# Take-all-comers, or specific strategy: How do you design an army?



## spudboy (Jun 13, 2008)

Just wondering how people design a new army. Do you look to create a force that can handle everything from a few rampaging, monsterous Daemons to hoards of Gaunts, or do you have a specific strategy in mind (hit and run tactics, assasin-style HQ targeting, etc.)?

I suspect this will vary by army, and in the end everyone probably winds up trying to create a balanced force, but the starting point of an army is what I'm interested in just now.

I'll add my two cents in a bit. Gotta do some house-type things.


----------



## Morgal (Sep 26, 2007)

Make a balanced list and learn to play it and slowly change it as you learn. 
I also look at my list and think.."if i was an arse and built a list specificly to counter my list...what would it be and how can I build my list to counter that list. then repeat.
Don't think i'm ever happy with a list for more than a day before i need to at least look at changing it.


----------



## spudboy (Jun 13, 2008)

A good, general strategy. Trying to figure out what could utterly destroy you is a good way to spot your weaknesses. I was afraid of Necrons for a bit before I looked into that.

So, I'm the only one who has trouble doing that at the 500 to 1000 point level?


----------



## Initiate (Mar 25, 2007)

Well, I generally write about my chapter until I know how they fight, then I make my core army, usually making them a good base of static fire. Then I make the rest of the army, with a few special units but mostly small, mobile squads with little or no heavy weapons. 

my core army is usually consisting of terminators, an hq choice w/ termy armour, a big tac squad with a missile launcher and a plasma gun, and an 80 point scout squad with a teleport homer. 

The rest of my army is usually 6 man squads with a flamer or meltagun and a vet sgt with power fist. I also incorporate an assault squad and a dread for close combat. 

With that, I can DS to take out enemy long range support, or if they are close combat oriented, thin their ranks until they reach me, when I will prolly outnumber them.


----------



## kanejax (Jul 7, 2008)

I agree with Morgal. It is best to start with a balance and of course the models units that appeal to you the most. Then as you play learn and adapt.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

I just build my army, tweek it a little bit. and keep it that way.
My Dark Eldar army The Flayed Skull has been the same list for six years.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

To be honest, when I think of starting a new army mostly I'll look at other people's army lists online, read every tactics and army building article I can get my hands on, read through that army's Codex so many times that I can rattle off the unit's stats in my sleep, think about how I've seen people use the army in real life, log onto Vassal and look to play against people using that army and more. All in all, I do a ton of research before I even bother putting digital pen to paper to create the first draft of a list.

Once it comes time to start creating the list though, I'll usually take a list that I've seen on the net that I like the look of and work toward that, buying a few units at a time, assembling them and then getting some games in. As the army grows from something Combat Patrol sized toward the 1,700 point tournament army mark I'll make little tweaks and adjustments and reread tactics articles to make sure I'm not doing anything wrong.

By the time I've reached the point where I'm using a list very similar to what someone else is using I feel confident using the army and can therefore break away from their ideals with confidence and start to seriously experiment.

Best of luck!

Katie D


----------



## fearlessgod (Jul 3, 2008)

My armies are balanced, not by design but by personal choice. I have always been a fan of troop heavy armies, so I try to squeeze in as many Troop choices as possible. With so little room for Elites and Fast Attack (I play IW, so I like Heavy Support choices as well), most people praise me for balanced, take-on-all-comers armies. I don't really tool up my armies for a specific game or opponent. My bog standard army will have go up against all opponents, I guess. 

~fearlessgod~


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

Locally, it's considered cheating to have an army tailored to beat a specific army unless that's the list you use against all comers. For example, if someone says, "Oh, I'm playing Orks," and you pull out a list that's made to fight against a conventional Ork army in response, that's very frowned upon. From a realistic standpoint, you'd know at least in passing what you were deploying your men against, so you'd issue them the appropriate weapons and whatnot. But it's a game, not reality. 

I make my armies with tactical flexibility in mind. Out of necessity, it has to be able to handle both armour-heavy and infantry-heavy armies, so I bring units that are able to effectively and efficiently deal with any threat. 

Metaphorically speaking, I prefer a gladius over a battering ram. I generally prefer to deliver a rapid, lethal strike in one fell swoop at very close quarters over pummelling my foe from relative safety over the course of several turns. I build rosters with the idea that if my opponent isn't on their back foot by turn 3, I'm probably irrecoverably losing. 

The ultimate consideration when making an army list, however, is whether or not it's something that the army in question would actually deploy in the fluff on a regular basis. If the army isn't fluffy, then screw it.


----------



## Krovin Rezh (Jun 26, 2008)

I say just pick what you like the most, and then play with them. If you have trouble in certain areas, that points you in the right direction for your next unit. Pay attention to the force organization chart too. I think this way has a better chance of creating a more unique army that's more fun to play with & against.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

I adopt a "take all comers" stance, on the whole.

My Orks are built to kill whatever comes their way, either through sheer volume of big shoota and lootagun fire, or hammerblows from my Nobz with power klaws, or from sheer relentless assaulting. I built my list to take on anything that came its way.


----------



## officer kerky (Jun 12, 2008)

i have always taken a all comers approach. then move from there with the armies strenghts. e.g imperial guard lots of meatshields


----------



## morfangdakka (Dec 31, 2006)

I build all my list to take on all comers. Mainly because my regular gaming group disbanned so I have to travel a good bit to get a game so I never know who I will get until I ask some "Hey want to play?". I do build some flexiblity into my armies so that I can move troops around inside the army to get different squad configurations. It does help to know your armies strengths and weaknesses so that when you play other armies you can try to use your strength. 

Ofcourse when your anti-infintry ork army takes on an Armored Company things aren't going to go well.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

I design a theme for the army, usually background oriented. Often, this theme works out some simple limitations (like I usually refuse to use the most highly thought of units in an army) and basic gaming styles. Then, I do my best to make a servicable all-comers army within the limitations and army theme.

Case in point: Emo-Necs

Theme... mecha emo kids from the tomb world next door. All they want is hugs and will do anything to get a hug. Scorn them and die. If it was not for nanotech keeping them coming back, they'd all have committed suicide by now.

Limitations... they want hugs, so the army is cc oriented. No Destroyers, Heavy Destroyers, Immortals or C'Tan. Use of many many Flayed Ones, Warriors, Wraiths, etc. Pretty much anything that is required for the army or/and has a cc role within the army.

The army will likely work better in 5th than in 4th, as soon as a new FAQ is released. Necrons in 5th edition combat are screwed at the moment, lol.


----------



## EldarTalraDoo (Jun 21, 2008)

I try to conceive how my army will work as a whole (being greater than the sum of its parts and all...)
I play Blood Angels, and just started with Eldar
I started both armies with a core of basic troops and an HQ (standard mission REQ.)
Then I decide what style of combat i will bring to the table.
I like shooty armies, many bolter/shuriken rifles. I try to envision how to thwart that tactic, and add support units to take out the possible threats to my basic strategy.
Eg. Snipers to take out heavy weapons teams, CC unit to tie up any other potential assaults to my shooters, + 1 tank killing squad.
I try to spend more points where I focus my tactics, with minimal points to the support units, creating a stronger stylized play.
Sum it up, I create an army with a specific tactic in mind, and build around protecting that identity rather than focusing on what i might be put up against. This, by definition is a "take all comers" approach, but I think it is more of a counter to such an army, because with each built in strength, you build a necessary weakness.


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

Neither. But then, I'm a bit of an idiot.

What I usually do is look at some spare models I have lying about and think, right, what on earth can I do with these? Then I try to fit them into a hole in the FOC. That will either lead on to me (fairly sensibly) moving to consider what might work well with them from a tactical point of view, so building and/or buying a few complementary units; or it might suggest a theme and I'll go 'aha! well, this unit will be perfect because the army can have _this_ background'; or I might just add random units because I don't know what I'm doing.

Whichever way, I'll eventually have an 'army'. 



Krovin Rezh said:


> I say just pick what you like the most, and then play with them. If you have trouble in certain areas, that points you in the right direction for your next unit...


That's what I do if I'm being sensible. i think it's good advice. I don't think I'd like playing with a unit I thought was ugly, uninteresting or just plain dumb, no matter how good it was tactically. I wouldn't enjoy it. So what would be the point? I'd rather lose, happy, than be bored winning. But, as I say, I maybe don't have the same approach as some other players :wink:

:in it for the gravy cyclops:


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

I make a list based on who I think I am likely to be playing against, but mostly based on how I want to play that battle.

Recently I have wanted to get away from the basic defensive Necron formations and be more agressive (even though it is much easier to win with defending Necrons). So I have chosen units that can get closer to the enemy and that have high mobility. This has been moderatelly successful with 5th ed. rules - which has also forced lists that include more Troop units.


----------



## Imperial Dragon (Dec 22, 2007)

i like to have a good amount of troops in my army, that's why i like nids so much.
balenced armies are often the best i think anway
if i like the look of a unit i'll use it even if the name sounds cool and they really suck.


----------



## Indoctrinator (Jun 6, 2008)

When I make army lists I tend to come up with a cool idea first then I try to add a few more units to make a balanced list out if it.


Indoctrinator


----------



## spudboy (Jun 13, 2008)

Lots of good info here (espeically emo-necs :laugh. 

The way I've been working on my lists is pretty much a fluffy start (background stories, etc.), followed up with a good 'Now what sort of stunts can I pull off here?' brainstorming session with the basic units I choose. Usually, thinking of a variety of adversaries and ways to counter them irons out the possibilities I have with the force I've picked out, but there is always room for improvement.

I do like to try and think out at least 2 strategies for each squad, and ways to coordinate them with the overall force. Guardians with scatter lasers, for example, work good as either rear-line support, or as 'stoppers' for narrow passes, etc..


----------



## beenburned (May 15, 2008)

Until money frees itself up for me, I build my army around what I can find cheaply. Almost all my minis are second hand off ebay or my local seller, but I only get them if I feel they will add something to my army. I won't be doing any planning before hand, because I just can't afford that 5 man unit of wraithguard until I see it for 25 quid. 
What it means for my army is it's a bit hodge podge, but I enjoy coming up with fluff to fit around that, and over all from a 2000 point army I must have saved around 100 pounds from rrp, so yeah, it's all a bit of a compromise with me. No planning whatsoever though :laugh:


----------



## terrornid (May 30, 2008)

Unfortunately, I start with the model I really like and then make a list around it.


----------



## skad567 (Jun 4, 2008)

basically I play a bunch of games using widely varying lists and take the best parts of those lists make them into 1 solid list and then play with that and do minor tweaks until I iron it out. I make sure to pick my opponents wisely so the army isn't tailor made to beat a single army, but has experience against all of them.


----------



## don_mondo (Jan 28, 2007)

Pretty much all-comers. 

Two main reasons, First, I never know who or what I'll be playing against until I actually get to the store and see who' there and not already involved in a game. We've got a fairly large group so there is a good bit of diversity. 
Second, I'm usually working towards the US GTs, testing lists and practicing. 

As for theme and such, that's a whole different story, like my current project, Lizardmen IG...............


----------



## rokar4life (Jun 21, 2008)

when i build up from a low pts lvl i go with getting alot of shots going, then i take some thing big to scare them and draw fire. then just balanced.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Starting to collect an army I go with whatever box set is availbale for them as this is well balanced and is a good starting point. 
I really dislike making an army list and using only that list all the time though... I mean I have 116 models why should I only use at most 50 of them? Every week I play I come up with a different army list every time. Not just to use all my models but to figure out how to use each unit to it's full ability. also It keeeps your opponents guessing so it's fun.....


----------



## Changer of Ways (Jan 3, 2008)

spudboy said:


> Just wondering how people design a new army...


Taking a overall view here I'd have to say both, combined with good sportsmanship. So many idiots tarnish our hobby.

Tactically...
1.) A good list should never lose badly to one type of army.
2.) A list should play to an army's strength, but only slightly if too much of those strengths would detract from an army's versatility.
3.) A list should be mobile (especially for mission capability).
4.) An army should always have a trump card ready to drop to ensure victory.

A well-balanced force is a good start, but if you plan on winning more games that you lose, you should take care to tip the balance when the time is right.
I know that most folks just want to play fun games in the end; after all, what's the point of wasting all that money if you're not going to have fun, right? But losing gets old after a while. We all have our pride, however large or small it may be. A game is played to be won; bit it is how we treat our opponent that really matters in the end, not what list we're playing.

When purchasing an army, the guidelines above are a good starting point.
Unless you've just got oodles of cash stowed away for the spending, it's better to be able to drop your benjamins into an army that will allow you a competitive edge no matter who you face across the table.
And how will you ever improve if you don't try?

If you only like modeling, buy Reaper.
If you're truly into the entire 40k hobby, at least try to win games. You don't have to be a poor sport to win; just put forth effort, design the best army list you can and take your lumps like a real gamer.
The real fun in 40k is knowing that you're not holding back and neither is your oponent, then getting smashed together after the game, lol. :wacko:


----------



## Lord_Murdock (Jul 16, 2008)

I build an army to counter my friends' armies. I made my IG army to counter my friend's deep-striking necron army, but now that he's started tau, I find that my army dies very easily (too many lascannons, not enough assault weapons...). So, to counter tau, I'm starting an ork army when I'm finished with my mechanized mordian army. On that note, I also go with the "awesomeness" factor when deciding on an army. Cadians are ok, but mordians are (in my opinion) infinitely better.


----------



## squadiee (Nov 4, 2007)

I evaluate all the units within the codex, think of the situations that are likely to arise, and plan an army list around a basic principle (mid range, long range, CC etc.)


----------



## BloodAngelZeros (Jul 1, 2008)

I like to keep the "take-all-comers" in mind while I'm building up and getting used to a new army. After playing a few matches with my growing army I tend to switch to trying to devise tactics that are less-than-conventional. So I guess you could say that I don't gear it as a take-all-comers or army-specific but rather what will play out in the most interesting fashion. Playing in a 1500 point game and taking the nightbringer almost always warrants the response, "You're taking him in a small points game?!" Or using a CSM army with no heavy support. Most people that build take-all-comers armies tend to have some anti-tank/heavy support weaponry but when there's nothing for them to shoot at it usually renders said units less effective. I like to play to experiment most of the time and build my army as such. In tourneys, I go back to basics and take a list that should do well against all armies (after all, I pay an entry fee and would like to win the prize, lol).


----------



## rVctn_Khaiyn (Dec 1, 2007)

I just pick the models that I like, even if it doesn't always lead to a win. That way I know that I’ll have fun, and I know that I won’t get bored of the army.

After that, it's just a matter of trying to forge those units into an effective army - in which case I'd usually go for a force that can deal with most others, rather than a race-specific one.


----------



## Catachan55th (Aug 4, 2008)

In the days of the dim distant past when I was a store manager for GW and got 50%discount and the pleasure of loose lead orders, I used to design and build up grand armies of 20,000points each. I'd have 4 detachments each of 5,000points and designe each detachment with a specific tactic/role... as a whole the armies were able to handle anything.
However, having re-started 40k after living on a island for two years, I now have only 2250 Cadian, 1250 DemonHunters, 2250 Blood Pact, 1250 Demon, 2000 rt80 chaos tank company and 2000 Leman Russ company.
My wife has 3500 Tyranids and my step son has 3000 DarkEldar, 3500 Chaos marine and 2250 BlackTemplers.
As you can probably tell from the points values, all these armies designed to fight each other. For now I designe armies with a mind to exactly what kind of opponant they are going to face.

BTW: 2250 points of infantry supported by 2000 points of tanks on each side is a site to behold.


----------



## Le Sinistre (May 9, 2008)

Changer of Ways has many good thougths for a starter. As for myself, I haven't played many regular games in the last years. In my country, there is a tournament over 2000 points. There are 5 parts, the first begins at 2000, and ends at 3000 points. In so huge points, you use a lot of things, that you wouldn't in a game under 2000... 
Now, I try to get back to noraml point sizes, so between 1500 and 1850. I have a CSM army, wich I built for this size, and with fifth in mind. But at last, I have had to realyze, Chaos isn't the best for me, and I'm changing back to eldar... 
I tried many times to build a balanced army. I haven't had one from the 3 group harlies with 3 falcons armies... But faced many such ones in the tournaments...
Now, I try to build an army, wich has his own strenght, but also has a theme. So, I go for nearly an Roman army for my eldars, with heavy cavalry (shining spears), legions (avangers), and the specialists, like scouts (striking scorpions), fast cavalry (vypers), heavy siege weapons (wraithlord)... 
I will see it, how it works, and then, fit them where they lack.


----------



## spudboy (Jun 13, 2008)

Catachan55th said:


> BTW: 2250 points of infantry supported by 2000 points of tanks on each side is a site to behold.


No doubt. Yikes!

Glad you're family is into things. I've got kids that are too small, and a wife you has never had much of an interest in games (even backgammon...).


----------



## Catachan55th (Aug 4, 2008)

An old collegue of mine from GW Lakeside used to fancy my wife before I had even met her, so she was already aware of the games when we did get together. Didn't take much to get her into the hobby, she loves the lady like Claws, Jaws and Bad attitude of Tyranids..lol. (kinda upset my mate though when found out that she fancied me..oops)
My step sons are 25 and 27, the eldest quickly got into the hobby aswell and already had mates who played, so yeh, I guess I'm lucky... we have a 5y/o son who has just had his first visit to Warhammer World, he is going to be hooked for sure... already advising us on what we should buy for our armies???


----------



## Cindare (Jun 15, 2008)

In my area, I've identified roughly three archetypes that tend to revolve around one another. One is the defensive shooty army which is seen as the army to beat and fielded by the most veteran players. These are mostly represented by Tau and Witch Hunters (go figure). This gave rise to anti-personnel hordes (Orks, Nids) intended to wade through fire and flamers with enough Boyz and Genestealers to kick some ass. And to beat the hordes, Imperial armored companies rolled out their plastic disks.

As a Necron player, the natural inclination is to take on the old-fashioned "deploy Warriors and Monoliths then fail to die before the other guy" approach a la Category #1. But with 5th edition and the rather terrifying buffs to assault combat, this has been a less than adequate strategy. Thanks to the Heresy Necrons community, I've been able to deploy a strategy that is well-rounded against two out of the three archetypes that I see, hordes and armored companies. The way I see it, my Scarab Lord list dies horribly to the very best players in the area but has an edge against the rest of the field. I'm okay with that!


----------



## fett14622 (Apr 29, 2008)

Red Orc said:


> That's what I do if I'm being sensible. i think it's good advice. I don't think I'd like playing with a unit I thought was ugly, uninteresting or just plain dumb, no matter how good it was tactically. I wouldn't enjoy it. So what would be the point? I'd rather lose, happy, than be bored winning. But, as I say, I maybe don't have the same approach as some other players :wink:
> 
> :in it for the gravy cyclops:


I agree with you :good:

That what I did when I bought my SM army. Now I got to put them together.:biggrin:


----------



## Catachan55th (Aug 4, 2008)

To expand on what I said before, my Catachan army is designed for versatility. 
1st Platoon is 5 squads with flamers and auto-cannons, platoon command is equiped with a flamer and a missile launcher... this gives me a strong deffencive line that can sit and hammer the opponent at range.
2nd Platoon is 5 squads with melta guns and no heavy weapons, platoon command is equipped with a meltagun.. this gives the platoon mobility and allows me to outmanouver and hunt down enemy vehicls.

On the other hand my Blood Pact army is designed with the Blood Pact ethos in mind. as such both platoons have 5 squads armed witha grenade launcher in each that allows the army the freedom to charge on mass. (note all squads have 'hardened fighters) and the platoon command squads carry with them an icon of Khorne.
All heavy weapons are drafted into a seperate heavy platoon and the HQ platoon allowing the bulk of the army to move freely.

not forgetting that both these armies have the support of an entire tank company in realy majour games.
both tank companies are effectivly Leman Russ's but in the case of the Chaos tanks I have heavly converted 10 AusF G Panzer III's using stuff from the chaos tank, Defiler and chaos marine sprues.


----------



## Dessel_Ordo (Jul 28, 2008)

I normally shoot for hammer and anvil tactics as closely as I can...
so I guess that makes me an all comers (except for special occaisions, like a group apoc. game, where I will know my enemies for sure)

that said, I normally have 3 troops, one a throw-away unit, the other 2 are plasgun/plascannon units, these three plus devastators make up my anvil.

I normally use assault type units formy hammer, it is almost always lethat for the target.

I can never seem to settle on one set list ofr very long, I'm always tweaking.



:headbutt::headbutt::headbutt::headbutt::headbutt:


----------



## titus (Jan 4, 2008)

Im relativly new to 40k and only have one army with playable points value.I collect and subsaquently play with an army that i like to paint and convert,also the armies history plays a great part in my selection.I started collecting space wolves,mainly because i liked the idea of a viking style renegade good guy army.The problem i found is they were very boring to paint and i found fairly limiting to convert.I now collect chaos with a infantry heavy plague marine army,nearly every man in my army has been converted in some way and i have a specific theme in mind.My nurgle army is plague marine based,supporting these guys are a demond prince,obliterators,havocs, drednought and a suicidal chosen squad with five plasma guns.I dont like demons,so i dont use them,i do have a laz gun preditor which ill grudgingly take in bigger battles to kill tough stuff.In the end if i dont like the way it looks and feels in my army i wont put it in,as a result my army can be beaten by better players with armies built to win,do i care,not really:biggrin:my army usually looks better.


----------

