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.

Howdy!

So, with the removal of the FOC and the increase in armies that seem to field armies that don't look all that similar to the armies that GW showcase, I've been wondering:
Which armies lend themselves best to "narrative friendly" or "lore accurate" lists, while also being decently competitive?

Obviously, there's a lot of "forge the narrative" and all that nebulousness over what exactly is "lore accurate", but I leave that to y'all to argue. Obviously, something like an all-Terminator or all Crisis-suit army can be fluffy with certain heroes or lore formations, but there's also a bunch of lists that are, for lack of a better term, "gamey".

Are there any lists/armies that cross a nice blend between a "fluffy" army as well as being "crunchy"?

Whenever I field my Salamanders, the list generally follows the Codex:Armageddon example.

Competitive Orks seem to follow Beast snagga/ snakebite themes currently. Everything beast snagga + badrukk with Flash gitz(and seeing these are freebooters I don’t think they break the theme).
Grots are also in every list, but again, that's fluffy for Snakebites.

The new Kroot rules have actually done a really good job of incorporating their style of warfare onto the tabletop. In previous editions, they army was very hordey and you just wanted to throw bodies at objectives, but not anymore.

Kroot units are reasonably weak individually, but can become strong with overlapping buffs. However, because these buffs are given when you are attacking a specific enemy unit, it incentivizes focusing much of your force on taking out a single target at a time.

In addition, they are maneuverable and hard to kill at range, playing up their penchant for stealth and hunting.

This leads to an army well suited to clever positioning and ambush tactics on the table, just like they are in the lore. Get in fast, hit something hard and wipe it out, then scatter before a counter-attack can be arrayed against you.

Eldar. GW allows eldar to build multiple lists, and they make them such a power house rules and point wise, that can usualy carry a lot points. The fact that they don't really have a large number of trap units, helps a lot too. Plus stuff like Inari and Harlequin in the codex let them mix and match units how ever they want AND GW doesn't really legend eldar models.
It is the perfect faction to play in w40k.

Armored companies.

I can't think of a force that can't field what the OP wonders about.

The ones with the most fluff to pull from. Some factions just don't really have much definition.

The change from FoC to battleline/rule of 3 helps and hinders some lists. Without the slot swapping tricks of the past, it can be harder to make themed lists. E.g. going all in on bikes. But it also eliminates the need for tax units. If you want to have a spritiseer as the only breathing soul in an Eldar wraith list, you don’t need to shoehorn in a couple guardian squads.

I don’t follow the competitive circuit much. Are people taking troops? Even if they don’t call them that any more. There were years in the hobby where you would almost never see them. SM and CSM were notorious for using scouts and cultists to fill the slot, so “marine” lists actually had very few basic guys, which should have been the core of the faction.

GW has always struggled with this. Why take the basic guys, when you can take better ones? What incentive do we have to take the rank and file? It looks like in 10th they are better at holding objectives and/or have special rules to reinforce the army ones (fate/miracle dice, etc) Is that enough?

ccs wrote:I can't think of a force that can't field what the OP wonders about.

I think you're missing something - I don't doubt that all factions can make "fluffy" lists, or that all factions can make comp lists, but which ones do it *best*.

For example - sure, it's not hard to take a Space Marine Battle Company, but would it stand a good chance against a "comp" list? What sacrifices, if any, would that list have? Or are there factions that can have their cake and eat it too?

Breton wrote:The ones with the most fluff to pull from. Some factions just don't really have much definition.

That's a very fair point - armies that have more in-lore formations and more varied ways of deploying are at an advantage here!

Nevelon wrote:Are people taking troops? Even if they don’t call them that any more. There were years in the hobby where you would almost never see them. SM and CSM were notorious for using scouts and cultists to fill the slot, so “marine” lists actually had very few basic guys, which should have been the core of the faction.

GW has always struggled with this. Why take the basic guys, when you can take better ones? What incentive do we have to take the rank and file? It looks like in 10th they are better at holding objectives and/or have special rules to reinforce the army ones (fate/miracle dice, etc) Is that enough?

This is kind of what I mean - in *most* Space Marine forces in lore, you'd be looking at Tacticals/Intercessors/Heavy Intercessors/Infiltrators making up the majority of *most* SM taskforces. But is that reflected on tabletop? Do the "comp" lists have forces that actually take what would normally be considered "backbone" or "rank and file" units? Are there ones that can do it without suffering mechanically?

Honestly I've won the majority of my games since 3rd ed using high numbers of Tacticals in my lists, leaning heavily into the Power Armored Horde idea.

My favorite and most successful 4th ed list was
entertainingly is pretty close to representing typical full Chapter ratios in terms of percentage.

25 Tacticals 47%
7 Assault Troopers 13%
10 Devastators 19%
6 Scouts 11%
6 Terminators 11%

Full Chapter org:
440 Tacticals 44%
180 Assaults 18%
180 Devastators 18%
100 Veterans 10%
100(ish) Scouts 10%

 Insectum7 wrote:
Honestly I've won the majority of my games since 3rd ed using high numbers of Tacticals in my lists, leaning heavily into the Power Armored Horde idea.

My favorite and most successful 4th ed list was...

I also had great success in 4th with a similar list...

Chapter Master (for that sweet sweet Ld 10)
Chaplain
Command Squad

10 Veterans
Dreadnought (fist/assault cannon)
6 Terminators (2 assault cannons)

10 Tactical (las/plas)
10 Tactical (las/plas)
10 Tactical (plas/melta)
10 Tactical (plas/melta)

10 Assault
Land Speeder (Assault canon/ H bolter)
Land Speeder (Assault canon/ H bolter)

8 Devastators (4 H bolter)
8 Devastators (4 Missile)
Whirlwind or Vindicator

Uptonius wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Honestly I've won the majority of my games since 3rd ed using high numbers of Tacticals in my lists, leaning heavily into the Power Armored Horde idea.

My favorite and most successful 4th ed list was...

I also had great success in 4th with a similar list...

Chapter Master (for that sweet sweet Ld 10)
Chaplain
Command Squad

10 Veterans
Dreadnought (fist/assault cannon)
6 Terminators (2 assault cannons)

10 Tactical (las/plas)
10 Tactical (las/plas)
10 Tactical (plas/melta)
10 Tactical (plas/melta)

10 Assault
Land Speeder (Assault canon/ H bolter)
Land Speeder (Assault canon/ H bolter)

8 Devastators (4 H bolter)
8 Devastators (4 Missile)
Whirlwind or Vindicator

I've got an "entire company list" I've got going:

Quantity can have a quality all its own, and 100 marines is a quantity.

 Nevelon wrote:

GW has always struggled with this. Why take the basic guys, when you can take better ones? What incentive do we have to take the rank and file? It looks like in 10th they are better at holding objectives and/or have special rules to reinforce the army ones (fate/miracle dice, etc) Is that enough?

10th is actually doing a much better job with this than past editions. While I'm sure there are still some former troops that could use a second pass, generally the units that are just worse versions of elites now have a useful rule that makes you want to take them.

My eldar guardians are a great example of this. They're too expensive as a squad to compete with other options in terms of lethality (a war walker can pack double the heavy weapons for a similar price, and avengers' catapults are way better with the option to take a smaller and cheaper squad). However, their ability to generate extra fate dice while they're on an objective gives them a role in the army despite being less lethal than other units.

Detachments are sometimes helping with this too. Ex: termagaunts aren't necessarily all that lethal or durable for their cost and unless I'm forgetting something, their special rule doesn't necessarily benefit the wider army the way guardians' fate dice generation does. However, they have the appropriate keyword (Endless Swarm?) that lets them respawn lost units using the stratagem from the horde detachment. So in a horde army, they have the keyword to help you lean into that theme, and in a vanilla army, they're giving you cheap bodies that you can throw at objectives while your expensive hive guard and monsters and so forth focus on killing things.

That certain ex-Troop units get different abilities based on their tactical role is one the things I did like about 10th.

I played CSM from 6th to now and despite forcing myself to take the CSM unit, I was always at a disadvantage because other better choices were always available.
Why take CSM when Cultists did the same but cheaper? Or Plague Marines if you just took a Nurgle Lord.
Khorne Daemonkin was actually a good army to take CSM in because they could do well in both shooting and melee thanks to the various army buffs. God, I miss KDK.

 Gert wrote:
That certain ex-Troop units get different abilities based on their tactical role is one the things I did like about 10th.

I played CSM from 6th to now and despite forcing myself to take the CSM unit, I was always at a disadvantage because other better choices were always available.
Why take CSM when Cultists did the same but cheaper? Or Plague Marines if you just took a Nurgle Lord.
Khorne Daemonkin was actually a good army to take CSM in because they could do well in both shooting and melee thanks to the various army buffs. God, I miss KDK.

I think they're (GW that is) STARTING to get it. The "troops" units can't be a tax or otherwise unappealing. HINTS are advantageously priced, and fulfill their role as a line shooting unit, with a complementary Bespoke. The Tacticus Intercessors likewise. Now maybe they fell backwards into it, but I'm hoping it was intentional and they're trying to move in that direction for everything. I think the FOC thing wasn't bad in and of itself, but it was made bad by the unappealing TROOPS units (And the rigidity preventing theme lists).

Nevelon wrote:The change from FoC to battleline/rule of 3 helps and hinders some lists. Without the slot swapping tricks of the past, it can be harder to make themed lists. E.g. going all in on bikes. But it also eliminates the need for tax units. If you want to have a spritiseer as the only breathing soul in an Eldar wraith list, you don’t need to shoehorn in a couple guardian squads.

I don’t follow the competitive circuit much. Are people taking troops? Even if they don’t call them that any more. There were years in the hobby where you would almost never see them. SM and CSM were notorious for using scouts and cultists to fill the slot, so “marine” lists actually had very few basic guys, which should have been the core of the faction.

GW has always struggled with this. Why take the basic guys, when you can take better ones? What incentive do we have to take the rank and file? It looks like in 10th they are better at holding objectives and/or have special rules to reinforce the army ones (fate/miracle dice, etc) Is that enough?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

ccs wrote:I can't think of a force that can't field what the OP wonders about.

I think you're missing something - I don't doubt that all factions can make "fluffy" lists, or that all factions can make comp lists, but which ones do it *best*.

For example - sure, it's not hard to take a Space Marine Battle Company, but would it stand a good chance against a "comp" list? What sacrifices, if any, would that list have? Or are there factions that can have their cake and eat it too?

Breton wrote:The ones with the most fluff to pull from. Some factions just don't really have much definition.

That's a very fair point - armies that have more in-lore formations and more varied ways of deploying are at an advantage here!

Nevelon wrote:Are people taking troops? Even if they don’t call them that any more. There were years in the hobby where you would almost never see them. SM and CSM were notorious for using scouts and cultists to fill the slot, so “marine” lists actually had very few basic guys, which should have been the core of the faction.

GW has always struggled with this. Why take the basic guys, when you can take better ones? What incentive do we have to take the rank and file? It looks like in 10th they are better at holding objectives and/or have special rules to reinforce the army ones (fate/miracle dice, etc) Is that enough?

This is kind of what I mean - in *most* Space Marine forces in lore, you'd be looking at Tacticals/Intercessors/Heavy Intercessors/Infiltrators making up the majority of *most* SM taskforces. But is that reflected on tabletop? Do the "comp" lists have forces that actually take what would normally be considered "backbone" or "rank and file" units? Are there ones that can do it without suffering mechanically?

As far as "Troops" go in the armies I'm familiar with:
Tau are loving running Firewarrior Breacher teams in Devilfish, 4 "Breacherfish" are common in a list and people sometimes go all the way to the Battleline 6 copies cap.

Grey Knights are using Terminators a lot. Basic GK Termies and Paladins are pretty even with each other, but Termies seem to be edging Paladins out. Strike Knights aren't spammed, but "sticky objectives" (objectives they touch stay claimed after they move off of them until the enemy actually puts a guy on it) are much liked in an army that has a limited body count. Probably not what you're looking for on that front though and past two units sticky objectives starts to feel redundant.

I'm less familiar with Votann but I've heard Sagitaur spam is a stable and since it's a Razorback style light tank/dedicated transport you need to take Hearthkyn Warriors for it. Not a lot of the infantry thanks to the Sagitaur's weird combat squads rule and low transport capacity, but 6x5 man squads is still 30 guys.

I get the feeling that Tactical/Intercessors still suffer from small arms shooting being kind of bad. Only good at killing other infantry, often lighter infantry so if you try to make them the backbone of your list you'll just lose too many list building rock paper scissors matches. The only time I'm aware of that Tactical spam was good was the Space Wolves 5e Codex, where they could take a second special weapon instead of the heavy weapon and had actually decent melee prowess. Then you could run double melta for tanks, have plenty of bolters that didn't have any draw back to closing to Rapid Fire range for infantry and were still Space Marine tough for holding objectives.

The unifying factor across these is that they're strong for their cost and good into a variety of targets so they're sensible to spam as we're "supposed" to. They're also not very "Troopy" really, being a squad of all semi-special weapons, literally another army's Elites choice and tanks that are almost heavy support in their own right.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Howdy!

So, with the removal of the FOC and the increase in armies that seem to field armies that don't look all that similar to the armies that GW showcase, I've been wondering:
Which armies lend themselves best to "narrative friendly" or "lore accurate" lists, while also being decently competitive?

Obviously, there's a lot of "forge the narrative" and all that nebulousness over what exactly is "lore accurate", but I leave that to y'all to argue. Obviously, something like an all-Terminator or all Crisis-suit army can be fluffy with certain heroes or lore formations, but there's also a bunch of lists that are, for lack of a better term, "gamey".

Are there any lists/armies that cross a nice blend between a "fluffy" army as well as being "crunchy"?

You clarified your question a little later in the thread and I hope my response above was helpful, but I've had a rant on "fluffy" lists, lore accuracy, narrative and GW's bad game design cooking in the back of my head for a while and this seems on-topic.

"Fluffy" lists and the way people talk about them and hold them up as the "true" way to make armies have been something that's bugged me for a long while (since I started in 4th edition) but I couldn't put it into words. Then someone said "White Dwarf soft-highlander" and it clicked. The pile of Troop choices and mostly singletons in the other slots was what many people saw as the "proper" way to make an army because that's what GW presented to them. When I was first getting into the hobby, it wasn't long before I went through the articles that GW had available online and I turned to forums to satisfy my desire to learn more about 40k. So I don't think I ever had as much exposure to White Dwarf soft-highlander and experience with previous games had already convinced me not to put much stock the dev's recommendations. The list designs I started building towards were what was know to be powerful, which meant spam. (Not that 4th ed Tau had a lot of other options with their slim model range. There was one good option for each playstyle in each slot at best so it was spam or bust). This was mechanics driven for sure, but it also fit my aesthetic preferences more. TO give a more dignified term than "spam" for my preferred army style, I'd call it "Three of a kind". Everything taken in a list should have 2-4 copies. Ideally 3, but 2 is acceptable for high power-high price or niche units and 4+ is good if you're allowed more than 3. Provided that 4+ doesn't go too far into making the list a giant pile of the one thing.

Spamming the same 3-6 units is often derided as "samey", "boring", "power gamey" and "against the lore" but I find it creates a cohesive and organized looking army. To me, White Dwarf soft-highlander armies look messy, disorganized and mishmashy. Like a force that was thrown together out of whatever could be scrounged up. But I know other people feel that that style is much cooler looking, that it has variety, character and a few other complementary terms that my memory is blanking on right now. And this rant is not to knock on other people's preferred army look. I super sympathize with frustration with White Dwarf soft-highlander generally being weaker on the tabletop than Three of a kind. My frustrations with the army I first bought into (Mech Tau) becoming weak and not even really functional to concept in 5th and killed entirely by the 6th ed codex ultmiatly drove me out of the game until pretty recently. So believe me, I know how much it sucks for the army thou think is cool to not be cool in the rules and just get stomped on.

But I really really wish people wouldn't fraudulently use "against the lore" as a cudgel to beat people with to try to shame them out of playing what they like so the "fluffy" players can feel like their army is a s cool on the table as they imagine. It's mostly the shaming aspect that makes me mad, but the lore accuracy point is just wrong. As far as I'm aware, it's space marines that get the hardest with this and I think it's that space marines have the most detailed and proscriptive lore force organization. A chapter is 10 companies, each company is 100 marines and most of those companies are 60 Tactical, 20 Assault and 20 Devastators, with various vehicle support. Give or take some adjustments for the Primaris versions of those units. But a company is both too big and too small a force to be a 40k 2k point list. You can just barely cram 100 marines into 2k to say that you're fielding a whole company, but you won't have room for everything else a company is supposed to have beyond its marines on foot. And if you try to say that your list is just part of a company, which kind of company puts caps on your unit options smaller than what the game allows. There's only one kind of company that can take 30 Assault marines and it's not the one with Terminators. So having both in the same list would have to mean the list is made out of bits of multiple companies put together for the mission. Which is fine, that's something that happens. But then the sub company force isn't just a company but downscaled and carefully keeping all the unit comp ratios the same. Which is generally what I hear is "unfluffy". But "fluffy" White Dwarf soft-highlander space marine lists cross company lines all the time, so strict adherence to the space marine lore company unit ratios can't be what makes White Dwarf soft-highlander "fluffy". Nevermind that that kind of strict adherence to unit ratios isn't how larger units get sub-divided for tasks. It's just as likely that all the Assault marines are grouped up to advance on the objective under cover of the heavy weapon marines while the Tacticals cover the flanks off-board. Probably more really, since it looks like the specialsists being focused on doing their main jobs.

Other armies are less specific about their lore force orgs or explicitly say that what's present is just a common template so I don't think they get called out as specifically or often as marines seem to. Tau hunter cadres are pretty clearly pegged at roughly a 2k list but there's also supposed to be a lot variation in composition. A hunter cadre that's short on Firewarriors and long on Broadsides seems like a plausible anti-armor focused hunter cadre to me. Eldar sub-factions have some pretty broad archetypes and amount to spam certain categories of units so it's pretty easy for them to end up with a "fluffy" three of a kind list. Guard I'm less sure of the details on, but we get told about Regiments as sub-factions in the same manner as whole chapters. 2k lists are about company level and IIRC, Guard doesn't regularly practice combined arms the way most 2k lists are made at the company level.

There's also the narrative front. A lot of the complaints I've seen about three of a kind lists are that lists should be mostly made of the lore-common units and not three of something rare like a Wraith Knight or whatever is powerful and has "is rare" in its lore. But narratives love to talk about and focus on rare stuff! Rare units, rare events, the camera delights in focusing on those and regulating all the "boring normie stuff" to background shots. I don't think I've read a 40k core rule book that didn't have a line calling out many 2k vs 2k games as not being the entire battle that's happening but instead the centerpiece and focus point. There's strong narrative reasons to focus on the spot where Deathwing clash with a bunch of Wraith Knights. And the critical objective at the center of a larger battle is a logical place for larger armies to commit their best and rarest units.

All of this ultimately come back to GW just not being good at game design. They have never been able to keep the lore and the rules in alignment, so following one is simultaneously optimal for the other. Which I think everyone in this thread already knows. This is the company that made a "boring normie stuff' unit category and was surprised that people mostly skipped them and resented what of them they had to take most of the time after all. Rant over.

I think there's lots of armies that like their "troops" just fine, its just that Space Marines isn't one of them and they're so overrepresented that it feels like troops aren't supported very well.

Even then, the main issue with Space Marine "troops" is just that Infiltrators and Scouts fill the role troops provide for other armies better than other options, so its not like Space Marines don't have infantry on the table completing their objectives; its just not battleline stuff generally.

Sam cw wrote:

You clarified your question a little later in the thread and I hope my response above was helpful, but I've had a rant on "fluffy" lists, lore accuracy, narrative and GW's bad game design cooking in the back of my head for a while and this seems on-topic.

"Fluffy" lists and the way people talk about them and hold them up as the "true" way to make armies have been something that's bugged me for a long while (since I started in 4th edition) but I couldn't put it into words. Then someone said "White Dwarf soft-highlander" and it clicked. The pile of Troop choices and mostly singletons in the other slots was what many people saw as the "proper" way to make an army because that's what GW presented to them.

I've never encountered this attitude. I thought everyone knew that the armies shown in WD were not really representative of how an army should look. They're glorified sales pitches that magically include all the new releases because they want to show them all off. I've never heard anyone say that we should be playing armies like they do in WD.

Sam cw wrote:
Spamming the same 3-6 units is often derided as "samey", "boring", "power gamey" and "against the lore" but I find it creates a cohesive and organized looking army. To me, White Dwarf soft-highlander armies look messy, disorganized and mishmashy. Like a force that was thrown together out of whatever could be scrounged up. But I know other people feel that that style is much cooler looking, that it has variety, character and a few other complementary terms that my memory is blanking on right now. And this rant is not to knock on other people's preferred army look. I super sympathize with frustration with White Dwarf soft-highlander generally being weaker on the tabletop than Three of a kind. My frustrations with the army I first bought into (Mech Tau) becoming weak and not even really functional to concept in 5th and killed entirely by the 6th ed codex ultmiatly drove me out of the game until pretty recently. So believe me, I know how much it sucks for the army thou think is cool to not be cool in the rules and just get stomped on.

I think White Dwarf Soft-Highlander was my phrase.

I think in terms of "aesthetics" you are right. A "three of a kind" list can look perfectly like the sort of formation that would exist in the fluff. Arguably more-so than a grab-bag of units with few duplicates.
There have I think tended to be issues of balance - in that people tend to take "three of the best" rather than "three of worst", whereas Highlander tends to lead you to taking both. I have very fond memories of 3rd Ed precisely possibly because our collections largely mirrored what we saw in White Dwarf. I.E. you wanted to have a broad collection, not "this is the best heavy support choice, so I got 3". This meant the game was balanced more than it ever should have been. People who rushed to abuse some of the excesses of 3.5 were condemned rather than cheered.

By 5th though, it seemed everyone was doing this, and the rest is history.

Really for me the issue is "natural armies". What I didn't like about 10th (I think some tweaks have made it better) was how unnatural the armies appear to be. I don't mind people having a focus on the "rare" power units. Its perfectly reasonable to like elites/tanks/monsters etc rather than the rank and file. What bothers me though is when its only the rare power units, which I don't feel could exist without having sufficient supporting elements. Its one of the bugbears I have about common AoS armies.

So for example if an Eldar List was an Avatar (or two), a bunch of Fire Prisms/Night Spinners, and say a brick of 10 Wraithguard, plus some characters and hawks for scoring - it doesn't feel like a natural army. No one would describing a typical Eldar formation in the fluff would reach this position. You've just grabbed the best units in the book and put them down. I feel the same with say Belakor and a bunch of Greater Daemons. Or 5 C'Tan.

This is a weird analogy - but its like in Total War going "here's my army, its 20 Stegadons". To my mind there's no way Stegadons can wander around without a load of skink handlers. Where are they? Conveniently not on the battlefield? Its not a "natural" army.

Whereas say 4-6 squads of Guardsmen, some Kasrkin maybe with transports, 3 Leman Russ and 3 Basilisks would be relatively samey. But it feels like a natural formation. Its what a guard army could easily have on a certain section of the front. It could be replicated all over the planet.

Tyel wrote:


So for example if an Eldar List was an Avatar (or two), a bunch of Fire Prisms/Night Spinners, and say a brick of 10 Wraithguard, plus some characters and hawks for scoring - it doesn't feel like a natural army. No one would describing a typical Eldar formation in the fluff would reach this position.

Isn't that just a Iyanden army?

I think there is the issue of what is typical and what is possible.

e.g. we know that the typical tyranid army is a swarm of gaunts led by warriors+HT and a few monsters for support, but we also known from the lore that "Nidzylla" monster spam aka Crusher Stampede is also a thing and a valid Tyranid army in the lore even if it isn't your typical Tyranid swarm.

I think in terms of "aesthetics" you are right. A "three of a kind" list can look perfectly like the sort of formation that would exist in the fluff. Arguably more-so than a grab-bag of units with few duplicates.

I think I raised this point in the thread about 10th edition lacking "soul." To me, an army feels more "like an army" when you can describe it as, "An army of X supported by Y."

So like, iyanden is an army of wraith constructs supported by the few remaining aspect warriors and guardians. You've got the most prevalent units that give the army most of its identity, and then some supporting elements that round it out and give it nuance.

In recent editions, I've seen a lot more armies where you'll have 1 or 2 of a lot of different units but not necessarily a clear central theme. This is due largely to strats and psychic powers that were only usable once per turn, I think. You were incentivized to use the wombo-combo on one unit each turn and maybe to have a second of that unit for when the first one dies, but having more than that would be inefficient because you'd never use the combo on the third.

So like, crusher stampede with lots of carnifex at its heart and various other big (or even a few little) bugs mixed in "feels like an army." But a hodgepodge of one of every big bug, while still inkeeping with the general theme of nidzilla, doesn't "feel like an army" because the central theme is harder for my brain to latch onto. It's harder for my brain to figure out what the story is there.

Or like, using the eldar example, a single squad of wraiths plus the other stuff listed doesn't feel *especially* Iyanden-esque to me. Like if you paint it yellow, I'll get the idea, but I wouldn't necessarily guess this was an Iyanden list going off the unit roster. But if you break those wraiths up into multiple units and maybe add a wraith lord or a wraith blade unit, suddenly it feels like Iyanden.

tldr; it's easier for an army to "tell a story" when you have redundant (or at least similar) units making up its core.

Analogy: It's like if a character in a movie is wearing, let's say, a pirate costume. He's pirate-y from head-to-toe. Maybe he has a katana at his hip. You know that this guy is a pirate, and at some point his travels put him in a position to acquire a katana.

Now picture a character with a pirate hat and a katana, but also he's wearing a bomber jacket, ice skates, and is holding a skateboard. It's a lot harder to figure out what his story is supposed to be.

The models that I bring to a battle are only ever part of the army. I'm the type that likes to have a large order of battle- often big enough that I couldn't field it all at once even if I wanted to- which of course, I wouldn't, because for me, the units that are chosen for an engagement is part of the story. This is particularly well facilitated via map-based campaigning where you need forces in a territory to maintain control of it, and reinforcements can be activated by additional story events.

And it works for every army, with the possible exception of Nids, who don't control territory- they just strip it of biomass and move on.

I haven't seen any 10th ed dexes yet- my first arrives with my Kroot next weekend. But dexes of the past have indicated organizational structures for the armies they describe. Some are more detailed than others- marines are rather famously proscribed and rigid- the chapter is broken into companies, and each company has a specified composition based on its role.

Using that example, when marines deploy a company, they are in-theatre as problem solvers; they've brought their infrastructure with them to be able to wage a successful campaign regardless of what challenges they might face. A demi company can be a little different, because it might swap out some of its troops for some of the other specialist units from the other half of the company if that seems necessary for the task at hand.

In my experience, few dexes have ever provided as much insight into organizational structure as marines. Sure, Sisters talk about Missions, commanderies, preceptories and Orders... But they don't prescribe the units that make up these structures the way marines do. And that might be a good thing... Because every engagement is different. What is a fluffy army for a lightning raid scenario won't be a fluffy army for bunker defense engagement, and neither are particularly fluffy for the prolonged engagement.

Mentally I like the vibe of a theme army that runs multiples of things. Practically needing to buy and paint the same kit 3 times for an army and needing to fully replace all my models to play a different style of army has me less enthusiastic about the idea. I'd MUCH rather play rule of 2 and have a variety of units in my army than have to buy 3 of a cool new release to use it correctly.

 LunarSol wrote:
Mentally I like the vibe of a theme army that runs multiples of things. Practically needing to buy and paint the same kit 3 times for an army and needing to fully replace all my models to play a different style of army has me less enthusiastic about the idea. I'd MUCH rather play rule of 2 and have a variety of units in my army than have to buy 3 of a cool new release to use it correctly.

Oh sure. I'm not advocating for mandatory triplicates of units or anything like that. And has been pointed out, running three of something has historically been a sign that that thing might be getting spammed due to being OP, so while running lots of copies of a unit is good (imho) for army theming, it's potentially a red flag for gameplay.

Ideally, it's nice when you have a few different units that all lean into your theme. For instance, Iyanden has wraith guard/blades/lords and spirit seers. 'Crons have all their canoptek units for a canoptek court. Tyranids can run a variety of carnifex types for their nidzilla lists. Etc. That way, you can look at the opponent's army and see the common theme, but they didn't necessarily have to spam 3 identical units to convey that theme.

Running a highlander style list is nice for the variety, but it just struggles to convey a theme beyond, "Vanilla grabbag of this faction's units."

I have no idea why, and this is not at all limited to 40k, but if I like something I want to be able to run a pair of them but if I add a third it feels like spam.

 LunarSol wrote:
I have no idea why, and this is not at all limited to 40k, but if I like something I want to be able to run a pair of them but if I add a third it feels like spam.

^That's funny. I similarly try to collect in even numbers. The fact that I have three Devastator Squads is purely game related.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Analogy: It's like if a character in a movie is wearing, let's say, a pirate costume. He's pirate-y from head-to-toe. Maybe he has a katana at his hip. You know that this guy is a pirate, and at some point his travels put him in a position to acquire a katana.

Now picture a character with a pirate hat and a katana, but also he's wearing a bomber jacket, ice skates, and is holding a skateboard. It's a lot harder to figure out what his story is supposed to be.

I think the issue is that - by degree, and with a lot of forging the narrative - there used to be this idea of forces representing characters building armies in almost an escalation league sort of way.
(Maybe this is a particularly DE way of looking at it - but I think it applies to most forces.)
Which is sort of what PenitentJake was talking about I think.

So for example, you pick an HQ. That's you on the battlefield. Your army is their army.
Then you should pick some troops, who are the initial sort of... things you'd see around that HQ. An Archon kind of has to have some Kabalites. A Space Marine captain has Tactical Marines. A Warboss has Boyz etc. You can argue this is a bit hard and fast, and in the fluff there must be various exceptions. But it feels reasonable.
Then you might add some more exotic things. Your HQ might want a more specialised bodyguard unit rather than hanging out with the basic rank and file. You might want a tank - or monster. If you are playing some specific subfaction there may be some unit types that are more common/traditional so you bring them along etc. You might get a lieutenant who should have their own group of associates. Like a Succubus with some Wyches/Reavers, a Tank Commander and a couple of additional tanks etc.

Basically you end up with an army that, even if appearing a hodgepodge of units, has some sort of narrative links/fibers.

Whereas say an Avatar (or two), a bunch of Eldar grav-tanks, and a brick of Wraithguard doesn't really. Sure you can paint them yellow, squint, and say "its an Iyanden army". But if you've got the Yncarne its also a Ynnead army. If you paint it red or blue you could say it was Saim-Hann or Alaitoc. You are sort of reverse engineering the fluff rather than playing it forward.

I.E. its perfectly possible to write a story justifying the classic 8th edition army of "Loyal 32 (plus a bit), a Knight Castellan, and 3 tricked out Blood Angels Captains with min-cost scout squads."
But the lore would never start here as a classic/iconic formation even if you did want to play Imperium Soup.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Running a highlander style list is nice for the variety, but it just struggles to convey a theme beyond, "Vanilla grabbag of this faction's units."

I think a highlander list could work with the right army and aesthetics.

It could, for example, be used for an Ork or Corsair army where the leader doesn't necessarily have access to everything he might like, and so has to make do with whatever he can get his hands on.

Tyel wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Analogy: It's like if a character in a movie is wearing, let's say, a pirate costume. He's pirate-y from head-to-toe. Maybe he has a katana at his hip. You know that this guy is a pirate, and at some point his travels put him in a position to acquire a katana.

Now picture a character with a pirate hat and a katana, but also he's wearing a bomber jacket, ice skates, and is holding a skateboard. It's a lot harder to figure out what his story is supposed to be.

I think the issue is that - by degree, and with a lot of forging the narrative - there used to be this idea of forces representing characters building armies in almost an escalation league sort of way.

There's probably something to that, yeah. I'm definitely not a fan of the old force org and the mandatory troops, but the troops you emphasized or de-emphasized and the way you filled out your other slots did sort of tell a story. Like, if I made my mandatory troops storm guardians with fusion guns, made Fuegan my HQ, and spent 2 or 3 of my elite slots on fire dragons, you're going to get a very Fuegan-themed impression from the army.

vipoid wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Running a highlander style list is nice for the variety, but it just struggles to convey a theme beyond, "Vanilla grabbag of this faction's units."

I think a highlander list could work with the right army and aesthetics.

It could, for example, be used for an Ork or Corsair army where the leader doesn't necessarily have access to everything he might like, and so has to make do with whatever he can get his hands on.

True, but the theme there is specifically communicated by the hodgepodge of units.

Thinking on it a bit more, I think a big part of it comes down to whether or not I can picture this army moving from one battlefield to the next. Like, if you have a bunch of vehicles, do you also have a way for your infantry to keep up with them, or is your army moving awkwardly slowly? In the avatar, night spinner, etc. example, it's tough for me to picture them marching in any kind of formation or moving around as a cohesive whole. Whereas throwing a few more wraith units into the mix not only helps reinforce the idea that this is a wraith army, but it also becomes easier to picture the main force walking steadily forward together. The faster elements could break off to do something else if needed or at least don't feel as bad about moving slowly because they're sticking near enough slow units for it to feel justified.

Character customization and being able to deploy characters with whichever squad you wanted might also be a factor? It used to be that, if I ran a farseer with the Fuegan army mentioned above, I could give him eldritch storm (an anti-tank attack that sort of ties him into the tank-hunting focus of the army) and deploy him with a dragon squad. That helped reinforce the theme the rest of the army was going for and put the focus on the iconic unit of that particular army: the dragons. Now, my farseer can't cast an anti-tank power, and I have to field some non-dragons for them to hang out with if I don't want them wandering around on their own.