Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/01/04 01:06:18


Post by: legoburner


Poll suggested by Insurgency Walker


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/01/07 10:39:30


Post by: Flashman


Style every time. It has to look like an army i.e. a focus on troops rather than a random collection of vehicles / monsters.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/01/07 10:59:30


Post by: bombboy1252


Style. I want my army to look good.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/01/07 11:20:50


Post by: HoverBoy


Style and fething theme, stop clobbering together whatever is undercosted you lame powergamers


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/01/07 12:13:52


Post by: mingus89


style every time, or you just wont have any enthusiasm with the army.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/01/07 12:17:29


Post by: DrChaos


Gotta be the rule of cool


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/01/07 12:44:43


Post by: BlapBlapBlap


That's a hard choice, but I have to say substance. I don't want a couple of easy games where both players are unhappy, I want a contest where both players have a really nice time.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/01/08 17:04:30


Post by: Stormfather


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...


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/01/08 17:19:28


Post by: Johnny-Crass


Style all the way


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/01/08 19:54:16


Post by: el_groovatore


It's gotta be Style. And by that I mean the look, fluff and feel of the army. The army's gotta look cohesive, all the miniatures have to look 'right' together.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/01/23 11:24:06


Post by: Thatguy91


For me style is more important than substance. no doubt.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/01/23 21:48:09


Post by: Locclo


Style all the way. I'd rather win no games while playing a stylish, fluffy army than win every game with a list that exploits strong units in a codex.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/01/23 21:51:08


Post by: Sasori


If I don't like the look and feel of the army, I won't play it no matter how powerful it is.

Style, for sure.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/02/23 21:11:22


Post by: Supreme Kai


I think style is. Because 100 ork boys doesnt look on the battle field.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/02/23 22:41:32


Post by: Trondheim


Style and feel of the army. I need to enjoy putting it togettern


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/02/26 01:01:09


Post by: Emerett


Knowing an army will perform well on the table is all the inspiration that I need.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/06/11 10:04:09


Post by: Banzaimash


I play less than I paint and make, so style is what I value more in my armies.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/06/11 20:46:21


Post by: njwrox2


...both? i love making and customizing my army but at the same time i want to have those guys who are always good and have a bit more detail to them BECAUSE they are the good guys


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/06/11 21:34:46


Post by: Tesunie


I'd have to state that I want the style of the army (play wise) to match me, but I also want the army to have substance. If an army has no substance, than it can't survive a battle. A good army combines style (play) with substance (things that work) to be effective.

If you are talking about style as in looking good, then any army, even one designed around substance, can still have lots of style.

Personally, I say if an army matches your style of play, and you have fun playing with it, it does not matter if it doesn't have enough substance to win a fight. As long as you enjoy playing your army as it is, then all is good. This is a game, and games are meant to be played and to be enjoyed. Not to just simply be something to win at. (In any game, there must be a winner and a looser, but if you have fun than winning or loosing does not matter.)


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/07/13 10:21:53


Post by: Florintine Mallorean


I prefer style or theme over substance because I like making fluff but I also enjoy playing the game. I make random fluff lists and play them even if I don't believe they will win because I like to try and have fun more then tryhardmode.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/07/13 13:17:05


Post by: xxmintyfreshxx


definitely style.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/07/13 22:07:29


Post by: Steve steveson


Style. Its got to look good, both in terms of the modles and the feel of the army. I don't even think about the rules until I know what minis I want.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/07/13 23:16:53


Post by: DOOMBREAD


Style. I only enjoy running style armies, and if I'm not having fun, why would I be playing, even if I am winning every game?


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/07/13 23:23:56


Post by: Byte


Where's the beef!? Substance.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/07/14 01:48:33


Post by: Kormax


style is cool in an army, but I'll take substance. I'll table style every time.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/07/14 03:20:41


Post by: Sharkvictim


Lean toward style, but strive for balance.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/08/14 10:58:18


Post by: Jendi


Substance ! For The Win!


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/08/14 12:55:40


Post by: Papasmerv


Style. I play this game for the fluff. Plenty of other games for the strict strategic aspect.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/08/14 13:52:22


Post by: KnuckleWolf


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.

I do Style, I do it everytime, and I will keep doing it, until I find a good damn reason to do other wise. Because 'winning' over your friend is not a good reason!

My Tau army has many small things to match modern day tactical things I've seen and heard of in documentaries. My Fire warrior squads are eight man teams, broken down into four, two man teams. The lead soldier of each pair has a carbine to provide suppressing flash-bang grenade salvos and fire, while his partner strikes with precision using his rifle to to hit distant threats. And no that doesn't work in game turns but I do it anyway!


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/08/14 16:37:19


Post by: Joshua Von Wolkestadt


Style.
That's what makes our armies appealing and unique!


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/08/14 17:12:35


Post by: Fervor


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/08/14 17:23:43


Post by: DarkCorsair


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/08/15 06:41:02


Post by: KalashnikovMarine


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 you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/09/15 10:57:24


Post by: Shandara


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!


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/09/15 13:36:09


Post by: Shas Ui' Lee


Style! if it looks great, it plays great!


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/09/15 16:55:04


Post by: Dr H


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/09/15 21:43:52


Post by: Evileyes


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/11/17 10:47:17


Post by: logg_frogg


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/11/17 13:38:10


Post by: sarpedons-right-hand


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!


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/11/17 15:48:18


Post by: codemonkey


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/11/18 05:06:47


Post by: ENOZONE


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/11/18 13:39:01


Post by: BaronB3


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/11/18 13:52:46


Post by: zman111


tis all bout the style of each army I play


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/11/19 00:02:23


Post by: cox.dan2


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/12/18 11:03:03


Post by: angelofvengeance


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2012/12/18 11:19:52


Post by: Dutch Wife


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/01/19 10:49:35


Post by: ArbitorIan


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!!


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/01/19 13:21:30


Post by: mikecoop316


Frist class


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/01/19 13:32:59


Post by: KalashnikovMarine


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/01/20 04:43:47


Post by: wolfmerc


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/02/20 12:32:20


Post by: Adrian Fue Fue


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/02/20 16:52:07


Post by: mad_eddy_13


Style is Substance.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/02/20 18:14:22


Post by: Evileyes


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/03/14 18:38:07


Post by: Farseer Faenyin


It's all about style!


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/03/21 19:41:20


Post by: Scambone


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?


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/03/22 08:18:21


Post by: Jimsolo


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/04/22 10:38:52


Post by: Mad Boss Morgrot


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/04/22 13:06:25


Post by: Insurgency Walker


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/04/22 22:24:01


Post by: Earth Dragon


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/04/23 04:26:52


Post by: Algorithm


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/04/23 05:06:22


Post by: Gomericus


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/04/23 22:42:04


Post by: Earth Dragon


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/04/24 16:27:58


Post by: captain collius


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/05/23 10:52:59


Post by: gobbsmakkar


Thats a style vote from me!


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/05/23 18:20:10


Post by: PunkNeverDie110


Style, of course.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/05/26 22:44:04


Post by: Vryce


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/05/27 01:26:22


Post by: alabamaheretic


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/05/29 12:43:48


Post by: Farseer Faenyin


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/08/26 16:59:38


Post by: Atropamin


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/09/24 09:21:21


Post by: StyleXHobby


Style all the way!


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/09/27 17:58:27


Post by: Tortus40k


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/09/27 19:20:52


Post by: Galanur


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/09/27 21:08:38


Post by: Rotary


Style.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/09/28 11:26:55


Post by: sing your life


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/10/03 12:38:58


Post by: Timmy149


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/11/29 11:00:23


Post by: Mr.Omega


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/11/29 22:43:55


Post by: Ephemeral Moment


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/12/03 06:03:46


Post by: RocketPolarBear


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/12/30 10:15:22


Post by: Brother Payne


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2013/12/30 18:37:08


Post by: greyknight12


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).


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/01/12 05:00:11


Post by: 40KNobz11


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/01/13 10:24:43


Post by: Godeth


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/01/13 15:43:16


Post by: KalashnikovMarine


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?


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/01/28 22:31:34


Post by: hellrath


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/07/10 11:15:39


Post by: BiggestDakka


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/07/10 12:46:15


Post by: Gerst


Style!


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/07/11 14:51:03


Post by: Spaz431


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/07/20 21:56:57


Post by: Glorywarrior


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/08/11 19:42:16


Post by: Filch


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).


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/08/11 21:35:19


Post by: DukeBadham


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/08/11 21:41:38


Post by: RJCarrot


Style,

I feel dirty playing with unpainted minis.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/10/14 06:02:49


Post by: Knockagh


An army is just to expensive an investment for the look and feel of it to be dismissed. Not many people will fork out for an army and not get some element of joy out of the background and look of the army.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/10/17 04:16:41


Post by: StormKing


I'm not quite sure what is ment by substance? I voted style because well...Skaven models are the cats meow man.

I think substance you mean variety of models and ability to play most units? If that's the case I'd say I'm 50/50 lol


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/10/17 15:39:09


Post by: dusara217


KnuckleWolf wrote:


My Tau army has many small things to match modern day tactical things I've seen and heard of in documentaries. My Fire warrior squads are eight man teams, broken down into four, two man teams. The lead soldier of each pair has a carbine to provide suppressing flash-bang grenade salvos and fire, while his partner strikes with precision using his rifle to to hit distant threats. And no that doesn't work in game turns but I do it anyway!

lol. That is awesome, but i'm gonna have to go with substance. If I don't at least give my opponent a run for his money than my army of Fenrisian Wolves is just a big waste of time. But add some Thunderwolf Cavalry and a few other units, and my army of Space Wolves is an effective force that also happens to look good.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/10/23 22:04:43


Post by: pinkbunnies


Style. I have to *want* to put it on the table in the first place.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/10/23 22:51:04


Post by: Darkjim


Style - I'd rather my Tyranids had currently useless but very cool and fluffy scything talons, instead of yet more boring but very effective dakka.

Though the correct answer is Infinity, which gives both style and substance in pretty much every model


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2014/11/14 10:26:53


Post by: Solar Shock


 Flashman wrote:
Style every time. It has to look like an army i.e. a focus on troops rather than a random collection of vehicles / monsters.


Style, but the opposite of this^^

It has to look badass with a focus on badassness over everything. (but then im an ork modeller). I'll make and model units based upon whacky ideas of how i'd think they'd look and then i'll build my army to fit em all in.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2015/01/16 11:29:02


Post by: Januine


Style - every fething time!


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2015/01/16 14:15:50


Post by: benbo11


Style all the way


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2015/02/17 10:34:45


Post by: ChaosxVoid


Style all the way, I love the necrons background and how they look and their weapons just look cool.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2015/02/19 20:59:09


Post by: KingmanHighborn


Style and no spam as far as I can help it. I.E. 1 Helturkey, 1 Vendetta, Each Chimera equipped differently, etc. etc.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2015/09/30 10:11:05


Post by: Lithlandis Stormcrow


Style, even if unpainted yet.
However, some Redundancy is welcome, and I do find 3 Vindicators rather stylish, but ymmv


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2015/10/03 03:51:10


Post by: ZergSmasher


Style is king. Having a "cool" army is better than just taking the "flavor of the month" spam list.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2015/10/03 04:53:46


Post by: Delicate Swarm


I"d go with Style, but I don't view these things as mutually exclusive, since we're assuming Style=Aesthetic whereas Substance=Crunch.

I certainly want my stuff to look cool, but when i comes to playing games I want good rules. Prefering substance need not mean being a powergamer, or "flavor of the month". Rules that make a unit fun to use are beneficial to all. But I think as most people generally dislike losing all the time, well, "good rules" usually mean "powerful". I just personally find units that can actually accomplish something to be more interesting to use.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2016/01/05 10:51:37


Post by: Undead_Love-Machine


Style of course. I have no interest in owning models that don't look great.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2016/01/05 14:27:34


Post by: oldzoggy


I love how this adds up


-The majority chooses style
-Centurions and Dreadknights are considered ugly by the majority
--------------------------------------------+
All most everybody who is field and able to afford them owns and fields them


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2016/05/10 00:24:46


Post by: Chef_of_Cadia


I like for an army to look like it does in the paintings and the novels. Four MC and some Warriors in a Tyranid army aren't gonna work for me and I won't play with a power gamer. This is why I play Guard, because it's acceptable to make your army look cool and fluffy.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2016/05/10 15:49:23


Post by: Shadow Walker


Style. No point of having an army which I do not like to look at.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2016/08/12 10:42:20


Post by: Just Tony


Bit of a misnomer in the question asked.

When I CHOOSE an army, I go with style. Everything from aesthetic to theme to lore influences my decision on this, right down to whether a certain chapter/craftworld/kabal/whatever is more attractive to me.

When I BUILD the army ie. buying units for the army, I will get themed units, yes, but I'm also not going to ever run a gimped list because of fluff reasons. My Empire army, which I sold before it could see a lick of paint, and before half the models could be assembled, had 1 unit of Halberdiers and not a single handgun. It was themed off of the Grudgebringers from Dark Omen and Shadow of the Horned Rat. At the same time, even though there were no detachments in that game, you have to be a fool to bypass the severe benefits of the detachment system, so my list was built with the idea of a couple units being able to be split up as detachments for the main units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Style, even if unpainted yet.
However, some Redundancy is welcome, and I do find 3 Vindicators rather stylish, but ymmv


And here I thought I was the only one. If ever having young kids gets cheaper, that dream will become a reality


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2016/09/14 05:44:42


Post by: PondWater


Style, I always loved the kill team style of customization, and flying circus is basically kill team, but with big ol' daemons. Daemons also can have so much fluff and conversion ability, plus bringing nothing but spells and swords to a gunfight is pretty stylish!


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2016/10/14 10:48:10


Post by: acampbell


You've gotta get a balance, but style is more important to me than substance. But I wouldn't play a list that was designed to look good over one that was designed to destroy my enemies! Both can exist in happy equilibrium!


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2016/10/21 08:26:37


Post by: Cat_astrophe


Style. Otherwise, what is life?


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2017/04/20 12:31:12


Post by: Megaknob


style

if you pull out 9 grey rip tides I'm scooping up my army.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2017/10/26 10:37:54


Post by: Blackie


Style and aesthetics. Everything else doesn't matter.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2017/10/27 13:56:40


Post by: DANGEROUS DICK LONGFELLOW


100% style. Because life is too short to play with ugly plastic men.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2018/06/06 11:46:59


Post by: Andykp


Style all the way, that said I include fluff in the style section. Conversions and paint schemes all fit the fluff and the army tells a story.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2018/06/06 18:38:43


Post by: Archebius


I have to like how it looks before I'm interested in playing with it.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2018/07/07 20:00:59


Post by: That1Dud3


Is it wrong to want to play what wins? I mean looking good while doing it helps too.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2018/07/07 21:30:11


Post by: ValentineGames


Style.
I'd rather have the models I want instead of being forced into spamming predators like a lemming


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2018/07/07 23:06:38


Post by: Skullphoquer


Style is for pu***es,
it is all about substance.
Ok, i picked an faction for style.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2018/07/11 11:25:34


Post by: Ecclesiarch 616


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2018/08/04 19:36:05


Post by: battyrat


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:


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2018/10/10 19:25:52


Post by: darkcloak


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2018/10/12 01:40:28


Post by: Imhotep


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2018/12/12 13:13:10


Post by: Dashofpepper


 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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2018/12/12 14:53:48


Post by: greatbigtree


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2018/12/12 20:00:34


Post by: Insurgency Walker


 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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2018/12/14 01:24:05


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2019/05/17 21:47:38


Post by: Freeflow44


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!


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2020/04/28 16:55:02


Post by: Conservative Heretic


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2020/04/28 18:36:16


Post by: LunarSol


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2020/10/03 20:34:59


Post by: thegreatchimp


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...


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2020/10/03 21:11:04


Post by: aphyon


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2020/11/04 14:18:19


Post by: GamerGuy


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2020/12/12 14:41:33


Post by: TinyLegions


 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?


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2020/12/12 20:23:29


Post by: Jerram


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2021/06/11 13:22:15


Post by: Smotejob


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


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2024/02/18 13:55:22


Post by: bullisariuscowl


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.


When you build an army which is more important? @ 2024/02/18 21:09:51


Post by: Jaxmeister


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.