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.

Looks & style. You have to enjoy playing your chosen army even when you loose.

I am just coming back to gaming. My last proper game of Warhammer was when they released third edition fantasy. I have always been firstly attracted to a look of a miniature or group of miniatures rather then what they can do then try to build something around them.thumbsup:

I have to vote substance because I would be lying if I said otherwise. What drew me to my favourite faction was the part where we hit you with chainaxes! That was in 6th though. Now it's just the cherry on top that Berzerkers are good again. I would say I built my army based on its ability on the tabletop, but I very much love the style and I love painting the scheme. Ultimately for that army it wouldn't matter how good the rules were for it I would still play it.

Edit: When I say I built my army based on ability I really mean I built it for close combat.

I vote style but I might be lying to myself. I play BA because assault is the best part. First army was Tau and I just hated sitting back hoping no one would attack my guys. I decided I wanted to use assault style marines (style) so I made Vanguard Vets because they are better than Assault marines (substance). I then Math Hammered out what the best weapon loadout was by something I can only call nuking it out (for those not in the US Nuclear Navy it means trying way too hard to figure something out that isn't that hard) which again implies substance. I am always going to use death company (I play Blood Angels... style) and gave them Lemartes (substance). I wanted to use Sanguinary Guard (style) and I plan to pack the squad with things that will buff them out like crazy (substance) but will keep the swords and not power fists because the swords look good (style). 10 scout snipers because I wanted to try painting Camo (style). 20 Tacticals in a Rhino because I wanted to see if I could do magnets on my predators (style or trying too hard). 10 Primaris because why not?

Basically all squads were chosen due to style but then I nuked it out to see what makes what I like the best. (P.S. Vanguard Veterans should be given a chaplain, sanguinary priest, and two chainsowrds each because my nuke math says so!)

I think most of us do this. You pick what you like then make sure it's as good as possible. Paint what you love then make sure it's able to do well in the game.

 Stormfather wrote:
Style. My Imperial Guard list is a full rifle company of about 140 men, adapted from old US Army Tables of Organization and Equipment. Not a chimera to be seen...

As a former infantryman -> later armor officer in the US Army, I ask you this: How combat effective is an unsupported rifle company on the field of battle? You might have hand-portable heavy weapons, but where's the artillery support? Armored support? Close air support?

You can have style AND substance; 140 soldiers in the field unsupported in a firefight are a sign of bad intelligence, bad logistics, and bad leadership.

To be fair... 40k is full of those things and Guardsmen are invariably on the poopy end of that stick.

I agree that tactically, a combined arms force of AM is more effective than “pure” companies. That said, I dislike painting vehicles much more than I dislike painting Infantry, something I like about Warmachine as Dreadnoughts (Jacks) are close enough to Infantry that I don’t mind. Plus, big stompy robots are extra awesome.

So that could be a modelling choice for people willing to sacrifice in-game power for preferred models.

 Dashofpepper wrote:

 Stormfather wrote:
Style. My Imperial Guard list is a full rifle company of about 140 men, adapted from old US Army Tables of Organization and Equipment. Not a chimera to be seen...

As a former infantryman -> later armor officer in the US Army, I ask you this: How combat effective is an unsupported rifle company on the field of battle? You might have hand-portable heavy weapons, but where's the artillery support? Armored support? Close air support?

You can have style AND substance; 140 soldiers in the field unsupported in a firefight are a sign of bad intelligence, bad logistics, and bad leadership.

40k battles are little snippets in time. Air support? Had been on station, but now Bingo fuel. Artillery support? FNG loaded wrong key in comsec gear, blissfully ignorant of fire requests. Armored support? On the side of the mountain with roads and passable terrain, unfortunately the fething heretics are all "blood for the blood god" until said blood is lubricant in chimera tracks and decided to take their AO to somewhere a bit less accessible. Plus Captain fancy pants wants the enemy engaged "right now".

Wait, bad intelligenc, bad logistics and bad leadership? Maybe you were in the Army. Lol

I'm bad enough finishing stuff I like,

so building and worse, painting, stuff that's just good in game but not inspiring just isn't going to happen

Style, 9 Plague Burst Crawlers are not an army

But a horde of pox walkers, plague marines, elite characters, blight drones, a daemon prince, and Typhus is an army!

Style. I don't have a completed army yet, but i'm working on my Alpha Legion. So lots of cultists.

Honestly? Probably substance. A good paint job can add style to just about anything.

Style all the way. In 9 years of hobbying I've never bought a model that I didn't like the look of, no matter how good its rules are. If I'm going to dedicate hundreds of hours and hundreds of euros to completing an army, I don't want any stinkers in there!

There's also a very practical advantage for taking that approach -bad rules for units can be amended easily, but bad models will always be bad models...

Style-i want to play with the cool looking toys no matter how "meta" they perform.

But then again, i gave up on toxic tourney play back in 2011
It is easy to break the game with WAAC builds, but it isn't fun, thematic of fit the lore.


As an example saw a couple friends playing 9th and one of them was playing a "white scars" army.....that had no infantry transports and only 3 bikes. and when i pointed out the scars combat doctrine relies on every unit being on bikes or mechanized, i got the new primaris spiel about how they are all marines and all know how to do every job a marine knows how to do...effectively meaning that chapter combat doctrine/uniqueness don't matter anymore in NU40k.

I start with a core built around a style; then adapt certain elements to add substance if the force is struggling on the tabletop... I gotta love the style of my army or why the F am I paying so much for plastic figures

 Stormfather wrote:
Style. My Imperial Guard list is a full rifle company of about 140 men, adapted from old US Army Tables of Organization and Equipment. Not a chimera to be seen...

How did you put it together?

I start with style then tweak for substance because at the end of the day if it doesn't have both I'm not interested.

Yes, style is more important, but substance is a very close second. All style and no substance makes jack a dull boy.

I like having lots of AP, but as a wizened old tyranid player said in the youtube comment section, 'get what looks cool, the cool stuff will always be cool'. What a genius that guy was.

Always style. I've got to enjoy looking at the 📳 I put so much time into painting. I'm never going to play tournament style games so I want it to look good.

I chose style, because the current army that I'm working on is based on a single glorious battle from a Horus Heresy novel.

This may be a horrible idea that is nigh unplayable, but fever dream armies are the best armies to build.