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.

For me style leads to substance,,,both rather go hand in hand.

Gomericus wrote:
For me style leads to substance,,,both rather go hand in hand.

You are right. Better verbage would have been "Fluffy" versus "Powerful". Those going for "Style" are attempting to get their army to have better "Substance" then the guy who just spams the most OP unit of that editions army book. Players who cram lots of Meltas and Flamers in their Salamanders Army, who still take a unit or two of Knight Errant in their Bretonnian Army, who play Skaven with every risky unreliable warpstone weapon they can find, who decide to play Wood Elves still versus their more powerful cousins......all these are "style" choices, but they really do bring much more "substance" into the gaming group then any power gamer ever willl.

I play an Army that Utilizes 5 Stegadons, No Temple Guard, and 12 Skinks. That is style.

My skaven with 150 slaves and all the toys that is substance.


Take a guess which one is left at home and which one i actually play with.

Hint: Its scaly.

Thats a style vote from me!

Style, of course.

Gotta be style. It shows in my army comps - CSM: Thousand Sons army (generally horrible on the table but I love the Egyptian theme); DE: Wych cult led by the Duke & Lelith (again, generally horrible on the table - unless I get first turn - led by a hot elf & a sociopath!); GK: Draigo-wing w/ custom Paladins (this one is fully custom, there is only one actual GW model in the list & it's a FW Inquisitorial Dread); Tau: Fully Mechanized Tau w/ two Riptides - I love the look of the DF/HH chassis.

~Vryce

rule of cool and a paintjob always make the army that much better in my opinion

Style because:

If you aren't playing for the fluff and the story there is no point in picking up 40k over any other game with a comparable or even better ruleset. If you play to win and don't care about how you butcher your army's fluff in the process...this game is nothing more than 3D objects of determined sizes and numbers.

Style indeed. Why else would we paint the models ourselves and don't by massproducted prepainted models? Personalisation and individualisation really make it more varied and interesting. Also: fluff is so damn important.

Style all the way!

Style, if it doesn't look good then why would I want to play it!

Style for me

Substance comes later if you want competitive or not, but most fundamental is how you wanna make your army shine on time spent on it and how much you enjoy playing with it.

Style.

I didn't vote in the poll because I like both style and substance the same.

Style definately. Nothing like playing against an unpainted army to ruin ones day

My substance has always determined my style, having a unit name, rough theme and at a stretch names for select individuals is enough for me.

Only exception is my IG, which I've split into three companies now, recon light infantry, armoured and a navy detachment of Vendetta's. I play competitively because I knew very, very few people who play for fluff/fun primarily.

Has to be style each time, got to want to feel the army, and not only in a pervy way

100% Style and a little bit of ease of scratch building.

I tend to build my overall armies (as opposed to lists) w style an I tend to play my casual games w style and/or fun stuff, but I also like to have at least at 1500pt force which can be decently competitive.
This usually means adding 1 or 2 units to what I already have so it's not that big a deal. And I only do it because my local meta is very competitive and w/out a semi-competitive list myself I wouldn't win a single game

Gomericus wrote:
For me style leads to substance,,,both rather go hand in hand.

"Form follows function" is a classic engineering saying. If style and substance don't match, you're going to have problems...Like footslogging a FMC list. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the use of the terms here, but I view "style" as how your army wins the game (speed, brute force, alpha strike), and "substance" being what you bring to do that (jetbikes, MCs, drop pods).

What draws me to any army would be the style of the model. If you don't like the style you wont enjoy painting them as much, if at all...

just my 2cents

I try to keep a good mix of both. But I guess sttyle would come out trumps.

So a follow up for me, I just spend six months finding the perfect Flames of War army. I wanted two things. Access to all the big late war German toys like King Tigers, Tiger 1Es and Panthers, and I want Fallschirmjager

So I suppose that's style AND crunch you know?

style: legions of plaguebearers and belching plague toads, I'm not going to throw a lord of change in there just because it will help me win, the theme matters a lot to me.

Style. Having a good and thematic looking army is probably one of the top three or top two reasons why I bother collecting.

Style!

Visual style. Visuals can still be powerful, i.e. When I bring 3 distinctly painted heldrakes that still match to visual of my army.

I put substance, just cause I actually like it to be fun.

I chose substance. I choose to fight cheese with cheese, too bad csm has few cheese and the cheese they have is overpriced like the slice of cheese on a cheese burger.

Style? I play CSM, so we have all sorts of factions mixed in together, from any of the 4 chaos gods, to any of the black legion, crimson slaughter, night lords, iron warriors, word bearers etc... It is the CSM style to mix warbands together for a black crusade. You hear about the fluff stories where several warbands work together begrudgingly held together by a weak alliance of convenience ready to betray each other. For gods sake, we have Kharn, The BETRAYER!

At the moment, Mono Nurgle is the most competitive with Slaanesh as a substantial substitute (both have access to FNP).

I choose my army on what looks awesome, then I choose what goes in it based on what looks awesome and is awesome