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.

Just starting out and I prefer a balance between style and substance. I guess style is a bit more important thought since the fluff is what made me pick the army that I did in the first place.

Style. I'm starting a daemon army just cause I though the new plaguebearers would look great with top hats and an Icon-sign that says either "Free Hugs" or "Welcome to the Black Parade." Still deciding.

Style, sure my Guardsmen or Sisters might not tear it up like Draigowing, but they look good and I like them. That's what counts.

When my techni-colour Eldar face off against the faceless green Cadian horde, my units may be overcosted and ineffective, but at least we have got style!

Style! if it looks great, it plays great!

As a painter / modeler first, and currently building an army which will contain members of all races (just because I want to have a go at painting everthing), My army is all about the style and fluff.
Let's face it, my army isn't going to have much tactical substance without any obvious structure (not to mention, be illegal according to probably every rule in the book).

What intrigues me though, is that if most people here value style over substance, why is there such a loud noise when the rules are changed? If you like how your army looks, don't complain that this or that unit has been nerfed. If anything, it gives you an excuse to try something new, that may look even cooler. But don't shout at me, I haven't read the books, I don't know the rules, I just paint...for now.

First, I fall in love with the look of an army.

Then, I spend a ton of money on it, to the point where I have too much to paint without burning out.

Then, I find out it's god awfull to play with. Or, has a very, very steep learning curve.

Then, I sadface.

I'm competetive so substance rules for me
That doesn't mean I don't have enough other models to make it look stylish on the shelf

Style every single time. Every time I start a new army I buy the minis that most appeal to me, then try to create an effective force out of that... My win-loss ratio is awful (roughly 20-80), however, I like to think that I lose with style!

I always build fluffy army lists, and don't personally see the point in 'building to win'. As stated above, this makes me roughly 80% certain to lose, but my opponents always seem to enjoy playing against my armies...Maybe it's because they are likely to win, but I like to think its because I put a bit of effort in my lists, even writing a small short story and a bit of fluff for every unit and character in the force!

If I can't come up with a story for how the force is organized and why they're fighting, I probably won't play the army. The fluff has to be good, the models have to fit an aesthetic niche.

Then again, it is nice when that force can *also* be scaled for power on the TT, from casual to Going Loud.

I build to fluff - so style - because really, you can make things look good, but you can't make an army better than it actually is. You have to play to the best of it's ability.

With me it is always substance that makes me want to start a particular army, then i think about how do i make it look good. I admit I see a nice looking army and I am interested, but often when i read about it, the background is same old, same old, but give me a background that excites or interests me, then the style often will come from that.

I never used to like Necrons, but since coming back to the hobby and reading about how it has changed, I have spent a fortune on a new one, just finished building it, and planned how i hope to make it look good. The new background etc made me want to do the Army not how it looked after all Necron scan just be drybrushed metal over black!!! LOL. Thats not to say I dont want my armies too look good, but i want them to play good, give an enjoyable game to both myself and my opponent, and if the background is good etc, i can play them with that kinf od mindset which is often fun.

(Same when I played only historical wargames, i chose armies that interested me not what uniforms they had.)

Hope I have explained myself.

tis all bout the style of each army I play

A balance of both, Style I think a little more important, but you still need some basic staples in the army to make it fun to play with.

No offence, but this is a bit of a daft poll lol. If you collect armies like Dark Eldar/Chaos/Nids, it's a bit hard not to have it looking like a random assortment of monsters and vehicles.

As with everything in life substance trumps style. My first concern is whether an army's performance in battle appeals to me (substance), and when I find one that suits me I (try to) make it look good (style). If I don't enjoy the way an army plays it doesn't matter how awesome the models look. Also I've never played a tournament (yet), so don't be calling me a power gamer.

Style, deinitely. I always come up with a cool idea for the look or theme of an army first, and then try and make a half-decent army second. That doesn't mean that all my armies are terrible, just that I'm happy to ignore the most competitive units if they don't fit my theme.

KnuckleWolf wrote: AH! MY PEOPLE! I'VE FOOOUUND YOOOUU! My brothers, my sisters, where have all you people been? My 'fluff' bretheren!
Thank the Emperor. I'm not alone afterall. Really needed to hear that. Just started and was almost going to quit.

Dr H wrote:What intrigues me though, is that if most people here value style over substance, why is there such a loud noise when the rules are changed? If you like how your army looks, don't complain that this or that unit has been nerfed. If anything, it gives you an excuse to try something new, that may look even cooler. But don't shout at me, I haven't read the books, I don't know the rules, I just paint...for now.

Websites like this can seem like a very 'competitive' crowd, but in reality it's just a very vocal minority. I've played all in friendlies and in tournaments all over and I would say that 95% of the people I meet fall into the 'style' category. You just wouldn't think it sometimes from browsing the forums...

angelofvengeance wrote:No offence, but this is a bit of a daft poll lol. If you collect armies like Dark Eldar/Chaos/Nids, it's a bit hard not to have it looking like a random assortment of monsters and vehicles.

Maybe you're right with 'Nids, but DE/Chaos?

For a good themed DE example, see here - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/336125.page

And Chaos are one of the most 'themeable' armies in the game!!

Frist class

My next army was originally the ultimate in style over substance. When I was but a wee nipper and first getting in to 40k I thought Necrons were the coolest things ever. However I was reliably informed they were cheese, boring to paint and they didn't have a large model range.

Well fast forward 10 years or so from those sunny days and the homicidal murder bots are still awesome, have brand new fluff that gives them pleasantly psychotic personalities, are completely spoiled for choice on units.... and are still cheesier then a nacho explosion at the 1980s men's fashion festival.

Now to start writing cool fluff for my murderbots

Considering Both Extremes, i would rather have an extremely well painted army that doesn't do well on the table top, then grey death machines that roll over every army. Usually people will remember those great looking Golden Daemon award winners than the record you have while playing 40k for a while.

Style

I saw line up of tanks, I saw duplicated lists over and over.... but if I am like the rest or the list plays the same every single time, then where is the fun in a game.

Style is Substance.

I play Daemons, and im 90% mono-god, because I preferr the style of it over a hotch-potch of everything.

It's all about style!

I guess I call it style but most people laugh at my angry Imperial Fists. Ork arms and tattoos, every possible upgrade for sergeants... if they don't look killy why field 'em?

I'd rather look good losing than win with a daffy army.

Not really a fair comparison. You can have a lot of troops etc to have a large army, but if they look like crap who cares how big it is. However having a small amount of highly detailed and intricate units is just as poor. Basically I'd say its 50/50 for this one.

Wow, thanks for all the feedback. Many of the tactics and list threads dance to the tune of " must use" type units at the expense of other less effective or at least consistent units. Does not surprise me that style is winning the poll. I think most of us got pulled into armies for how they look, or play.

This poll is shocking really. Since when did American gamers care about style?

Good topic.

I voted style. I want my army to be able to win of course, but if I can't get excited about a concept then I'm not having fun from the get-go. A good example are the Grey Knights. Back when they were smashing everyone in the dog days of 5th I had zero temptation to pick them up, simply because white knight types don't interest me.