What does an army look like?

[apologist]

This question popped up after reading a common though in a number of threads – that for a number of reasons, basic line infantry such as Tactical Marines, Imperial Guard infantry, Ork boyz, Eldar guardians and so forth are rarely attractive choices.

 

As a result, a great deal – perhaps most – people's model armies tend to favour specialists. Successful Matched Play/Tournament lists in particular tend to cherry-pick the most effective bits of an army, but I think this runs through even Narrative/Open Play games.

 

There's a bit of disjunct with how armies/forces are presented in the background, where such 'basic troops' tend to vastly outnumber such specialists – but I'm not necessarily talking about trying to represent the forces as they appear in books and artwork in my question:

 

When you picture a typical tabletop 40k army, what do you think a typical force should look like? 

 

This is intentionally quite an open-ended question, as I don't think there's a pat answer. For the purposes of the discussion, then, please try to:

• Ignore the mechanics of the particular edition of the game, and assume everything is equally attractive rules/model-wise
• Ignore exceptionally small or very large armies – we're talking the 'normal' size of game (whatever you judge that to be)
• Ignore armies with artificial restrictions (i.e. 'all tanks', 'all infantry', 'all bikes).

 

+++

 

As an example, this force is identical to one presented in a White Dwarf battle report in WD141 – and it's clearly coloured my idea of what a 'normal' 40k force looks like. But how much of that is simply because it was the first one I saw? How much is due to the fact vehicles were hard from GW to manufacture? Was twenty Tactical Marines the right amount at the time? Is it still? There are specialists and eye-catching centrepiece models – but they sit amongst a large proportion of 'basic stuff'.

 

 

Compare the Blood Angels above with the Iron Warriors below. While the latter are a bigger force, I think the proportions of centrepiece models to basic infantry remains roughly the same. Do you prefer to see more high fantasy gaming, with a greater proportion of specialists?

 

[skylerboodie]

When I look at the two photos, I think of the Blood Angels as representing what I consider a '40K army' - based on my growing up on older White Dwarf battle reports - whereas the Iron Warriors is to me more of a collection than army, in my mind. I'm not against them, my factions are all more the latter-sized, but nostalgia / first experiences tend to stick. In real world terms of course, the Iron Warriors force would be closer to an 'army' than the smaller Blood Angels detachment.

Edited August 11, 2023 by skylerboodie

[Bouargh]

As far as I am concerned, I have a real nostalgia for this Force Organization Chart:

 

 

In terms of gaming it is reflecting the proportions I find are the correct ones.

Meet the compulsory choices but do nt foccus too much on them - I am more dealing with the general proportions advertized byt the diagram:

• 30% Troops/Battleline,
• 15% Elites,
• 15% Fast Attack...

To me, it was a good balance of what I was expecting bringing and meeting on the table, wile leaving sufficient room for more exotic adjustments from time to time (inc. allied).

[firestorm40k]

21 minutes ago, Bouargh said:

As far as I am concerned, I have a real nostalgia for this Force Organization Chart

Agree 100% - when I plan an army, I always start with this as my base 'template'. Then again, I'm a painter first, I don't really think a massive amount about tabletop performance in game - and I have absolutely zero interest in the 'meta'. Rules change, but a nicely painted collection of models last forever 

[silverstu]

Yeah I've always seen an army as having a basis of two or more troop units and a hero. Troops are what set the character of the army for me- although I do like variant lists like biker armies, tank companies etc.. I enjoy the troops doing the work while the specialists intervene with support wherever required but the rules don't always enable that. 

[Brother Lame]

One or two HQs and two or three 'proper' troops choices to form the core, in my opinion. What that translates to is an army leader - your warlord presumably - plus maybe a supporting character or two, then at least two troops choices that aren't just anaemic token 'tax' picks because you had to take them before you start picking the fancy shiny stuff. When I was younger troops felt like the vegetables you had to eat before you could gorge yourself on sweets and desserts, but as I've gotten older I've come to appreciate them more as that solid core you need to have in place to keep your army functional and coherent. A few squads of regular troops on the ground is the key IMO to making your force look like an actual ordered army rather than some very gamified collection of units that IMO look and work best as side pieces. After all, you need some regular guys to make your glory boys look extra impressive in comparison, right?

 

What my army has looked like over the years has changed dramatically from 4th to 7th, 7th to 10th. Back in the day it was an old reliable Terminator Captain with his Terminator entourage backed up by Tactical Squads with heavy weapons. From 7th onwards, it was a Chaplain Dreadnought or Librarian Dreadnought backed up by two Techmarines which each accompanied a Tactical Squad with a special weapon and combi weapon and again each with their own Razorback to get around (plus 5 Intercessors for some extra lads on the ground to advance and hold objectives as of 8th). I became extremely fond of the latter arrangement forming a strong and good looking core to the army that I felt happy enough to just layer my elites and specialists on top of - several more Dreadnoughts that meant in practice!

 

 

[Orion]

For me it's like a kinda Feng Shui thing.

Like I want certain ratios of units, and not too much of things I feel like there shouldn't be too much of.

There needs to be a bulk of core(narratively core) units.

 

My Death Guard have a symmetry thing going on.

Two terminator HQs, four 10 man marine squads, two 5 man terminator squads, and two dreadnoughts. You could split that army down the center.

 

I also appreciate a somewhat thematic army. Like you don't have to be completely generic to the faction, but if you're gonna deviate, have a plan.

I see some "Krieg" armies that are Sentinels, Bullgryns, Psykers, various Baneblades, special character soup. Really doesn't feel like a Krieg army to me.

OuterCircle's Ultramarines Destroyer Company is an example of the opposite. It's definitely not the first thing you think of when you think of UMs, but it's got a theme, and a balance, and he ties it all into the UM lore. It's not a mish mash of units.

[Arikel]

For regular sm, I’ve always pictured the classic half company as my ideal army. 3 tacticals, a dev squad, an assault or bike squad and a leader or two. Transports for footsloggers and then fill out with a few “fancy” choices if game size allows (vets, termies, land raiders and so on)

 

I never quite finished it, still have a few assault guys to build and need a few more rhinos to get up to 4 transports total but I felt it looked best. Solid traditional army core with additional support.

 

 

 

 

[Rain]

@JayJapanB pretty much hit the nail on the head. In most cases, troops set the identity of the army, and excluding them in favor of a mishmash of meta units feels gamey.

 

That said, a skew list can still be fine if it has a coherent theme, and is representing some aspect of a faction’s lore. Like a Dark Eldar army composed of a Haemonculus and his favorite creations, being pain engines and grotesques, or a Word Bearers army which is all characters, possessed, and masses of cultists. Things like that are actually really neat when done cohesively, but that’s really rare to see.

 

For myself, the core of my army is two 10 man berzerker squads, one with attached MoE, and one with Khârn. I’ll probably add a third squad with a second MoE pretty soon. Can never have enough choppy boys.

[apologist]

Some great thoughts – thanks for the constructive discussion, all. I think it's helping crystallise the rather nebulous idea that there is something that differentiates a collection of models from an 'army'. 

 

Broadening things out from Space Marines, can I ask what, specificially, you'd expect to see in 'Ur-examples' of the following armies?

• Craftworld Eldar
• Orks
• Tau.

[The Yncarne]

My army is a deprecated force org chart. Obviously, I don't place it all on the table at once.

[Scribe]

1-2 HQ

2-6 Troops

0-3 Elite

0-3 HS

0-3 FA

 

Thats it.

[Emperor Ming]

11 minutes ago, Scribe said:

1-2 HQ

2-6 Troops

0-3 Elite

0-3 HS

0-3 FA

 

Thats it.

Ah the good old days

[sairence]

In the context of a 40k game, I generally think anything goes. Yes, there's absolutely an appeal to a nice and balanced force. It just looks good on the table and appeals the a certain feeling of "this is an army".

 

However, in my understanding, not every 40k game needs to represent a clash between 2 forces like that. While my game can be about that, it can also represent an elite force on a sabotage mission. Or an armoured thrust to break open a frontline. It can be stromtroopers raiding an enemy trench. All of these are things that'll frequently happen in a warzone, but wouldn't exactly involve any line troopers. My battle doesn't always have to represent a combined arms push/hold.

 

So for me that also means my army doesn't always have to be built around a troop-core.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

For me, an army has an underlying theme behind it that ties the group together, while a collection is simply all the models you have for a given force.  I believe this is what sairence was stating, but I thought I would go into it in more detail.

 

So, using marines for example, your typical army would be troop heavy, with some supporting elements like transports, specialists and characters.  Troops should be the focus, and all units should be fairly focused on supplementing or augmenting those troops.  Given that historically this is how codexes presented selections (with their force org silos), this "theme" is fairly loose, and really only looses thematic cohesion where there isn't a significant troops component or when there is a competing theme in the force, mostly likely from focusing too heavily on particular type of theme of "supporting" units (for example, a troops heavy list with a few units of bikes works fine - where are as many or more bike units then troops, then it is unclear what the theme is).

 

That said, there are army themes that aren't around troops - indeed, in such armies troops might even be out of place.  For example, a white scars (or similar) bike heavy army makes a lot of sense, provided any troops are also given some form of fast transportation.  Another example would be a 1st company type terminator force - in such an army, troops might not fit at all.  For these types of armies, the selection of supporting elements is more discriminating than for a troops themed force, as the other elements need to match your theme.  So, for the bike themed force, landspeeders make sense, infantry units on foot less so.  Likewise for a terminator strike force themed force - dreadnaughts are a particularly good match, but landspeeders probably don't work.

 

Now it can be well said that what is a sufficient amount of thematic coherence is in the eye of the beholder - with each person having their own comfort level for deviance from the theme.  Explanations can be made to justify seemingly dissonant units - for example, scouts don't match the elite "termie strike force" theme, but could be included if one accepts the story that they were there first to place the teleportation homer.  That said, the more strained the explanation or the more explanations required, the more such explanations look like excuses to field what you want, rather than to match the theme.

 

Not familiar enough about Tau to comment on them specifically, but for Eldar I think any force that matches any of the archetypes developed for the various craftworlds (so, go fast, sneaky, aspect warriors, constructs, guardian + psycher heavy, etc) makes for an army, provided it is adhered to.  Again, justifying picks that don't fall squarely within the given theme is important.

 

For orks, they also have some archetypes that are easier to do so with (balanced, horde, stompy, grot, snake bite, speed freak, air force, etc.).  Orks may also be easier than other armies to put elements in that go against theme, but I'm not really coming up for any justification as to why that may be.

 

Finally, how you model the force can be important.  For example, if you do build and convert your orks as 17th century pirates, that could well justify units (both types of units and numbers of a given type) that might not work had they not been built as pirates - I find people (myself included) are inclined to give a force more leeway to being an army where there has been effort put into it, particularly if that effort is visually appealing.  It think this is a combination of it being clearer that the unit combinations is an actual theme rather than an excuse to take what you want, and of people liking cool and pretty models.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Dr_Ruminahui

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I liked the old FOCs 

 

seemed solid way to represent an army.

[Wormwoods]

'As many infantry models as you can fit, plus a few larger things to break up the horde' is a bit reductive, but IS how I tend to put my armies together. What can I say, I like a healthy dose of lads with some support stuff. Even my current project, which is pretty elite-focused is still mostly squads of infantry with some walkers peppered in for variance. 

 

My GSC force is coming together pretty White Dwarf Standard, two-four blocks of basic infantry, a peppering of character models, one or two small squads of mini-monster models and some cavalry. Basically the only thing it's missing is a big tank.

 

Honestly, the only way I could see myself doing a tank-heavy army would be going all the way into a hard skew, tank-only guard or similar. 

[ThePenitentOne]

For me, I think of "Army" as a roster from which multiple, purpose-built battle groups can be assembled as required by the campaign being fought in a particular theatre of war.

 

I like the forces I use in large battles to be composed of smaller forces that frequently operate independently. The detachment system in 8th and 9th was PERFECT for this, but I've been doing it since 3rd. My 3k Witch Hunter army was actually two 1500 point armies- a Holy Choir, consisting entirely of morally upstanding Sisters and a Penitent Legion of Repentia, Priests, Adeptus Arbites, battle conclave units and Penitent Engines led by an Inquisitor.

 

It is especially fun for me when the Battle Groups are formed from different factions or subfactions- I have a small Craftworld army, a decent sized Drukhari army, and a band of Corairs that will fight with either team under the right circumstances. I've got small GK and DW armies to operate as Chambers Miltant for the Ordos Malleus and Xenos and a big Sisters army to go with my Hereticus- the largest of my Inquisitorial Forces.

 

My Chaos includes a force of a Cult of Slaanesh that learns how to summon Daemons, and the Emperor's Children who arrive to reinforce the nascent Daemon army. 

 

This is one of those themes that @Dr_Ruminahui was talking about... But in my case, this the  underlying structure of assembling small independant forces is persistent for me across all the factions I play, and I use it precisely BECAUSE it allows me to turn thematic exploration up to 11. I do like my infantry models though, so my forces do tend to have a core of troops regardless of the other themes I'm looking to explore.

Edited August 12, 2023 by ThePenitentOne

[Abanshee]

I think a typical force should represent the smallest force available on the FOC for your chosen faction (For example, a space marine demi-company is what I'd field in a regular 40k match if I was playing them. Or something comparable to a demi-company.)

 

Whatever is the smallest on the faction's force organization chart basically and going up the chart as you go up in points.

 

I always die a little on the inside when I see special character at 500 points, just tells me you're here to be one of those ultra competitive weirdos. I don't see why they aren't restricted to 1000 points and up.

[DemonGSides]

14 minutes ago, Abanshee said:

I think a typical force should represent the smallest force available on the FOC for your chosen faction (For example, a space marine demi-company is what I'd field in a regular 40k match if I was playing them. Or something comparable to a demi-company.)

 

Whatever is the smallest on the faction's force organization chart basically and going up the chart as you go up in points.

 

I always die a little on the inside when I see special character at 500 points, just tells me you're here to be one of those ultra competitive weirdos. I don't see why they aren't restricted to 1000 points and up.

 

I think a rule that no singular "unit"can take up over 30% of your total points would be an interesting wrench in the game.

Would keep the likes of Magnus and other primarchs off the table under 1k while not completing invalidating parking lot strategies.  It would also basically kill Knights which I am also A-OK with.

[gaurdian31]

On 8/11/2023 at 10:20 AM, apologist said:

Some great thoughts – thanks for the constructive discussion, all. I think it's helping crystallise the rather nebulous idea that there is something that differentiates a collection of models from an 'army'. 

 

Broadening things out from Space Marines, can I ask what, specificially, you'd expect to see in 'Ur-examples' of the following armies?

• Craftworld Eldar
• Orks
• Tau.

Orks should be lots of boyz with a big Warboss, some truks and a battle wagon, then sprinkle in some shiny. Eldar would be for theme, defending a craftworld? A bunch of guardians with farseer, wraith support and a sprinkle of aspect warriors. Attack? More aspect warriors and an Autrach with maybe a warlok coven and pathfinder support. Tau I think should be mechanized with devilfish, fire warriors, pathfinders and some stealth suits. This would be lead by a Crisis Suit commander or Ethereal, supported with a Crisis team and a hammerhead or two. Maybe a couple of big bots. So again decent amount of troops, a leader or two and some sprinkles of heavier hitters.

[jaxom]

On 8/11/2023 at 11:20 AM, apologist said:

what, specificially, you'd expect to see in 'Ur-examples' of the following armies?

• Craftworld Eldar
• Orks
• Tau.

 

I think it kind of boils down to "I'll know it when I see it."

 

Eldar - I expect to see some Aspect Warriors, Guardian Support Weapons, jetbikes, and a few tanks, About a 3:2:1 ratio of infantry : other units : tanks. Or wraith units and tanks. I actually don't expect to see many Guardian Squads as I've always felt the lore indicated they'd be more of a militia to fill out the armies when there aren't enough Aspect Warriors. 

 

Orks - Forty to fifty infantry bodies supported by anything. Orks are probably the one faction which have the least expectations for a "classic" force, other than bodies.

 

Tau - Fire Warrior Squads as the backline, a few Devilfish with Breachers, and one Crisis Suit Team per three other squads.

[Orion]

3 hours ago, Abanshee said:

I always die a little on the inside when I see special character at 500 points, just tells me you're here to be one of those ultra competitive weirdos. I don't see why they aren't restricted to 1000 points and up.

I agree. 

GW on the other hand:

 

 

[jaxom]

58 minutes ago, JayJapanB said:

I agree. 

GW on the other hand:

 

 

Ironically, I think the Tau box is actually pretty spot on. The DG and CSM boxes throw me off. I'm of the opinion that non-power armor units should either be the majority or a minority, but not 50/50 with the power armour.

[Orion]

36 minutes ago, jaxom said:

Ironically, I think the Tau box is actually pretty spot on. The DG and CSM boxes throw me off. I'm of the opinion that non-power armor units should either be the majority or a minority, but not 50/50 with the power armour.

Yeah well you couldn't even field the Death Guard one due to a rule to make power armour the majority.
Personally I do have O'Shaserra in a small stealth cadre style detachment, but I mean what else am I gonna pick?
 

Quote

You cannot include more POXWALKER units than BUBONIC ASTARTES CORE INFANTRY units in each DEATH GUARD Detachment in your army.

Pox walkers were units of 20, and the box comes with 30 and 7 plague marines. 

 

The CSM one makes Abaddon look like an elementary school teacher, or professional dog walker.