieing), with Elites/Fast Attack/Heavy Support supporting that. In this regard, Orks are a great example. Tankbustas open vehicles, Burnas thin hordes, bikers hit flanks, Mek Gunz add long range firewpower, but in the end, whatever you take in those slots, Boyz are the ones getting most of the work done.

[Deathwalker]

Troops just have to be good at what they do. As an Ork player, Boyz are exactly what I want in a troop unit. I know, 8th is forgiving to hordes, but regardless of that, they are the meat and potatoes of an Ork army. Everything else we can take supports what the Boyz do.

That's true, but with SM, or any elite army, it's almost the opposite.

5 Intercessors for shooting support is pretty much inferior to 5 Sterngard for the same cost.

5 Tac's are too expensive to use as a screen in comparison to horde armies troop choices

5 Scouts offer table control, shooting as good as tacs, Toughness as good as tacs, and the option to be character hunters, or just being objective holders with -2 to hit them in cover (both being more expensive, sure, but actually having a purpose, and neither option being baked in).

 

This goes back to something written about before, baseline detachments across all armies is somewhat problematic because it favours armies with cheap troop and commander choices to leverage CP's .

You change elite armies to require 2 HQ and 3 Elites rather than troops and I think you will see a vast shift in army composition. Either that, or do what they do with CSM and allow addition troop class units based on the lore of the chapter or group.

[Kinstryfe]

I don't know that I actually think your initial premise is correct. While the basic line troops of each army are, in a way, going to often be a representation of the army they represent, it's not true in all cases. Beyond that, the whole premise of the game is that your troops are your basic dudes. That's the whole point of having an "Elites" section in the army lists. The theory may fit certain armies, but others fall flat. I don't think Fire Warrior when I think T'au, I think giant Mecha thing. Likewise I don't really think Guardian for Aeldari, and think of like 8 things for Tyranids. I think armies are a bit more varied to be able to judge them on just the quality of their most basic troops unit. Just my opinion on the matter.

[Claws and Effect]

I don't know that I actually think your initial premise is correct. While the basic line troops of each army are, in a way, going to often be a representation of the army they represent, it's not true in all cases. Beyond that, the whole premise of the game is that your troops are your basic dudes. That's the whole point of having an "Elites" section in the army lists. The theory may fit certain armies, but others fall flat. I don't think Fire Warrior when I think T'au, I think giant Mecha thing. Likewise I don't really think Guardian for Aeldari, and think of like 8 things for Tyranids. I think armies are a bit more varied to be able to judge them on just the quality of their most basic troops unit. Just my opinion on the matter.

This is actually a good point.

 

Different armies have different iconic units, and very few of them are Troops.

 

When I think "Eldar", Aspect Warriors is the first thing that comes to mind, not Guardians. Of all the shrines, only Dire Avengers are a Troops choice.

 

Tau I think suits, not Fire Warriors.

 

When I think Guard, tanks come to mind before Guardsmen.

 

And for Space Marines, what comes to mind first depends on the Chapter.

 

Raven Guard? Twin claw Vanguard Veterans.

 

Blood Angels? Death Company.

 

Templars? Crusader squads.

 

Dark Angels? Bikers or Terminators.

 

White Scars? Does anyone think something other than Bikes for them?

 

Iron Hands? Duh. Dreadnoughts.

 

Note that only one of those Chapters' iconic unit is a Troops choice, and it is unique to them.

 

Of all the main official Chapters, only Ultramarines and Imperial Fists can really say the Tactical squad is their iconic unit, and you could make a good case for it actually being Devastator squads for the Fists.

[toaae]

But in all those armies, those "iconic" units are greatly outnumbered by the troops. I won't talk about the Eldar, as I'm not versed in their fluff, but for the rest:

Tau armies are primarily Fire Warriors, with suits supporting.

IG are primarily guardsmen, with artillery and tank supporting.

Raven Guard, Blood Angels, Templars, non-WIng Dark Angels, White Scars, all tactical squads supported by the other elements.

[Claws and Effect]

But in all those armies, those "iconic" units are greatly outnumbered by the troops. I won't talk about the Eldar, as I'm not versed in their fluff, but for the rest:

 

Tau armies are primarily Fire Warriors, with suits supporting.

 

IG are primarily guardsmen, with artillery and tank supporting.

 

Raven Guard, Blood Angels, Templars, non-WIng Dark Angels, White Scars, all tactical squads supported by the other elements.

I don't know about you, but the job of my Tac squads is to keep enemies busy while my other units do their job.

 

If you make your basic bolter Marine as good at killing as he is in the lore you've made most of the other units redundant.

 

There's also the fact that any given guy is only as effective in combat as the story requires him to be. A Marine can blast his way through dozens of Orks only to be shot down by a grot because it needed to happen for the plot to move forward.

 

The lore is not, and should not be an effective measure of how good a unit should be on the table.

 

Should Calgar be able to hold beat an entire army of Orks by himself? Happened in the lore.

 

In the lore Shrike led a single Company of Marines behind enemy lines on an Ork controlled world for 2 years. That's several hundred games worth of combat. And he didn't lose enough men to necessitate a retreat.

[toaae]

I'm not arguing for Movie Marines to become a standard. I'm merely agreeing with the OP's premise that the game doesn't encourage taking armies that the reflects on the fluff because currently, outside of a few armies who have strong troops, the game is structured in such a way that you want as few troops as possible. Tactical marines aren't the only troop choice this affects, but they are a good example, because of how poor they are, while they are 60% of a company's fighting strength in the fluff.

I don't know what they can do to prevent this. In 5th, most armies troops weren't good, but since they were the only scoring unit, you would take more than the bare minimum. I'm not sure that's the best way to do it. Now, I feel Ork boyz and Imperial Guardsmen are good representation of strong troop choices. Boyz because they are generally the best unit in the list that the rest of the army supports, and Guardsmen because list building rewards taking enough of them to form that line of infantry that protects the heavy hitters.

 

But this isn't an argument about what armies have iconic troops. That has nothing to do with it.

[Claws and Effect]

The game isn't structured that way. The tendencies of the players made it that way.

 

2 armies that are mostly Troops should be roughly even. But when one is mostly Troops and the other is mostly hard hitting units with minimal Troops it skews in the favor of the second one.

 

If people actually built their armies the way they're structured in the lore we'd see fewer balance issues. But no one is going to do that. They're going to load up with the strongest units available to them. That's where the major balance issues start cropping up.

[toaae]

If people actually built their armies the way they're structured in the lore we'd see fewer balance issues. But no one is going to do that. They're going to load up with the strongest units available to them.

 

...Right. Which is why troops being so weak is an issue. They are largely a tax players pay for command points. If they were good in their own right, as a few armies troops are, we'd see more troops.

[Deathwalker]

But in all those armies, those "iconic" units are greatly outnumbered by the troops. I won't talk about the Eldar, as I'm not versed in their fluff, but for the rest:

 

Tau armies are primarily Fire Warriors, with suits supporting.

 

IG are primarily guardsmen, with artillery and tank supporting.

 

Raven Guard, Blood Angels, Templars, non-WIng Dark Angels, White Scars, all tactical squads supported by the other elements.

No, a world of no.

Tau are battlesuits, not fire warriors.

IG are L-R's with trooper support

Raven guard, not sure.

BA, our Iconic unit is a Assault Marine.

Templars are Crusaders (which are a troop choice based on fluff)

"Non Wing" DA?? You might as well say "ignore the point so I can make my point"

White Scars are mounted on bikes in the fluff.

These are chapters and armies with unique choices that -should- be troops choices for them, but they are not. Instead they are Elite, or FA, or even HS in some.

This is why you see people seeing troops as a "tax", the basic troopers in no way represent what the chapter is according to fluff, and given that, scouts are just superior to the other two choices because they exert a real game effect of deep strike denial.

 

Look at orks

If they go back to the days of Evil Sunz and Bad Moon's et al as traits, shouldn't the Evil sunz have better bikes, and bad moons have bigger guns as basic troopers along side boyz? 

[Deathwalker]

I'm not arguing for Movie Marines to become a standard. I'm merely agreeing with the OP's premise that the game doesn't encourage taking armies that the reflects on the fluff because currently, outside of a few armies who have strong troops, the game is structured in such a way that you want as few troops as possible. Tactical marines aren't the only troop choice this affects, but they are a good example, because of how poor they are, while they are 60% of a company's fighting strength in the fluff.

 

I don't know what they can do to prevent this. In 5th, most armies troops weren't good, but since they were the only scoring unit, you would take more than the bare minimum. I'm not sure that's the best way to do it. Now, I feel Ork boyz and Imperial Guardsmen are good representation of strong troop choices. Boyz because they are generally the best unit in the list that the rest of the army supports, and Guardsmen because list building rewards taking enough of them to form that line of infantry that protects the heavy hitters.

 

 

But this isn't an argument about what armies have iconic troops. That has nothing to do with it.

 

The bolded is the premise of the OP, so that's exactly what it should be about.

[toaae]

 

But in all those armies, those "iconic" units are greatly outnumbered by the troops. I won't talk about the Eldar, as I'm not versed in their fluff, but for the rest:

 

Tau armies are primarily Fire Warriors, with suits supporting.

 

IG are primarily guardsmen, with artillery and tank supporting.

 

Raven Guard, Blood Angels, Templars, non-WIng Dark Angels, White Scars, all tactical squads supported by the other elements.

No, a world of no.

Tau are battlesuits, not fire warriors.

IG are L-R's with trooper support

Raven guard, not sure.

BA, our Iconic unit is a Assault Marine.

Templars are Crusaders (which are a troop choice based on fluff)

"Non Wing" DA?? You might as well say "ignore the point so I can make my point"

White Scars are mounted on bikes in the fluff.

These are chapters and armies with unique choices that -should- be troops choices for them, but they are not. Instead they are Elite, or FA, or even HS in some.

This is why you see people seeing troops as a "tax", the basic troopers in no way represent what the chapter is according to fluff, and given that, scouts are just superior to the other two choices because they exert a real game effect of deep strike denial.

 

Look at orks

If they go back to the days of Evil Sunz and Bad Moon's et al as traits, shouldn't the Evil sunz have better bikes, and bad moons have bigger guns as basic troopers along side boyz? 

 

 

Being promoted to a crisis suit is the pinnacle of a long career as a fire warrior; IG are literally millions of men, with manpower pools so deep that the most expendable resource in the Imperium is human lives; all codex chapters (which include BA) are more than half Tactical squads; 80% of the Dark Angels are not Ravenwing or Deathwing; White Scars aren't exclusively on bike, they make use of transports to quickly move their tactical squads around. Sure, for none of those armies are the troop choices the flashy unit. But for all of those armies, the troop choices should still be the majority.

 

Evil Sunz, in the fluff, are still mostly boys, who try to get a ride on a bike, a battlewagon, a trukk, or just chase around after the vehicles, getting even the smallest satisfaction from breathing in the fumes while dreaming about the day they too can go fast.

 

The OP's premise is that the fluff features armies largely relying on their troops, with the other units as specialists. Not about what unit you "think of" when you think of the army. Not the iconic unit, such as Death Company are for Blood Angels. Just that the fluff depicts the various factions using their troops a lot, and the game doesn't reflect that.

[Deathwalker]

Umm, the OP specifically spoke about iconic units for armies being troop choices, and I do not feel that is accurate.

The iconic unit of Evil sunz is not petrol sniffing gas-heads, it's Sunz bikers

The Iconic unit of BA is not tac marines, it's assault marines.

The iconic unit of Tau is not a fire warrior, it's a battlesuit.

 

None of these are troops, but they are what people think of when they think of the army.

[Claws and Effect]

Just that the fluff depicts the various factions using their troops a lot, and the game doesn't reflect that.

It doesn't HAVE to reflect the fluff. That's the point I was trying to make.

 

You said you weren't talking about Movie Marines, but Movie Marines IS the fluff you are NOW saying the game should reflect better.

 

So, which is it? No Movie Marines? Or reflects the fluff better?

 

Because you can't have it both ways.

[toaae]

I feel we're arguing semantics at this point. Regardless of what you or I consider the iconic unit for whatever army, every army in the fluff is depicted using their troops as the basis for their armies, but that isn't reflected in game. This isn't largely because players are avoiding troop choices so they can take more "iconic" units, but because most troop choices are just bad units, that most players only take to fulfill detachment requirements, or not at all (looking at Chaos Space Marines, the unit).

​

It doesn't HAVE to reflect the fluff. That's the point I was trying to make.

You said you weren't talking about Movie Marines, but Movie Marines IS the fluff you are NOW saying the game should reflect better.

So, which is it? No Movie Marines? Or reflects the fluff better?
Because you can't have it both ways.

 

 

It can probably fit the fluff without resorting to Move Marines level of exaggeration. The game certainly should reflect the fluff at least somewhat; for many players, the biggest draw is the fluff. I don't find the game to be compelling enough to play and invest in without the awesome background. As I said, I don't know the exact answer to make troops good enough to be worth taking on their own. The easy answer is to install a "gimmick", like increasing mandatory troops, or making them the only scoring unit, but I think long term, making troops good in their own right would be the better way to do it.
 

Just reflecting on my thoughts that a few armies have achieved this. I hate to sound like a broken record, but I only play two armies, and Orks have good troops. I wish I had a reason to take 10 man squads of scouts, tacticals or intercessors like I take 30 man mobs of boyz. But currently, I don't. I wouldn't take any troop choices in my BA if I didn't feel such a need to earn command points.

The game would reflect fluff better if those units were worth taking without being tied to detachment requirements. Whether you think the game should be about that or not is a personal preference; I've stated mine enough.

[Claws and Effect]

In my experience, the fluff depicts line troops dying in droves most of the time.

 

In Hunt for Voldorius, Shrike loses 20% of his total force in a single battle. Khan loses just as many of his.

 

In Helsreach, the only time line troops really show up at all is to die horribly.

 

The same trend can be seen across dozens of books and Codexes.

 

In the fluff, the line troops only exist to die. I'd say the game actually reflects that pretty well. And no one wants to play an army of guys whose purpose is to be expendable.

[N1SB]

Hi Brothers, regardless of your positions, I found this discussion to be excellent and really helpful for planning my future armies, so thanks for that.

 

What I'd like to do is just bring up 1 single point that's been downplayed in recent editions, that I hope will bridge the different perspectives:

 

A regular 500 pt, 1000 pt, 2000 pt, et cetera game of Warhammer 40,000 isn't even the whole battle; it's just a crucial tip-of-the-spear turning point.

 

This concept was something described by the game designers in earlier editions.  The idea is that the units that even appear on the tabletop are not the whole army; they're just a special strikeforce, the very first line of defense/offense, in charge of getting some important objective, etc.  They mentioned this point during a time when Games Workshop had a larger-scale "Epic" line where a single miniatures base represented a whole squad, and you buy units as entire companies, where Lords of War like Knight Titans were a basic model.  That "Epic" scale probably more closely represented what you may think of as the lore or the artwork, etc.

 

(This is not irrelevant, as this scale is basically coming back with the "coming soon" Adeptus Titanicus specialist game.)

 

The idea is that those 100 Tactical Marines that you may expect to see...they're not there on the table because they might be doing something else off-screen.  They might be speeding their way over, but won't arrive until the equivalent of Turn 8 in a 40k game.  And for every Imperial Guardsman you actually see on the table, there's like 100 more digging trenches, moving artillery in place, reading the Regimental Standard, etc.  Even for Orks, despite the many, many Orks you already see on the table, there's 100s more running over chanting "ERE WE GO, ERE WE GO, ERE WE GO" trying not to miss the fight, cuz they're Orks.

 

Thus, our regular games of 40k, as large as they can be, are NOT really the whole picture.  They're like a SNAPSHOT, an exciting one.

 

But what you guys are talking about, in the kinda post-power armour meta of 8th, where Loyalist Scouts and Elite units have become the norm, makes even MORE sense with the above in mind.  The Scouts are at the fore of the battle because they were the ones doing reconnaissance, so they've been there the whole time, awaiting reinforcements!  The Elites, like Vanguards, are being vanguards, using their mobility as the tip of the spear.  Even something like Dreadnoughts, who are not as mobile, but maybe they're so experienced they already anticipated how the larger war was going, and were already making their way towards the crucial front before their younger Brothers realised what was going on.

 

(Conversely, for something like Chaos Space Marines...they're like "send in cannon fodder Cultists first.")

 

I'm even considering situations where people are taking Troops-heavy armies for Command Points.  Perhaps what that represents is they're opponent is attacking where they've already set up a really solid beachhead or forward operating base, which explains why they have so many CP in comparison, as they're in a stronger position for that battle.

 

That said, I'm going to flip through my codices.  I believe in what I described above, but I want to see if the lore/artwork really gives people the impression the typical 40k game is supposed to be what "Epic" is.  I'll edit my post or reply.  I don't think it'll be a case of Games Workshop doing false advertising or deliberately misleading, but it might a really legitimate argument.  This was an issue in 30k where a few players in my meta really assumed it was a game with hordes of Legion Marines, precisely because that's what every Horus Heresy novel artwork shows (i.e. I did not agree, thus I played Mechanicum, but I totally understood where they got the impression as I shot them up with my AP3 torrents.)

 

+++++

 

EDIT - So I flipped through my codices with an open mind.

 

I can totally see where OP and others are coming from, to the point that what I mentioned above, although true, might not be an answer.

 

I'm looking at the artwork and even photos.  I'm seeing the same 30k-like hordes.  Even in photos showcasing the miniatures, every shot seems to suggest armies of at least 2500 pts, but I think that's GW's way of saying "no matter how many minis you have, you should buy more."

 

However, I realise when I mentioned things like "well, a 40k game isn't the whole picture as other stuff is happening off-frame," that any player looking at the GW materials could say "but that's exactly the picture they sold me on."  It's a very valid point.

 

I'm going to visit my local GW to pick up a White Dwarf and think more on this.  It's worth considering for planning armies.

[Claws and Effect]

That's actually a great point.

 

When I play against my wife's Tyranids, there is no way the 100 or so models she has on the table are everything the Hive Mind committed to consuming that planet.

 

Conversely, the 45 or so Marines I have aren't all of the Imperium's forces trying to stop them.

 

If anything her army is a small splinter sent from the main horde to consume that tasty looking village over there and my Marines were dispatched to buy key personnel time to evacuate.

 

My army is largely veterans because they are more experienced, and thus more likely to survive. The bulk of my Tactical squads are off taking part in the larger battle elsewhere. Or already dead by this point.

[Ficinus]

I know that I would love a version of the game where 25-50% of the army had to be troops. 50% seems too high and 25% a bit low, but I think the key is somewhere in there. If we're married to the force org chart, maybe require that compulsory troop units be Max size (or at least some larger minimum size). This would necessitate that Guard get platoons back so that their requirements aren't 30 dudes.

 

This wouldn't stop the community from seeing troops as a tax to be minimized, but at least there would be more of them and armies would look bigger.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

There used to be percentage of points requirements for tournaments in the 3rd Edition days, referred to as composition requirements or just comp for short. You still had to hit the minimum number of Troop slots for the old FOC, but youbalso had to have o think 25% of the army by points in Troops (and a max of 25% by points of HQ to prevent hero-hammer).

 

And while it worked reasonably well as a balancing mechanic, it was pretty intensely unpopular especially with those armies whose Troops are cheap on points because it meant a higher model count than a lot of folks wanted when it came to units like IG platoons and Eldar Guardians.