View Full Version : Warband vs. Army (Terminology thoughts)

17-08-2007, 04:22
I've noticed that in both the current issue of WD (Got my in-story copy of US WD 332 today) as well as on GW's site, they seem to be referring to 40K armies as 'warbands' nowwhen referring to normal FOC-organized forces (You can see it in the copy about the Chaos Space Marines on GW's site) and 'army' when referring to Apocalypse sized forces.

Do you think that this is going to be a trend towards trying to have names for your oft-used force verses your all-out Apocalypse force? Or perhaps trying to get the terminology to fit what already exists in the fluff? Or am I just plain going crazy? :)

17-08-2007, 08:36
I've always view 40k as warband/detachment type forces, with epic being for army sized formations. Incidentaly when talking in store the other day, the general consensus was 40k is 1 to 1 force ratio, which supports the warband feel, whilst warhammer was 1 to 10 force ratio

17-08-2007, 13:18
I really wouldn't be surprised if they started making this distinction much more often in the 40k world of today.
Although there may be some confusion thrown up with Chaos and Orc forces always being known as warbands and most Imperial forces known as armies.

In the end it doesn't really matter all that much.



Wolflord Havoc
17-08-2007, 13:27
Warband always gives me the impression of a loosesly organised force with little or no structure such as CHaos Warband or Ork Warband - were as an Imperial Guard Regiment or a Tau Cadre is not a Warband - it being far too organised.

However with regards to terminology and Apocolypse you could be right.

17-08-2007, 14:18
I think it meshes well with the ad-hoc nature of 40k formations. At 1500 pts you can't exactly field anything close to an "army." Warband is a touch confusing, but it beats using "company" or "formation" or other bloodless term. Now I just need to explain to my own Company B of the Praetorian 37th, known as the "Emperor's Orphans," that they're now a warband....