Heresy ain't narrative

[Griefbringer]

As an additional comment about those narrative scenarios in the Adeptus Titanicus rulebook: several of those scenarios have additional rules are related to some dramatic weather or terrain effects that were present at the particular area at particular time. This is an easy way to theme games, though best used in moderation - scenarios where more casualties are caused by weather and terrain hazards than enemy action can get frustrating. And games with just "ordinary" weather and terrain rules also have a place.

 

In an ideal world, one would even have the resources to build dedicated terrain sets to go with the different narrative battleground settings, but building such sets can take quite a lot of time (plus you also need the storage space). Never mind doing multiple tables worth of stuff e.g. for an ice world themed event.

[Brofist]

9 hours ago, Razorblade said:

Again I would love to hear the specific measures you take to make those narrative events.

I'll try to be brief- my thread on this forum has all the pictures and links. I worked with an events crew to pull this off and I stopped running LVO events so I could do this instead. Its a 3 day experience. I'm doing my third one next year.

1. Wrote a short players pack with a setting, fluff, short stories, custom art, and rules
2. We also designed and play-tested 7 custom missions. One was a DMed multiplayer experience that ran all 3 days and anyone could join or exit when they wanted
3. I designed and printed blanche themed tarot cards of different rarities that were part of decks assigned to each table 
4. Each table corresponded to a battlefield on a planet in a system. If a player won they got to draw a tarot card from the deck
5. If you played the multiplayer experience, you could draw a 'destiny' card which let you spend or use tarot cards in interesting ways if you fulfilled the requirements
6. Doing certain things during the 3 days could award a 'boon' or buff to a character model that was represented using a blanche themed card
7. We 3d printed, painted, and provided a unique model with rules that could be included for no points cost. If it did certain things during a game it would grant bonus tarot cards to the controlling player.
8. I kept track of how many cards were issued to different players on each battlefield. This determined who controlled and didn't control which worlds/parts of the system. If your side held a specific section you got benefits to the card mechanics.
9. At this event, each player represented a splinter fleet trying to escape a dying star system. At the end of the event I counted up the value of each faction's cards. The summed total for each faction determined the overall winner. The cards in your hand and your destiny determined the fate of your fleet.
10. I designed and manufactured a bunch of pins. If you won a game, you got a pin.
11. Each player also got two unique pins to give away to people they thought were cool dudes or did impressive hobby. At the end of the event the person with the most cool dude/dudette pins got a prize. We also had a raffle and fake sponsorships.
12. The player who was undefeated from the previous year's event was forced to wear a giant, heavy, golden chain called 'the lead weight'. None of their games contributed to the overall scores of the event. However, if somebody could beat them, the lead weight got passed onto a new player like a curse.
13. None of the games were matched. You either found somebody to play with and then found a table or you waited at a table until somebody joined you.
14. Fully painted was required. If you had an unpainted model in a unit, everyone else had preferred enemy (your unit). WYSIWYG was encouraged.
     

That's a lot to say that we wrote some special missions and then put a card mechanic ontop of it :) Everything was an optional, opt-in, type of experience with peer pressure/social shaming to discourage the type of behaviours we didn't want to see.

 

The core game wasn't touched besides the missions, so you could do this with another system. What made this unique to heresy? The narrative focused people who showed up and wanted this instead of matched play swiss pairings.

 

Edited October 12 by Brofist

[ThaneOfTas]

1 hour ago, Brofist said:

*snip*

That looks amazing, and I don't suppose that you'd be willing to share the files for those cards?

[Brother Ezra]

That's seriously impressive, @Brofist! Kudos to you and your crew!

 

Also, I recently came into possession of a Codex from 3rd edition, and there I found that there used to be "Narrative hooks" pages in the Codices! Those outlined some of the reasons why your dudes might be fighting army X or Y, and sometimes added some faction-specific scenario's. That's also a pretty neat way to bring a bit more narrative into a one-off game.

[Griefbringer]

Brother Ezra, I presume that the WH40K 3rd edition codex you are referring to is either Witch Hunters or Daemonhunters. Those got two pages of narrative hooks, a couple of scenarios, plus special adversary rules. It really feels like the designers were having a good time with them.

 

Other 3rd edition codices tended not to have that kind of material, though there were some thematic scenarios at the back of the some books. Space marines got a planetfall mission, Dark Eldar had a slave raid and Tau needed to rescue an ethereal.

[Brother Ezra]

3 hours ago, Griefbringer said:

Brother Ezra, I presume that the WH40K 3rd edition codex you are referring to is either Witch Hunters or Daemonhunters. Those got two pages of narrative hooks, a couple of scenarios, plus special adversary rules. It really feels like the designers were having a good time with them.

 

Other 3rd edition codices tended not to have that kind of material, though there were some thematic scenarios at the back of the some books. Space marines got a planetfall mission, Dark Eldar had a slave raid and Tau needed to rescue an ethereal.

 

Aye, the Witch Hunters one to be exact  Sad to hear that the other Codices don't contain something like this!

[Griefbringer]

If you liked the Witch Hunters, try to see if you can get the Daemonhunters codex at a reasonable price somewhere. They have got at least as much narrative material: two pages of scenarios, two pages of narrative hooks, three pages of adversary rules - all with quite small font. Also the modelling section contains a couple of pages of rather personal metal model conversions.

 

Personally, I would rate the Witch Hunters book as more interesting than the Daemonhunters, but that might be because I am not too excited about the Grey Knights. But both are quite inspiring books in my opinion. The inquisitorial retinue rules also provide a great excuse for fielding a rather eclectic lot of converted figures - White Dwarf ended up showing some quite personal looking retinues for the Witch Hunters.

[N1SB]

Brothers, Sisters, I had an argument with one of my closest 40k friend that dealt with this very issue.

  

On 10/2/2026 at 4:43 AM, Razorblade said:

Am I missing something fundamental?

 

Yes, the same thing I missed.  I actually agree with you, Brother Razorblade.  I'm here to share with you others' point of view.

 

 

"Narrative" does NOT mean the same thing to others

 

There IS a fundamental issue, a definitional issue.  GW categorises "Narrative" as opposed to "Competitive".

 

The argument was with Timperial Guard, whom I played Dungeons & Dragons with, who also reads the HH novels.

 

It was from a 1st ed 30k game.  Timperial Guard and I allied together against an opponent's army as big as ours combined.  I played Dark Mechanicum, Timperial Guard was Death Guard and insisted on bringing Mortarion.  Great against MEQs, but our opponent used mostly Terminators instead.

 

We won that game, but as we cleared up after our opponent left, I simply asked him, why bring Mortarion?  I think I kept pressing him, because at some point he snapped, shouting that he was a "Narrative" player, implying I was pushing him on being a "Competitive" army, but I wasn't!

 

I shouted back I was a "Narrative" player, too!  My point was Mortarion wasn't just a Primarch, a great warrior, he was also a commander!  He wouldn't join every battle because he'd delegate it out to one of his subordinates!  Even from a "Narrative" sense, it wouldn't even fit the history!

 

It went on.  He kept on invoking the HH novels.  I was making points from FW's Black Books, written like an incomplete history.

 

And that breaking point lead to enlightenment.  It wasn't just different sources, it was more like...

 

 

"Re-enacting" vs. "Roleplaying"

 

I say "Re-enacting" and "Roleplaying" in quotes, because they're rough terms, but a useful shorthand.

 

Timperial Guard played 30k to "Re-enact" what he read in the novels.  In those stories involving Death Guard, OF COURSE Mortarion would show up to lead his armies, he's a main character!  That was his reason for getting into 30k in the 1st place, the novels lead to the game, for him!

 

I was more "Roleplaying" like in Western video game RPGs, we make OUR OWN characters, spend a whole night in the character creation screen, go into the game right before bed just to save that character.  I got into 30k to figure out how my own character would react to the historic event that is HH.

 

(It's interesting to note character creation is less of a thing in Japanese RPGs; they're happy with pre-made characters.)

 

It was the moment I dropped the word "Re-enact" that immediately calmed things down.  I said something like, "Oh, you're re-enacting the (HH) novels."  I was going off the lore, too, but the way it was laid out in FW Black Books, like a massive sociopolitical event.  He replied like, "Yeah...like a Napoleonic Wargame."

 

He realised the difference, too, thus he invoked Napoleonic Wargames, or just Napoleonic Re-enactment in general.  There, it was very important to paint your miniatures or cosplay very accurately, like you're trying to reproduce that event exactly.  That is a different mindset than me, wanting to create my own story.

 

I apologised 1st, I think.  Not only did I understand him now, AND the difference between us...but OF COURSE I'd also want HIM to use Mortarion so that my characters could be the Techpriests that marched shoulder to shoulder with the Pale Lord of Death, that'd enhance MY story.

 

On 10/7/2026 at 3:27 PM, Razorblade said:

Necromunda, BB, Mordheim, TC all have progression systems baked into their rules. 40k ditched it's progression system (which I think is smart for a larger scale game) but has its asymmetrical missions and terrain objectives instead of people standing in the same random 6" circles, and an entire campaign deck that looks tailor made for weekend events. 

 

And how is it that 40k had Crusade rules in previous editions but not 30k?  30k Marines were ON the Great Crusade!

 

Those are NOT Roleplaying games, in fact Necromunda Roleplay will be a thing (probably soon to be re-named)...but they're "Roleplaying" a bit, y'know?  Like the idea of a progression system is kinda like RPGs, and asymmetrical scenarios like a few characters facing a horde, that's RPG stuff.

 

And it's not just progression systems, those games you cited are designed for Campaign-play, not just 1 game.  Honestly, the Horus Heresy WAS an actual Campaign, it was a Campaign to get to Terra, then the Siege of Terra.  Even in 1st ed, new units were added to reflect that.

 

You see how 30k is more "Re-enactment" than it is "Roleplaying", which is how you and I probably consider more "Narrative"?

 

And that's the difference I see even in this thread.  We're all seeped into the same lore, but they're talking more along the lines of "Re-enactment" whereas "Roleplaying" isn't exactly the right term, but you see it's closer to how you and I see "Narrative", Brother Razorblade?

 

The biggest thing about that argument between Timperial Guard and I is what I see here, we don't disagree, we were talking past each other.  Our very definition of "Narrative" was different, and everything built on that fundamental point changed.  It was very interesting then as now to think about.

Edited October 15 by N1SB

[jaxom]

For me, narrative gameplay depends on three things:

1. Well designed missions which can be linked together into a series of events.
2. Options which enable and empower theme-lists, to a specific level of power.
3. Emergent narrative within gameplay because of player buy-in (either because of player culture or because of mechanical rewards, i.e. well designed missions).

The Black Books were good at 1 and 3. 2 depended on faction/subfaction and who you ask 

 

I think 3.0 flattened out the power curve while still enabling 2 (I think I'm in the minority based on previous threads about losing RoW). The core rules did a lot to enable more weapons and unit types being good to take. The detachment system allows a good amount of flexibility to make a themed-list.

 

I haven't really got into the Journals, so I can't say how they do on 1.

[jaxom]

20 hours ago, Brother Ezra said:

Also, I recently came into possession of a Codex from 3rd edition, and there I found that there used to be "Narrative hooks" pages in the Codices! Those outlined some of the reasons why your dudes might be fighting army X or Y, and sometimes added some faction-specific scenario's. That's also a pretty neat way to bring a bit more narrative into a one-off game.

The Daemonhunter codex will always be my gold standard for that.

[Brofist]

On 10/12/2026 at 2:24 PM, ThaneOfTas said:

That looks amazing, and I don't suppose that you'd be willing to share the files for those cards?

 

Of course dude. Just hit me up.

[Griefbringer]

N1SB and jaxom gave some views on looking at what it means to be narrative. I would also like to represent some different levels of viewing narratives in gaming.

 

1.) Army themed around background: essentially, building your army around a "narrative concept" inspired by the background, and units picked to reflect that narrative (rather than for optimal winning-ness). May involve special conversions/kit-bashing, unique paint jobs, thematically decorated bases, names for characters (squads, vehicles), written background on their past etc. or other works which give them personality. Depending on how well a game is balanced, the theme of your force may or may not result in disadvantage on tabletop games against more optimised builds.

 

2.) Group development gaming: this is specific to games where your group (gang, warband, cult etc.) is involved in a continuous series of battles against their rivals, without any over-arcing plot (e.g. Necromunda). As the games progress, the group develops (experience, injuries, resources, new members), but the battles have little effect on the larger surroundings (other than some local resources temporarily changing ownership). The continuing series of battles also results in the group gaining a history.

 

3.) Narrative missions ("re-enactment"): rather than fighting over some abstract victory conditions in some abstract location, the battle takes place in a specific locale during a specific time period, with a meaningful objective. Special rules may apply to represent various conditions. For example, force A is guarding a strategic industrial city, that side B needs to invade. An advance party of the invading force makes a drop pod landing on a lightly defended area that houses power generator systems for a battery of orbital defence lasers - they need to do destroy the generators quickly before the defending side can rush in reinforcements.

 

4.) Grand narrative campaigns: a series of related games (involving two or more players), where the sides involved are fighting for control of some vital, strategic assets. For example, the drop pod assault described above could form the first one in a series of battles over the control of said industrial city, with the outcomes of the individual battles affecting following ones (and eventually the final outcome of the campaign).

[Xenith]

Narrative is entirely in the gamers hands. I ran a demo game of HH a couple of weeks ago, just made up a scenario, alpha legion being ambushed this time. New players had to kill my praetor, alphas had to get off the board. 

 

If you struggle with coming up with a reason for fighting, this isn't the games fault.

 

I just got back from Malevolence run by Serpents Lodge in York. We fought to open/close a warp portal that was zapping our troops and we're given (un)holy relics each game.

[Brother Ezra]

17 hours ago, Xenith said:

Narrative is entirely in the gamers hands. [snip]

 

 

I agree with this for the most part, though I do think that good games also incentivize you to think about narrative - either by providing narrative hooks (like the Daemonhunters/Witch Hunters codices) or through additional rules or limitations for you to work with.

 

I wonder if that last part might be part of the issue - limitations can be fun, but they do take something away, which not everyone might be cool with. In a campaign or an event, one game being less balanced or imposing more limitations isn't as much of an issue, as there's always another game to play further on - but for a pick-up game, maybe the only one you'll play in an evening? I can imagine that adding these narrative rules becomes more of a tough sell.

[Gorgoff]

6 hours ago, Brother Ezra said:

 

I agree with this for the most part, though I do think that good games also incentivize you to think about narrative - either by providing narrative hooks (like the Daemonhunters/Witch Hunters codices) or through additional rules or limitations for you to work with.

 

I wonder if that last part might be part of the issue - limitations can be fun, but they do take something away, which not everyone might be cool with. In a campaign or an event, one game being less balanced or imposing more limitations isn't as much of an issue, as there's always another game to play further on - but for a pick-up game, maybe the only one you'll play in an evening? I can imagine that adding these narrative rules becomes more of a tough sell.

Limitations also make armies more thematic and focus on a certain vibe.

Or can do that. 

The more "do whatevery" approach of 3ed list building is two edged sword really.

On one hand it allows a lot of different themes and approaches to an army but in the other hand it waters down the style and feel of a faction. 

 

I think the 3ed as a whole is less aimed at narrative play, have less style and less fluff absolutely. It's more streamlined and aimed at competitive play and feel bland in general. As sad as that is it shouldn’t stop people from playing narratively but since that attacks a certain different player base it makes playing narratively more difficult of course. 

[TheTrans]

I think limitations are honestly what makes anything ,whether that be hobby, lore or rules. 

Without working within certain limitations, why even bother with anything?
Hobby has limitations. You can just go and use say green army men, as that'd be taking the piss. But you want a lot of cheap human mooks, so you need to work within the confines of the hobby and lore. You need 28mm infantry, and start working form there, they need to be sci-fi, but can have some wiggle room on how they look.A

Lore has limitations. Ok so you want these mooks running around fighting space marines, no worries, and here is a list of the 'canon' conflicts and regiments used in the heresy. You find a gap to make your guys work, while also making sure you don't start mary-suing a human field commander as within the Heresy, they generally didn't get listened too by marines and where nominally expendable.

Gaming limitations. Ok, so you've picked what models and the lore you want for your army, now you need to work within the limitations of rules, to make your army look and feel like it should from your hobby and fluff. Depending on say the provenances you've selected you'll be limited in what units you can take and make use of.

Now without those limitations in place, you just run little green plastic men, that are all the emperor's son or its an army of perpetuals and now you're just saying they are a bunch of **insert whatever the 'best' unit is available** and you spam them to win.

Limitations, to me at least, are the best bit of the hobby/systems as it creates a challenge to work within. Having no limitations, well just go play OPR or something I suppose (not knocking OPR, but if you want a system that isn't tied to any real fluff that works to push models around, go do that). 
 

[Griefbringer]

On 10/25/2026 at 10:57 AM, Brother Ezra said:

In a campaign or an event, one game being less balanced or imposing more limitations isn't as much of an issue, as there's always another game to play further on - but for a pick-up game, maybe the only one you'll play in an evening? I can imagine that adding these narrative rules becomes more of a tough sell.

 

Pick-up games, especially with people you are not previously familiar with, may not be the ideal environment for highly narrative gaming. Especially if time is in limited supply, and you are playing on tables with readily set-up terrain.

 

Naturally, you can engage in some basic level of discussion as to why demi-companies from legions ZZ and YY would engage under such conditions, but coming up with a new themed scenario on the fly is not very practical if you are not previously familiar with your opponent.

[Gorgoff]

21 hours ago, Griefbringer said:

.

 

Naturally, you can engage in some basic level of discussion as to why demi-companies from legions 

Speaking off demi-companies...

In 40k that's 50 men but what about HH?

Would y'all consider 100 marines a demi-company?

It's more 500 innit?

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

Speaking off demi-companies...

In 40k that's 50 men but what about HH?

Would y'all consider 100 marines a demi-company?

It's more 500 innit?

 

The Ultramarines provide information about what may have been the post-Solar Wars standard size for a chapter, assuming it was one of the areas of organization which Guilliman did not expand. Each chapter master had approximately 10,000 Astartes under his command; “approximately” presumably to account for officers, casualties, and temporary additions of Legion specialised assets. The chapter consisted of 10 companies comprising 1,000 Astartes. The numbering of standard companies appears to have been based on a chapter-company model. The number starts with the chapter and then the last digit is the company. For example Legionary Naevius was of the 112th Company, 11th Chapter; and Ancient Marcellus was of the 117th Company - 11th Chapter, 7th Company; while Legionary Varinius was of the 97th Company, 9th Chapter.

 

Chapters consisted of two battalions, thus each battalion was 500 Astartes, and the unit sizes recorded varied between 10 to 20 for Tactical Squads and five to ten for Support Squads; as stated earlier, two Tactical Squads and one Support Squad were the smallest strategic unit. Intuitive supposition must be applied to determine the table of organisation squad sizes. The Ist Legion’s infantry set piece strategic doctrines called for 20 Astartes-strong Tactical Squads and that seems to have set the nominal Tactical Squad size, and presumably Support Squads were meant to be at their maximum observed size as well. Two squads of 20 and a squad of 10 being 50 Astartes would yield 50 Marines. Thus a battalion would be made of 20 Tactical Squads (400 Astartes) and 10 Support Squads (100 Astartes) organized into 10 such strategic units. A chapter being 10 companies and a company probably being 10 such strategic units is unlikely a coincidence. Extant historical records support the notion that Support Squads referred to both units bearing specialized small arms, and Assault Squads, Breacher Squads, Recon Squads, etc. in the Ultramarines’ companies. Deploying these more specialized units alongside Tactical Squads, instead of as part of larger strategic organisations - as in other legions like the Blood Angels or Imperial Fists - illustrates the Ultramarine preferred combined arms strategic doctrine.

Edited October 27 by jaxom

[Griefbringer]

Astartes organisations at the beginning of the Horus Heresy would vary by Legion, as their organisations had deviated during the Great Crusade. Plus temporary adjustments to the organisation could be done when units were over- or understrength, and during the Heresy the available manpower fluctuated a fair bit. Plus in case of some of the traitor legions, the influence of the Chaos worship might also affect how they saw organisational issues.

 

As for what jaxom said in his first paragraph, it is known that Ultramarines had 10,000 man chapters organised into 10 companies, but this is not the default organisation for the other legions. His second paragraph unfortunately does not really make sense to me, and seems like an odd mash-up of material - what is the source for that?

 

There is a supposed generic astartes organisation table ("Notional Organisation Late Great Crusade Era") which presumably first appeared in the original Forge World books and got reprinted in Legion Imperialist rulebook (pages 132-133). That gives a (nominal) company strength of ca. 100 legionaries, with (nominally) 5 companies to battalion and 2 battalions to a chapter. Plus with various support assets available at company, battalion and chapter level.

 

Assuming company dividing into two demi-companies would give each a nominal strength of 50 legionaries, plus a junior officer in charge. Actual campaign strength might vary depending on losses, reinforcements, reorganisation - maybe somewhere between 25-75 legionaries (plus a junior officer). Before going into action on battlefield, this could be temporarily reinforced with support assets from the company/battalion/chapter level, or maybe with a specialist squad temporarily attached from another company for a specific mission.

Edited October 27 by Griefbringer

[jaxom]

@Griefbringer, it’s part of a larger thing I was working on, an in-universe meta-analysis of the Codex Astartes. I used in-universe lore books for reference: the HH Black Books, Insignium Astartes, and Index Astartes. I followed the BL caveat “everything is canon, not everything is true,” and treated them like historical resources. The full section dealing with legion organization covers many of your critiques:

 

Principia Belicosa

 

The original organization of Astartes was described in the Principia Belicosa; a comprehensive text based upon scraps of surviving military manuscripts and the experiences of the Emperor’s war cadre during the first stages of the Unification. The goal of the legion was to create a simple, adaptable framework for a force led by front-line officers. A legion was organized by chapters of 1000 astartes led by a Chapter Master; the legion itself led by its Legion Master. Each of the 20 Legiones Astartes started as a single alpha chapter, and upon proving their mettle were expanded by adding more chapters as recruitment was put into full effect. 

 

A chapter was made of two battalions each led by a Commander. A battalion was made of companies. The number of companies in a battalion was flexible. This seems to indicate the basic strategic unit was meant to be the battalion; adding companies as the nascent Legions identified their need. The smallest strategic unit was unnamed in the Principia: two Tactical Squads and a Support Squad, led by a Lieutenant. This unnamed unit ranged from 25 astartes to 50 astartes depending on the sizes of each squad; The minimum being 10 and 5, respectively, to maximums of 20 and 10.

 

Specialized units and formations existed within the legion. Legion armoured divisions and gunships were not part of the infantry-based organizational units. The Apothecarion, Librarius, Armourium, Fleet assets, and Ordinance assets were also organized separately. Within the chapters, counselor positions, standard bearers, and bodyguard units existed for the chapter as a whole and for each company and battalion. Other assets - heavy support squads, specialist squads, Rhinos, support weapons, and Dreadnoughts - were company assets. Tanks, ordinance, and other assets “on loan” from elsewhere in the legion were assigned at the company level.

 

The first legion acted as an experimental platform for various methods of warfare. Its warrior-philosophers argued over tactics, strategy, and logistics. It is unclear how much of an effect they had on the organizational structures of the other legions; though it is known some legions did have specific strategic tendencies. It is clear, though, that legion organization began to change as the legions were equipped with additional technologies as Unification progressed. The clearest example of this is the eventual deployment of assault squads, breacher squads, biker and jetbike squads, and destroyer squads as whole companies.

 

XIIIth Legion “Ultramarines” Strategic Doctrine and Organization

 

Most of the Primarchs put their own mark on their Legion’s organization. Roboute Guilliman, Primarch of the XIIIth Legiones Astartes, made an intense study of the XIIIth’s history and that of each other legion - along with every other arm of the Crusade’s war machine - once he was recovered by the Emperor. Guilliman combined his conclusions with the military doctrines of Macragge to remake the organisation of the XIIIth. The Principia Belicosa was kept as the bones of the Legion’s organization; to be expanded and elaborated rather than altered. It speaks volumes of the ability and foresight of the Emperor’s original, mortal warlords (for example, Harpocratica Morn) that Guilliman made such a decision given his known predilection for efficiency. 

 

The Ultramarines provide information about what may have been the post-Solar Wars standard size for a chapter, assuming it was one of the areas of organization which Guilliman did not expand. Each chapter master had approximately 10,000 Astartes under his command; “approximately” presumably to account for officers, casualties, and temporary additions of Legion specialised assets. The chapter consisted of 10 companies comprising 1,000 Astartes. The numbering of standard companies appears to have been based on a chapter-company model. The number starts with the chapter and then the last digit is the company. For example Legionary Naevius was of the 112th Company, 11th Chapter; and Ancient Marcellus was of the 117th Company - 11th Chapter, 7th Company; while Legionary Varinius was of the 97th Company, 9th Chapter.

 

Chapters consisted of two battalions, thus each battalion was 500 Astartes, and the unit sizes recorded varied between 10 to 20 for Tactical Squads and five to ten for Support Squads; as stated earlier, two Tactical Squads and one Support Squad were the smallest strategic unit. Intuitive supposition must be applied to determine the table of organisation squad sizes. The Ist Legion’s infantry set piece strategic doctrines called for 20 Astartes-strong Tactical Squads and that seems to have set the nominal Tactical Squad size, and presumably Support Squads were meant to be at their maximum observed size as well. Two squads of 20 and a squad of 10 being 50 Astartes would yield 50 Marines. Thus a battalion would be made of 20 Tactical Squads (400 Astartes) and 10 Support Squads (100 Astartes) organized into 10 such strategic units. A chapter being 10 companies and a company probably being 10 such strategic units is unlikely a coincidence. Extant historical records support the notion that Support Squads referred to both units bearing specialized small arms, and Assault Squads, Breacher Squads, Recon Squads, etc. in the Ultramarines’ companies. Deploying these more specialized units alongside Tactical Squads, instead of as part of larger strategic organisations - as in other legions like the Blood Angels or Imperial Fists - illustrates the Ultramarine preferred combined arms strategic doctrine.

 

The Evocatii chapters were an exception to the XIII’s organizational orthodoxy and a clear break from the Principia Belicosa. These chapters were instituted by Lord Commander Vosotho prior to the Legion’s reunion with their Primarch. Raw recruits were blooded alongside veterans as part of their training in addition to the normal physical and psychological conditioning other legions used to ready neophytes for deployment. Guilliman kept the Evocatii, but relegated them to defensive operations; perhaps as a way to keep the future of the Legion from being destroyed by shattering it rather than tempering it.

 

The Ultramarines ended up as one of - if not the - largest legions in the later years of the Great Crusade. They eventually divided into numerous Crusade fleets and most ended up far from Ultramar. Standardized equipment, supplemented as needed with local patterns, was vital for meeting the logistical demands of the Legion. While equipment was standardized, the XIIIth Legion’s operational doctrine stressed tactical diversity, and squad loadouts were not set. The Ultramarines used the appropriate weapon as needed unlike, for example, the Death Guard who favored rugged weapons or the Night Lords penchant for chain-weapons.

[Griefbringer]

jaxom, thanks for the longer version, that is actually quite nice material overall. (While personally I find the word "strategic" way over-used, though that is probably an issue with the original source material; various GW publications have misused the term at least since "Strategy cards" were introduced for WH40K second edition.)

 

However, I do still have some issues with the same paragraph (now the 3rd of the Ultramarine section), namely the following issues:

 

1.) "Chapters consisted of two battalions"

 

Is the mention of chapter here possibly a typo, and should it rather read "(Ultramarine) companies consisted of two battalions"?

 

2.) "A chapter being 10 companies and a company probably being 10 such strategic units is unlikely a coincidence." 

 

The numbers here do not match, so I am wondering if the second reference to a company is also a typo, and the sentence should read "A chapter being 10 companies and a battalion probably being 10 such strategic units is unlikely a coincidence."

Edited October 27 by Griefbringer

[jaxom]

I’ll check the source material when I get home. I think it’s my syntax which is the problem. I’m 90% sure off the top of me head that a battalion is 500 marines.

[Marshal Rohr]

The new libers have information that smooths over the older organizational information. It’s at the front, it’s the part about “strike forces”. It’s a lot of hand waving to justify the end of rites of war. 

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Marshal Rohr said:

The new libers have information that smooths over the older organizational information. It’s at the front, it’s the part about “strike forces”. It’s a lot of hand waving to justify the end of rites of war. 

 

The journals or the libers? I'd love to see what they have.

 

4 hours ago, Griefbringer said:

jaxom, thanks for the longer version, that is actually quite nice material overall. (While personally I find the word "strategic" way over-used, though that is probably an issue with the original source material; various GW publications have misused the term at least since "Strategy cards" were introduced for WH40K second edition.)

 

I probably could have gotten away with calling the 2 Tac Squads+Support Squad a platoon instead of a strategic unit.

 

4 hours ago, Griefbringer said:

However, I do still have some issues with the same paragraph (now the 3rd of the Ultramarine section), namely the following issues:

 

1.) "Chapters consisted of two battalions"

 

Is the mention of chapter here possibly a typo, and should it rather read "(Ultramarine) companies consisted of two battalions"?

Okay, checked BB1: Betrayal and it is 2 battalions per chapter, 5 companies per battalion, and 100 marines per company. I did miss a detail in he Principia Bellicosa image specifying company 1 was veterans, 2-4 were line companies, and 5 was composed of specialist troops; which is weird because it was next to thing I remembered previously reading.

 

4 hours ago, Griefbringer said:

2.) "A chapter being 10 companies and a company probably being 10 such strategic units is unlikely a coincidence." 

 

The numbers here do not match, so I am wondering if the second reference to a company is also a typo, and the sentence should read "A chapter being 10 companies and a battalion probably being 10 such strategic units is unlikely a coincidence."

Per HH5: Tempest, it's specifically the War-born who operated companies of 1000 Marines, with 10 companies per chapter, while "the XIIIth Legion had remained true to the strictures of the Principia Bellicosa, as laid down by the Emperor and his advisors at the beginning of the Great Crusade" and "they made little attempt to re-codify the structure or vary the size of individual units," compared to other Legions who strayed from the Principia Bellicosa. As a pseudo-historian of a fictional setting, my supposition was the War-born represented a post-Solar Wars Principia Bellicosa legion compared to the original post-Unification War/beginning of the Great Crusade Principia Bellicosa legion. I.e. same structure, just more companies per chapter to account for larger legions.