New Editorial - Are Armies Actually Getting Bigger?

[Toe Bee]

     A few weeks ago, a topic was posted about army sizes and points costs. There was a lot of anecdotal evidence about armies becoming larger, such as comparing the number of points of forces used in battle reports. I thought that it would be interesting to take a more uniform approach to this question, so I put together a method for quantifying the change in army size over time. I did not include Rogue Trader in this analysis, as the units and the game itself are so different from modern 40k that analysis would be very difficult.

     

Methodology
     The method that I settled on is based on the same principles as the CPI, a commonly used inflation metric in the US. This metric uses a "basket" of goods to measure overall inflation, so that a dramatic change in the price of one good would not effect the overall inflation rate. For this article, I made a very basic army for each faction that I investigated (Space Marines, Orks, Eldar, and IG) consisting of one character, two ten-man squads of a basic troop, one "elite" squad, one walker/dreadnought, and one tank. I chose these units as I believe that they represent a fairly typical small army that a new player might use, and also so that types of units becoming more or less costly wouldn't skew the total too much. All of the units are equipped with default wargear. The lists for each faction are as follows:
     Space Marines:

          - 1x Captain

          - 2x 10 Tactical Marines

          - 1x 5 Terminators

          - 1x Dreadnought

          - 1x Predator Destructor

     Orks:

          - 1x Warboss

          - 2x 10 Boyz

          - 1x 5 Flash Gitz

          - 1x Deff Dread

          - 1x Battlewagon

     Eldar:

          - 1x Farseer

          - 2x 10 Guardian Defenders

          - 1x 5 Wraithguard

          - 1x Wraithlord

          - 1x Fire Prism

     Imperial Guard:

          - 1x Commissar

          - 2x 10-man Infantry Squads

          - 1x 3 Ogryn

          - 1x Scout Sentinel

          - 1x Leman Russ Battle Tank

 

Below is a graph showing the points cost of the lists described above throughout the editions.

 

Conclusions

     The chart above shows the point cost of the basic lists I described. It seems like the largest increase in army size (seen on the chart as a decrease in points) actually happened decades ago, during the switch from second to third edition. Since then, point costs have been fairly constant, with the largest armies appearing around eight edition. I found this conclusion interesting, as there seems to be a general feeling that armies are getting bigger every edition.

     I found that point cost changes varied dramatically depending on the unit. For example, ogryns went up in points by over fifty percent between third and fifth edition, while sentinels remained at 35 points for something like five editions in a row.

 

Possible Errors

     This investigation is by no means perfect. Acquiring data was difficult, as old rulebooks are not always easy to find. For example, I was unable to find a copy of the sixth edition Eldar army list, and the best data that I could find was a 6th edition data file for a desktop app called Army Builder. This had an identical point cost to the 5th edition army, I am uncertain of its reliability.

     The Imperial guard received two codices in third edition, but none in fourth. I used the 3.5(?) edition codex as the data for fourth edition, which may not perfectly faithfully represent their points cost throughout third, but the difference was only five points.

     I was unable to generate a data point for orks for second edition, as I could not find flash gitz in their army book. However, even without flash gitz the total number of points was already above the third edition level, so I believe that they would also experience the sharp drop form second to third that the other armies saw.

 

 

This is the first article that I have written on this site, so if anyone has comments or criticism I would love to hear it.

View full article

[Xenith]

Though it's a blanket increase across all armies, you didn't factor in that standard game size increased from 1000/1500 to 2000pts. In UK UK Stores, from 1999 - 2008 or so, 40k standard games were 1000pts, and WFB games were 1500. I believe  UK GT's had these at 1500 and 2000 respectively, though I may be wrong - you'd have to go back to old UK GT data - the uk casual gaming scene of 1000pt games is what he game was designed and balanced around initially, however this increased to 1500 as the standard, and then 2000pts from 8th edition onwards. 

 

With a general similar point cost for individual models, yet an overall increase in game size, the answer is that armies are getting bigger. Maybe compare a battle report from 2nd ed vs 10th ed and look at the model counts for a 'standard' army?

[Aarik]

Great post!  It's really interesting to see points costs tracked like this across editions.  They haven't decreased as much as I thought they would.  And to @Xenith's point, it looks like the increase we notice is more a function of standard point sizes for games going up rather than point costs.  When I got into the hobby ~20 years ago, 1500 was the local standard for pickup games if I remember correctly, and I seem to recall seeing tournament lists from 1500-1750/1850 at the high end.  I also think that it feels like armies have gotten bigger because the miniatures have gotten much bigger too.  Most infantry have been scaled up, and a good chunk have gone up in base size too.  And that's not to say anything about the explosion of centerpiece/larger models in the last 8-10 years or so.  A hot take that I've been workshopping is that GW have just about hit their limit for how big their models can be before things start to get a bit ridiculous.  

 

I also wonder if there's something to be said about armies feeling bigger because people feel like they need to have a larger collection of models per army to stay relatively competitive because of GW's increased frequency of balance patches.  Wilder and more frequent swings in what is good/"playable" means that people may feel the need to have a much larger stable of units to swap in and out.  And the removal of the force organization chart means it is easier to play a number of different skew lists that would not be allowed before (e.g., 4+ of what used to be HQ, fast attack, or heavy support units).  So the person who 20 years ago may have just built a 2000 point list that would remain stable for years (which could be cut down to smaller point-size games) and stopped there now may feel like they need to have 4000 points in order to keep up with the Joneses.  I haven't gone back to count the number of units per army over the editions, but I also wonder if more expansive army ranges have also contributed to this.  More models available = more models to buy, but also a greater risk that GW will have flubbed the rules for the particular models you have, which again creates a need to have others to use instead.

[Tawnis]

Yeah, PPM is roughly the same, Xenith's post about game sizes being larger is the main factor, but also the model upscale makes them feel like larger armies when seen on the tabletop too. 

[jaxom]

6 hours ago, Aarik said:

So the person who 20 years ago may have just built a 2000 point list that would remain stable for years (which could be cut down to smaller point-size games) and stopped there now may feel like they need to have 4000 points in order to keep up with the Joneses. 

It doesn't even have to be about keeping up with the Joneses. As you mention, a 2000 point list could be cut down in different ways for smaller point-size games. It's a roughly 28.6% difference between 1500 (old standard game) and 2000 points (whole collection or big game). That would be about 2000 points and 2670 points nowadays. Not only is getting to a  collection for a standard game size going to take longer, but so it getting a collection with roughly the same variation to keep it interesting over time. EDIT; in case it wasn't clear, because the extra 170 points could be up to one large model to 30 smaller additional models.

Edited Tuesday at 12:29 AM by jaxom

[crimsondave]

15 hours ago, Xenith said:

Though it's a blanket increase across all armies, you didn't factor in that standard game size increased from 1000/1500 to 2000pts. In UK UK Stores, from 1999 - 2008 or so, 40k standard games were 1000pts, and WFB games were 1500. I believe  UK GT's had these at 1500 and 2000 respectively, though I may be wrong - you'd have to go back to old UK GT data - the uk casual gaming scene of 1000pt games is what he game was designed and balanced around initially, however this increased to 1500 as the standard, and then 2000pts from 8th edition onwards. 

 

With a general similar point cost for individual models, yet an overall increase in game size, the answer is that armies are getting bigger. Maybe compare a battle report from 2nd ed vs 10th ed and look at the model counts for a 'standard' army?

1750 was the standard at some point.  I thought it was 7th/8th but maybe it was just 7th.

[Scribe]

3 hours ago, crimsondave said:

1750 was the standard at some point.  I thought it was 7th/8th but maybe it was just 7th.

 

5th and 6th I think.

[Xenith]

Did you factor in wargear? As that's all baked into base cost in 10th. A naked devastator squad in 7th was 130pts, and in 10th it's 200pts as the costs are included, but in 7th you can add ~150pts of wargear and weapons you get for free in 10th. 

[apologist]

Interesting discussion; thanks @Toe Bee. I think that the data could do with some more refinement to see what's happening with army sizes overall. As @Xenith points out, while the points per model may have remained consistent, it's the overall size of the 'default' game that's really key – otherwise we're only really analysing how different factions have changed relative to each other. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

 

The change from 2nd to 3rd is probably the key area, as that was accompanied by articles that made it explicit that the designer's intent was to increase the number of models a player could use (i.e. use their whole collection). We should see if we can find that issue of White Dwarf. From my tattered and patchy mem-banks, the article also explicitly stated that the points were roughly halved across the board for the factions – Space Marines being picked out as dropping from 30pts to just 15, for example. 

 

As a result, what was a 1,500pt army overnight became worth around ~750pts, while the expected points level remained 1,500pts... so while the army size nominally remained the same and remained playable, in practice there was an expectation that you would essentially double the size of the army. 

 

+++

 

+ Expected points level and actual points level +

I wonder whether that 'Expected Points Level' is worth trying to pin down for each edition? It would be relevant to the discussion on army sizes in general, and I'd be interested to see how GW's explicit aim for army size actually translated into the general populace.

 

In 2nd edition, battle reports were typically 1,500pts, with 2,000pts called out as 'big games'.

By 3rd, the points values remained roughly the same – with GW suggesting a typical game should be between 1,500 and 2,000pts; but the amount of models had thus doubled.

 

I'd have to rely on others' experience for more recent editions, as I really only play with our gaming group, and I'm not sure that's really representative of the broader trends.

 

+++

 

+ Rogue Trader +

I think it'd be worth adding Rogue Trader/1st edition back in for the purposes of discussion. While the early part of the game was very RP-led, it became increasingly codified (ho-ho) by the eve of 2nd edition, and the army lists were pinned down. I'd be happy to help gather info on points level differences between 1st and 2nd – I'm looking at some projects based around that crossover period at the moment, funnily enough.

Edited Tuesday at 01:45 PM by apologist

[Toe Bee]

It looks like a lot of people want to see data about expected army size and wargear. I want to take a look at incorporating this at some point, and see if the data makes more sense. Thanks for all of the great feedback!

[Wormwoods]

8 hours ago, apologist said:

I'd have to rely on others' experience for more recent editions, as I really only play with our gaming group, and I'm not sure that's really representative of the broader trends.

I've found it pretty evenly split between 1,000 and 2,000 point games, though my own gaming group may be a bit of an outlier, as we tend to play more smaller games than appears to be the default. Tournament play still appears to be 2,000 points unless otherwise arranged, and as with many things Tournament play does wag the dog a bit. Whatever army size people tend to take to a big competition is likely to be the one they want to practice with during the off-season, after all, and it's the sort of army that gets presented online for those looking for guidance in list building. 

 

That said, I've found the 1,000-1,500 range pretty comfortable in 10th. The smaller, 500-range games are still playable, but often awkward and vulnerable to skew lists and whole armies ill-suited to it. Among those I game and collect with 2,000 points is often when an army is 'finished' as a collection, even if you don't intend to actually play it at 2,000.

[apologist]

This is a 2,000pt (well, 1,995pt) army from the sole Rogue Trader report in WD141:

 

 

The points costs are based on the Eldar list presented in WD129; and these would soon be replaced by the release of 2nd edition 40k.

 

Interestingly, this army works out to about the same cost in that edition (I'll post up the list later), though it's interesting to see that the points cost of the characters shot up (a 2nd ed Farseer was 170pts before wargear), while the cost for troops dropped.

 

In terms of army size, there are ~50 infantry models here, and two small support weapons. I think that the number of models might be a good area to explore in finding out whether (and how) army sizes have differed from edition to edition.

Edited Wednesday at 09:30 AM by apologist

[apologist]

... and on intended army size, here's what the 2nd edition Codex Army Lists book (sometimes called the 'Black Codex') had to say:

 

 

Looks like my assumption earlier was wrong, and that 2,000pts was the intended army size (at least from GW's point of view). Note also the bit at the top, and the intent that existing players should be able to use things with minimum disruption.

 

At the bottom, we see why things are restricted – both for background (implicit in the 'armies don't consist entirely of [...]Space Marine Captains' comment) and for balance reasons. Unlike 3rd, the proportions for each army are explicitly different, rather than all fitting into a Force org chart.

Edited Wednesday at 09:59 AM by apologist

[jaxom]

The local shop specifically encouraged not playing games that last all evening. Games usually took about 1.5-2 hours. People could get 2 or 3 games in playing 1250 or 1500 points.

[Arikel]

When I started in 5th, recommended list size was 1500 points for an evening of play, and that’s what we tended to play the most of in my group.  10th recommends 1k, 2k and 3k armies, with 2k considered the standard in the BRB. 

[apologist]

@Arikel Can you remember roughly how many models were in that 1,500pt list for 5th – and likewise how many are in your ‘normal’ list today?

[jaxom]

To avoid confusion: what do people think when they see “last an entire evening”? I think 3-4 hours.

 

Similarly, how long are 1k, 2k, etc battles taking in your plays of various editions?

[m-p-constructions]

The "intended army size by GW" thing is something i do not get. It is an assumption i read often in the last years and i do not understand how you can read any size recommendation out of a really rough description, that simply shows how much time a certain game size will approximately require.

 

I am in the hobby since 2nd edition and allways preferred the smaller games, which is the main reason i do not attend tournaments.

 

Edited Thursday at 01:45 PM by m-p-constructions

[Arikel]

7 hours ago, m-p-constructions said:

The "intended army size by GW" thing is something i do not get. It is an assumption i read often in the last years and i do not understand how you can read any size recommendation out of a really rough description, that simply shows how much time a certain game size will approximately require.

 

I am in the hobby since 2nd edition and allways preferred the smaller games, which is the main reason i do not attend tournaments.

 

It’s not an assumption. It’s guidelines in the brb’s that GW releases themselves.
 

In 5th it was 1500, in 10th they have specific rules for 1k, 2k and 3k army sizes, with 2k called out as the ideal sweetspot for a  game in terms of what can be played in a reasobable amount of time.

 

The numbers don’t come out  of thin air, they are straight from the manufacturer as it were.

[Joe]

I would also recommend looking at White Dwarf, where the vast majority of games have been sub-2,000.

[m-p-constructions]

12 minutes ago, Arikel said:

It’s not an assumption. It’s guidelines in the brb’s that GW releases themselves.
 

In 5th it was 1500, in 10th they have specific rules for 1k, 2k and 3k army sizes, with 2k called out as the ideal sweetspot for a  game in terms of what can be played in a reasobable amount of time.

 

The numbers don’t come out  of thin air, they are straight from the manufacturer as it were.

Perhaps i am missing some information. For the past editions i can not check anymore and my memory might be false so let us stay on 10th edition. The Muster your Army chapter just specifies that you should select one of three army sizes an then tells you how long it will take approximately to play the game.

 

I do not find a wording anything like " and BTW 2000 Points is the best and therefore the standard size you should be playing".

 

I even looked up Leviathan an Pariah Nexus Mission Deck Rules. Both say "muster armies as described in the Core Rules".

 

So if you can, please point me to the information from GW which states 2K is the "standard size" for games. I dont want to provoke i just never found a GW source.

 

I truly think 2000K is a tournament traditon.

 

 

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Joe said:

I would also recommend looking at White Dwarf, where the vast majority of games have been sub-2,000.

Ditto. Also, anyone know the usual battle size for the Warhammer+ battle reports?

[Wormwoods]

7 hours ago, m-p-constructions said:

I truly think 2000K is a tournament traditon.

Regardless of if GW says so anywhere specifically, this is what actually matters. Like I said, the tail wags the dog. What's standard for tournament play will quickly become a standard elsewhere. It's why people get so jumped up about Legends.

[sairence]

On 2/19/2025 at 6:18 PM, jaxom said:

To avoid confusion: what do people think when they see “last an entire evening”? I think 3-4 hours.

 

Similarly, how long are 1k, 2k, etc battles taking in your plays of various editions?

 

I usually play a game a week on Wednesday evening at the local shop outside of events. 4h is pretty normal for those, we're taking our time, bantering back and forth and with neighbouring table.

 

The regular local competitive 2k events have each round set for 2 1/2h, which is also generally doable as long as both players know their armies and stay focused.

Edited Friday at 11:17 AM by sairence

[Lord_Ikka]

I came back in 8th edition and competitive tournament play has been 2k points and roughly 3 hours per game since at least that edition. The game-time depends on the individual tournaments, but most have 3 hours as the time limit. Given that GW took over/bought out the ITC and has continued that circuits tournament rules (2k points, 3 hours), GW is stating, however indirectly, that their preference for tournament size/length is that. 

 

Now, whether this is what most players play, I can't say. I've played everything from 500 point games to 5k games and enjoyed them all. I will say that in my experience it is easiest to get a pickup game at 2k points. Pickup in this case means going to a gaming store without scheduling anything and finding an opponent there. 2k has become the standard for my area (Northern Colorado/Denver), but I can't say that it is that way everywhere. It is also pretty easy to jump on to a local Discord/other chat and find a game at a different point level if wanted.

 

As for the original post, I don't think armies are getting bigger in the sense that points have fluctuated greatly. What has changed is the interaction between GW and players in the form of edition changes, points updates, and balance shifts- leading to many players collecting a large amount of units that could be used no matter the current meta of the game. In the 2nd-4th era especially, there was little to no change to an army once the codex was published. You might have a White Dwarf come out with some supplemental rules, but otherwise what was printed, good or bad, was what you got. So players were able to create armies that were very focused and stable for a long time, leading them to not have to buy/add-in new units. Since 8th edition, GW has very clearly attempted to keep game updates on a regular schedule, and this has lead to many armies having different loadouts at different times in an edition's lifespan. All of this means, at least in my view, that while the basic army size hasn't changed a lot, the players' collections have.

Edited Friday at 12:18 PM by Lord_Ikka