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.

I wanted to make a poll because votting is awesome. While this is similar to some other threads I didn't see anything recent on this specific subjuct so I thought I would see what opinions are out there.


How do you choose your armies (for 40k, WHFB or any other game you might play)? Is you choice based on fluff, or the army that looks the best or perhaps the army you think you can play the best even if its not your favorite? Or maybe its some other reason entirely, like you simply built your army based on the first figures you were given or because it was the army your friend wanted you to play. Let me know why you choose the army you play.


I'll ask that we try not to get into it over which choice is 'better' (i.e. saying someone is a bad sport for only choosing an army because it is considered OP etc...)

Fluff, followed by looks.

If i was a powergamer i would armyhop marine codexes.

I play necrons and orks (with a tiny Dark Eldar force for the slinky models )

I'm a big fan of the fluff. My gaming club just finished up a campaign and are moving into the next one in 2012 and I am putting together the IG PDF for the planet we are fighting on. There whole background is being created based on what happened (and will happen) in the campaign. All my armies have similarly rich backgrounds.

I collect orks. I like the models and the fluff.

This means I usually build my lists as 'ard as I can given I am still using orks. Sometimes I compromise statistically superior for models I want to use (like taking a megaboss instead of Ghaz) but I accept any disadvantage that gives me.

I have no interest in commanding any other race of models.

It's all about the fluff.

I choose fluff. Although looks definetly play into army choice, as you'll be looking at them a long time. And they'd be more fun to paint.

I'm quite shallow so its all about the looks

All my armies and miniatures do need to look cool even if they preform badly.

I am certainly about the looks myself. My favorite army is Bretonians for WHFB because they are by far the prettiest.

I have stuck with space Marines since I started collecting 40k stuff because I have always preferred their look. I think I have to admit that the dreds are what keep me hooked. An army built around a couple dreds just looks bad a** in my book.


*edit* Haha! I promise I did not intentionally rhyme those last 3 sentences

Fluff is the primary factor for me. If I don't like the fluff than I really cannot get into an army.

Multiple, but also Power!

Looks. And a whole lot of "is my army mainstream or not?". I don't like encoutering players with the same army as me, because they always try to make me play their way. Their way is often the ridiculous OP spam way seen in tournies, which I specifically don't play because I don't like them.

Fluff and then look, although I also try to set up a challenging build in the mix as well. I am often aware of the better units in a army list, and apart from the odd time they are so danged ugly I can't bring myself to field them, I'll often squeeze them in.

Although to be fair, I often make up my fluff after the intial army is going together, so anything like power units that might not always fit if I did my fluff first, can be explained in my background.

Another vote for Fluff, followed (by a long way) by looks.

It's a complex decision, but I'd have to say looks are at the forefront for me. If I don't have an awe-inspiring fully completed force to look forward to, there is just no drive for me to collect/build/paint anything. One thing that keeps me driven working on my Daemons is the in-game image of a psychotic rainbow of color rushing from all directions toward its prey. Seeing the reds, blues, purples, and greens all working together is a beautiful sight--especially when contrasted with the generally more straight-laced/buttoned-down paint schemes of other armies.

Another part of the decision is how much a new army will differ from what I'm already playing. I picked up Daemons because my Necrons were my sturdy long-range army (presumably they will continue to be so) and I wanted something that would excel in assault. And once I've got my 'rock' (Necrons) and 'scissors' (Daemons) completed, I guess I'll start having to look for a 'paper' (DE? Orks? ..?).

um... Necrons are long range? Since when

Longer than Daemons, true, but what isn't

I'm almost done painting my necrons, and it's been a long long slog. If i hadn't loved the fluff and the look of them on the table i'd never have painted them decently, just spraypainted them with chrome krylon..

Necrons aren't longest-range (I mean, I know their guns only reach 36"), but I think it's fairly obvious they're meant to be played at range. I haven't played with my Necrons much since 2005, but at that time I always tried to keep them 2-3' from the enemy. Constantly shooting, always keeping out of assault range. This strategy probably worked a lot better back then, when Gauss glancing hits could accomplish big things. But I mean..even now, do you really want to be getting into assault range with the bulk of your I2 army? No. That's far enough away to qualify as "long-range" in my book.

How about the 'feel' of an army? I picked up guard not just for the models (which I love), or its power (which I knew was quite strong), or its fluff (cause I am a human too!), but rather for the whole package and the way it 'feels' when I play any list. The unit selection, the way they interact with one another, the list building possibilities. Everything. An army like Tau felt too one-dimensional for my tastes.

I chose [I play several armies, all chosen for different reasons]. Followed by Fluff.

I have Orks because the army has many goofy options which can be a lot of fun to use and you can also select more reliable unit. IE the SaG, Wierdboyz and Looted Wagon. They can be devistating if you get lucky or hurt your own army if you get unlucky.

Appearance, doesn't matter if it is coolest models imo (eldar) or opportunity to convert stuff up (chaos).

Looks, Fluff, then power.

If you don't like the visual of an army, then you're probably never going to be truly happy with them, especially in a minuatures based game where visuals play such a huge role.

I genearlly pick an army based on how I like its looks, then fit the list to be as strong as possible within the confines of the fluff with units I like visuals off. Sometimes this works wonderfully, as with 5E Mech IG, sometimes it doesn't as with 4E Mech IG.

I like the look of the army, but that's often reflected in the fluff.

Fluff. I'm a human. Call me a racist if you like, but I like playing humans. (Of some derivation or another...)

When I played WHFB and 40K I always picked my army by look because of the sheer volume of minis involved I figured it was better not to get bored of looking at the things.

As time passed and the latest edition of 40k crept into my gaming group, I started to base my armies around power level because I was tired of losing with cool and fluffy armies against 14 rifleman dreads.

Now that I've moved on to PP games, I am back to choosing my armies and units based on looks. This is slightly problematic because I've found numerous models in every faction that I love. They are just fantastic to paint because they are not covered in doodads and accessories.

A mix of looks and fluff. If I don't like how the army looks, I probably would get too annoyed with it eventually. The same goes for fluff.

Power level is the last on my mind, but I'll generally try to build the biggest and baddest army list that includes only miniatures I like, because while having fun is important, losing is not always fun.

I couldn't give two hoots about play ability, it really is about what I think would be fun to paint.

The look of the models.

It's why I'll often take what others consider 'sub-optimal' choices because I prefer those models.

If I'm not going to collect the army based on looks, I may as well be playing with counters if only the fluff or rules are what sway me.

Looks first. Fluff second.

I've done all four and in the following order.

I chose Orks because of modeling oppertunites.
I chose Tau because of looks
I chose Chaos because of a mix of Power and looks (go Emperor's children).
I chose SW because of background (the only SM chapter I have ever even considered playing)

I play the army that is least popular.


Right now I am playing tyranids, SoB