Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

For fear of this discussion becoming convoluted I will try my best to outline what I am getting at.

I am wondering what experienced Space Marines (all Codex's welcome, though I am focusing on standard Codex Space Marines) think about building lists and using armies that have different proportions of certain types of units.

***The Following Sentences are Very Important***
The "types" I am referring to will for the purposes of this discussion be defined as follows:

Rank and File Units - these are more basic and generalist types of units. Basic troops choices are THE Infantry example, because, no matter how much wargear you give a Tactical squad, it is still a basic troop; especially when compared to something that fills a similar role to it, such as Tac Terminators, or Sternguard, or maybe a vehicle. Vehicles are harder to define here and for the most part count as elite units A good example of a rank and file vehicle would be a basic melta/DCCW dreadnaught or a naked or maybe dakka predator. Basically the vehicle would have to be close to dead stock, nothing that wasn't a free weapon or minor upgrade (less than 10-15% additional points cost), and only the most basic available version (Normal Dread vs Ironclad vs Venerable, for example). For rank and file just think about normal gear that a normal detachment of Space Marines would be rolling with. Not every force that gets deployed is going to be rolling a legendary chapter master with a plethora of tanks and walkers and its own 1st company Terminator veterans. It would be a few squads of infantry Marines with a few transports and maybe a dread/pred/vindi here or there.

Elite Units - these would be units with more bells and whistles as well as more specialization. Terminators, Sternguard, vehicles with different upgrades, command squads/honor guards, special characters, Ironclad dreads, venerable dreads, any landraider.

---I am very hesitant to even include vehicles in this discussion so unless you have something exceptionally relevant and insightful to add regarding vehicles; just keep it to yourself, for the sake of the discussion. ----

Please base the discussion around whether a SM player can field a proper army based mainly on taking rank and file types of troops and make a run at winning a few games.

For example, some people I have heard of use only the smallest number of rank and file troops required in the force chart and then spend all of their points on the more elite units. I have seen other lists where people seemed to take rank and file troops upgraded to the max with very few if any fast attack/heavy support/elite units.

What are the significant advantages and disadvantages to taking mostly rank and file units?

Also, I realize that 90% of SM armies are balanced in their composition; but well balanced armies will obviously not be relevant to this discussion because they are balanced. I am wondering about armies that obviously lean towards having more Rank and File types of units versus having more Elite types of units.

I ask that you do not get anal retentive and start trying to pick apart this original post. That is what a turd sandwich would do.

If you disagree with something or are confused by what I mean just answer to the spirit of what I am asking: Can an army based heavily on Rank and File units with the minimum of more Elite units play and win games.

EDIT: After letting this question simmer for a while it is clear that it is an unusual way to break things down and define them. It also seems as though most people are surprisingly inhospitable to the idea of a randomly unorthodox way of list building. If it seems overly restrictive or narrow in its thinking and scope then let me attempt to simplify it here in this edit. By attempting to define units into groups, being either very basic units (Rank and File) and more specialized and elite units (Elite), I was hoping to hear if there was any precedence or viability in running a list that was built mainly of cheaper and more basic units. Assuming, of course, that you balance out any glaring deficiencies, and that you aren't trying to compete in serious tournaments, can you successfully run an army that is comprised of predominately basic units.
I realize fully that this is focusing on just one way to build an army out of hundreds, but it is just a pondering question. I don't intend on changing anyone's views of list building or coming up with something revolutionary here. I just am curious as to whether a guy could run mostly Tac squads with transports and an array of heavy/special weapons to address any threat, then maybe add in a small number of more basic elite type units and make a run of things. I don't really care about accepted list building rules or anything. It just seems like it would be fun to have to take an admittedly suboptimal force and make it work. It would also be funny to see someone's face when you lay out a list that they have never seen.
Hopefully my edits of this post have made it more understandable and acceptable.

Hello. I'm slightly confused about this discussion because of the last question. My clarifying question to you is:
Are the two options you presented the only thing you would like to be discussed here?
Would you want me to contribute to the thread about only those, or am I free to say that not all armies are how you described. I, and many others that I know, build their lists with an equal number of "rank and file" units as they do "elite" units

Its not all about proportion. There are way too many factors to consider but a very good rank and file unit must have:

-Mobility (Biker troops? or standard rhino? Or Drop pod 1 off?)
-Resilience (10 man? 20 man? 3+ save? 5+ save?)
-Remote offense capability (Haywire grenades on wyches, rapidfire guns on most SM troops)

The more you lack any of these fields, the more "rank and file" units you will need to fill your army.

The best example of this is green tide: Because orks do not have the resilience nor mobility, the ork player decides to bring 30 boys, and probably takes 3 groups of them.

An SM biker army will probably suffice with only having 2 troops as they all have the mentioned qualities.

A Deathwing army may have scoring terminators, but they do not have the mobility or member count to be persistent on the board, so DA players will most probably bring more than 2 of those troops.

I have a friend who runs Marneus and 6 tacticals in drop pods and Marneus plus some honor guard in a 7th. .

He combat squads everything and uses them as speed bumps. It can effectively win games albiet as his opponent he will always suffer huge casualties in the process.

I think it is an effective way to keep you focused on the objective of the game. Marneus ability means they don't ever have to run or can run at any time.

My normal though is to keep it at 1 troop (rank and file) choice per 500 points. So if you are doing an 1850 FOC I would look at 3 if not 4 troop choices. Now do a Pedro List and emphasize Sternguard and of course you could get by with just the minimum of 2 troop choices but you need troops to claim objectives so it is foolish to get caught up in the "bright and shiny" options and then lose because your opponent just focuses on killing your limited troops.

UltraTacSgt wrote:Also, well balanced armies will obviously not be relevant to this discussion because they are balanced in nature. I am wondering about armies that obviously lean towards having more Rank and File types of units versus having more Elite types of units.

I ask that you do not get anal retentive and start trying to pick apart this original post. That is what a turd sandwich would do.

If you disagree with something or are confused by what I mean just answer to the spirit of what I am asking: Mainly Rank and File forces with Few Elite Units supporting---Versus---Mainly Elite forces with Few Rank and File units supporting.

Despite your disclaimer, I think you're asking for trouble making an arbitrary, mostly meaningless distinction between unit types and then expecting people to buy into it. Furthermore, it seems as though by your definition, pretty much anything other than a Tactical Squad has some sort of specialization and is therefore an "elite" unit. As such, this question could be more succinctly and constructively phrased as: "How many Tactical Squads should I take?"

In 6th edition, the answer is more complicated than it was in 5th, because Tactical Marines are pretty darn good now. Rapid Fire out to 24" means they can actually serve an anti-infantry role now, and the removal of 6" regroup restrictions and No Retreat! wounds make Combat Tactics a much more powerful ability. They aren't Grey Hunters, but they're a darn sight better than they used to be.

The reason this rank and file vs. elite distinction bothers me so much is because the proportions of each don't matter as long as the units in your army are built to support each other. An army with more "rank and file" can succeed as long as the right support units are picked to fill the gaps, and an army with more "elite" units can succeed as long as the little guys can stay alive. Generally, you'll find that the more competitive the list, the more "elite" units you'll see, at least as far as C:SM is concerned. In 5th, the generally accepted most "competitive" Marine gunline army consisted of the minimum number of Tac Squads, with Hammernators, Rifleman Dreads, Typhoon Speeders and Autolas Predators. The list I've been running recently is much more fluffy, and runs 3 full Tac Squads and a full Scout squad in 2k. I also run a full Assault Squad and Devastator squad, as well as a Captain, Command Squad, Tactical Termies, a Typhoon and a Dakka Pred. It acquits itself just fine in my beer-and-pretzels meta.

So to answer your questions as best I can:

If I went the Tactical route I would build my army more towards a basic rank and file based army that had a small proportion of more elite units that would be designed to support the rank and file troops. If I went the Sternguard route, I would build my army to be more based on Elite units and armor, with my rank and file units supporting my Elite units. What, if anything, is gained or lost by choosing to run a mainly rank and file Tac Marine type army, versus running a more elite army including Sterguards and more upgrades smattered through my force.

If you choose to run mainly Tac Squads, your army will be playable and fluffy but not terribly competitive. If you choose the "elite" route, there are many types of units in this broad category, and you would benefit from focusing on a particular type of list (mobile long range firepower? Typhoons and Riflemen Dreads. Strong, precise short range firepower? Sternguard with combis in pods).

And when I build this list up to 1000pts and beyond, what is gained and lost by spending most of those points increasing the effectiveness (transports, CC weapons, etc) of my hypothetical rank and file army, versus spending those points on adding Terminators, or heavier armor (Preds/Vindi's), or Bikes/Speeders/Fliers, and making it a more elite based force.

If you take a Tac Squad, you should be taking a transport, period. Even if their job is to sit on a backfield objective. So this shouldn't be a decision, if you're spending the 170-220 points on a Tac Squad, you should be buying them a 35pt Rhino or Drop Pod before you spring for the good stuff. The boost to effectiveness that comes with mobility far outweighs the nominal surcharge. As far as CC weapons, they generally aren't worth the points for Tac Marines, especially with the increased vulnerability of sergeants and the changes to Combat Tactics. If the normal Tac Marines can't take something in a fight, then the solution is to Combat Tactics out and rapid fire them on your turn. So no matter how many Tac Squads you do end up taking, each should be equipped to do its job, which is to take objectives and shoot things.

PotionsN'Balms wrote:Hello. I'm slightly confused about this discussion because of the last question. My clarifying question to you is:
Are the two options you presented the only thing you would like to be discussed here?
Would you want me to contribute to the thread about only those, or am I free to say that not all armies are how you described. I, and many others that I know, build their lists with an equal number of "rank and file" units as they do "elite" units

I was trying to focus on those two options. There are unarguably a great many ways to build and balance an army and I was hoping to just get feedback regarding armies that are mostly one or the other.
I mentioned balanced armies (the equal parts Elite and Rank and File you mentioned) as not really being relevant to the question because of the multitude of ways you can build an army with a balance of different elements, including rank and file and elite.
I definitely realize that most SM armies are going to be balanced when it comes down to it just due to the nature of the codex, as well as because that seems to be the most effective way of doing things. In fact it is sort of the only way to go at higher points because SM can't bring enough troops to fill out its points.

Re-reading the last question I can see how that would be confusing because a player could easily build a balanced army and simply play tactics that favored one type of unit supporting the other, and vice versa. I'll edit the post to be more clear of the acknowledgment that most people are playing more balanced lists.

-Yuber - My thinking for a Rank and File type list would be that you would spend the majority of your points on mitigating the weaknesses of the more basic units. Things like transports, taking full units with maximum wargear, and taking a greater number of fully equipped units, would give you (hopefully) the things you mentioned like mobility, resilience, and offensive abilities.

PS - The first post has been revised to hopefully be more clear to the purpose of my question.

-DAaddict- this list of your friends is exactly what I was hoping to hear about. I had thought maybe rank and file lists could only be done at lower points but that massive number of Tac marines all podding in is an interesting idea.

The OP sounds like the epitome of a theoryhammer player. It sounds like to me the OP has very little games under his belt since he doesn't understand that the Vanilla book is not so cut and dry as to "Elite" units versus "Rank and File" units. Hell, those labels are arbitrary since they don't really reflect X unit's performance on the table, but rather fit nice and easy in a theoretical map of an army.

I have played many "elite-heavy" SM lists, and I would say that while they are a lot of fun to play they usually all have an Achilles' tendon; the basic one being that they're easily countered by killing the troop choices, then other issues come to mind, lack or mobility, lack of coverage etc... It doesn't mean they can't be competitive but a smart player (with a balanced army) will usually find and exploit the weakness.

While I've never tried a rank and file heavy army, I don't imagine it would fare all that well. While tactical squads are fairly adaptable I just can't imagine them being able to handle certain roles (think counter-attack, or pure assault).

Certain codexes might bring an edge to that, I play BT and I could see a initiate-heavy army reasonably successful since their vows and equipment make them fairly good at CC and able to field cheap long range weaponry.

So in short: while either play style could be fun and fluffy and somewhat successful, I don't think it would be very competitive.

Hope this helps!

I run 3 Tactical Squads at 1500 at the moment. They can be up to 6 scoring units.

I have 1 Elite Choice, 2 Fast Attack, and 2 Heavy Support.

Which will put me between 5 - 8 Scoring units on 2/6 of the missions.

1 of those missions is terrible for any mobility based Space Marine (other than bikes) and that's the Kill Point mission. You bleed kill points if you make extensive use of rhinos/drop pods.

A telion led scout squad with cloaks is now a decent option, since they'll have a +2 cover save. So, in ruins, they'll have a 2+ save against most shooting, and will be resilient enough to hold their own unless charged. (In which case, they last almost the same as a tactical squad.)

Tactical Squads are still better, imo, since Marines are a small model count army and need to be mobile on objective games.

Note, any army is susceptible to killing the troop choices. I've focused down entire Boyz squads in a turn before, it's not particularly hard. Especially now that they have to take front to back, if you don't advance, you can stop them from getting close enough to charge you fairly easy.

Librarians are my favorite HQ selection for Vanilla Marines. I'm currently experimenting with what type of powers to use for which opponent you play. A good choice for fighting tank armies might be Telekinesis, for Gateway (for your melta gun(s)), Objuration Mechanicum, Crush and, Vortex of Doom.

Pyromancy for large numbers of models, like Horde Nids/Orks. Biomancy could work too, Enfeebling a nob squad then dropping plasma cannons on it is probably pretty great. Another one to consider against 'Nids (in a carnifex / godzilla list) could be Telepathy for Shriek, but it requires you to be in that scary 12" zone. But hey, a Carnifex is only LD7, and on 3d6 the average you are getting is 10 or 11.

I'm a big proponent of "Boys before toys" where you are almost always better off with more boots on the ground then all the fancy whistles and bells. The last time I took this to the extreme (the all tac squad army) was 3rd edition, and it worked fine then. I'd not try it in 5th, but 6th changes might make it viable. I think you could do a solid gun line army with just basic stuff. You would have some problems and weak points, but everybody does. People who just think of the mandatory troop picks as a tax, and don't fully utilize them, are playing with less points then they could by ignoring them. Just because other picks do things better does not mean that troops aren't worth using.

If you are working with the idea that rank and file includes assault marines and devastator squads, you get a bit more flexibility in your army. An assault squad lead by a chaplain works fine. Upgrading the sarge with a power sword helps immensely. They aren't assault terminators in a land raider, but they work.

Dev squads are overpriced, but they are functional. I'd rather get my heavy weapons elsewhere, but if needed, you can use them.

Having a (non-venerable) dread in your army is fine in the fluff. There are 2-4 in every company. I'm not sure about the ratio of ironclads to regular ones. Has that been addressed anywhere? Same with land speeders and bikes. These are company level assets. Sometimes the assault squads will use them over jump packs.

From a fluff standpoint, it's fine to have a squad or two of veterans in an army. There are 4 battle companies in a chapter (2nd-5th) that do the brunt of the work. 6-9 are reserves, so are unlikely to see the same level of action. If you break the ~100 1st company veterans up over the battle companies, you get 25 each. Most games aren't at the company scale (they run around 3,000 points) but having 5-15 on the battlefield is not unreasonable. Particularly if you consider that the Space Marine commanders, who are supposed to be master strategists, would be able to place their best troops where they are needed.

Tanks are chapter level assets. These are going to be doled out to where they are needed. That being said, the 2-3 you are going to see in an average army is not disproportional to the amount of fighting men on the field. Double FoC games might skew that a bit, but you'd have to work at it.

What does bug me is the named characters showing up everywhere. Marnius Calger is probably not going to be involved in a 500 point skirmish. I liked it when they had rules like "only in 2,000+ point games" tagged onto the big guys.

AresX8 wrote:The OP sounds like the epitome of a theoryhammer player. It sounds like to me the OP has very little games under his belt since he doesn't understand that the Vanilla book is not so cut and dry as to "Elite" units versus "Rank and File" units. Hell, those labels are arbitrary since they don't really reflect X unit's performance on the table, but rather fit nice and easy in a theoretical map of an army.

Your contribution was far from useful, I could point out the numerous ways I acknowledged my focused and relatively arbitrary way of thinking about units in the original post, but you clearly aren't a reader so that would be a waste of time. If it made you feel more intelligent then at least I'm happy I could help you feel better about yourself.

That said, there is a grain of truth in your trite statement, I am a new 40k tabletop player. However, I am a lifelong student of military history and strategy. In all great military's throughout history, it is the rank and file fighting man who wins wars, flashy toys and technology most definitely help, but it is hard men doing difficult things that brings victory. That is why in my 40k experience I am trying to learn about the viability of, and how to use, armies that are based on more simple units. It is regrettable that you failed to see beyond your own experience and comprehension of the game; but many others seemed to understand what I was getting at and gave responses that were actually somehow relevant; even if those responses discouraged rank and file type lists (which is fine).

To give myself a label, I would say that I am far more of a "Fluffhammer" player, I was into the fluff for quite a while before I decided to try the tabletop. So I admit that I view things more from the perspective of the Space Marines being a military force in a somewhat realistic (as realistic as superhuman space knights can be anyway) setting, and much less from a detailed analysis of the stat breakdowns and wargear from the codex. This may be a weakness come competitive play, but so be it, I will enjoy my army more this way.

I thank the rest of you for your relevant input, whether it was for or against rank and file type armies. I am definitely going to consider your input in shaping the development of my army.

Nevelon - you seem to have a similar way of viewing things, though with much more experience to back it up. I definitely agree with the "Boys before Toys" mentality.