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 know there should be a balance between the backround or theme of your army and how it works in the game, but isn't it the army you have rather than the winning that makes it fun?

I'm just saying that if you had to make a choice between the theme of your army, like it being fully mechanised, and its chances of winning a game, then what would you choose?

I take the units I like the look or background of.
For instance, my under construction IG army will have quite a lot of infantry, whereas everybody seems to be going full mech for IG.

That being said though, if a certain unit consistently underperforms I won't hesitate to replace them with something else. No use putting yourself at a disadvantage from the off.

THEMES FOR THE THEME GOD!

on a more intelligent note: i do prefer themes over effectiveness - sure you could kick some ass with a gakload of hydras and chimera's filled with PBS but wheres the depth? that's why, im making an IG army list to represent the British SAS which are powerful, quick & in small numbers and all stealthy like.

so to answer your question, i believe theme is more important unless you definitely have to win (example some tournaments).

I would say theme (but that's only because I don't win!!!)

The OC-D

race wise, I play Eldar.... It's just "my" race, if you will.

However, I try to make an effective army, and then form a theme behind it. Not the other way around. For example, Elfzilla lists, could use an Iyanden background, with some backstory to your particular army... (How or why you/your HQ unit came into "control" of the army etc.)

Yeah.

Frankly, think of a theme, powerbuild to that theme as much as possible, write fluff from there.

And/or make a non-compettitive army with lots of shiny, and then a separate one for tourneys. They can share a lot of the models.

Nobody_Holme hit it dead on. Besides, it's more fun when your units actually win! I've run an Inquisitorial themed guard-ally unit that has been trounced a few times but I still had fun with it. Won once and that was freaking sweet!

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm just saying that if you had to make a choice between the theme of your army and its chances of winning a game, then what would you choose?

At some basic level I choose "effectiveness" in the sense that whatever I field will need to be at leastly playably competitive.

I don't need to be optimized, but I at least need a chance to Draw. Most of my bulk Troops fit in this category.

So if something is completely unplayable to the point of being an embarrassment (e.g. 90+pt Chimeras, 30+pt Ogryns, 16+pt Stormtroopers), then I won't waste my time on it, and it simply won't see the board.

OTOH, if something is at least playable and looks good, I may adjust my theme to incorporate them into my army. This is why I have 5 Dreadnoughts and a half-dozen Wraithlords.

Finally, if something is very highly-playable, to the point that I will likely field them in most games, I may convert something for play. My Leman Russes and Demolishers fit in this category.

Themed armies are cool, but you have to be honest with yourself. If you don't mind playing a suboptimal list in order to adhere to self imposed limitations because it makes you feel better to have people praise your cool theme, then go for it.

If consistently losing to optimized lists will bother you more than the good feeling you get when you are praised for your cool theme, then don't do it as you will just get frustrated.

This is what happened to me. I had an army I put so much time into making look awesome and to fit a theme, and then in practice I had great difficulty beating armies that were trimmed of all fat. Eventually I ditched the theme in order to optimize my list more.

So, just be honest with yourself about it. Some people are OK with losing to maintain a cool idea, some aren't.

I collect very large armies, so I can field most of my forces in both optimized and highly themed versions, and I do both from time to time. I enjoy playing a themed list, but really only to the extent that the list is at least reasonably competent and effective. For my Marines, I've been fielding tactical squads in razorbacks, sicarious, dreads and predators. It's pretty effective, fluffy as hell, and a lot of fun. I win about as much as I lose, and I struggle against top notch armies, but it works out. On the other hand, my all infantry IG simply became untenable in 5th. No ability to grab objectives, horrendous kill points, etc. all added up to making them simply not fun to play.

I think that's an important factor for some semi-competitive players like myself. I identify with my army, and I want to have fun playing them, but dammit, my guys are winners! When the war around them changes, they change with it. They get out of their trenches, requisition some melta guns, and get into Chimeras.

Hmmm, I saw a proposed eldar list a while ago.
Themed around stealth and Scorpions.

-Karandras (Pheonix Lord)
-2 Squads of Striking Scorpions
-2 Squads of Eldar Pathfinders.

The main weakness (as it was pointed out) is that it is severely lacking in its ability to take down medium-to-Heavy vehichles. But with a theme that cool, where your entire army can infiltrate, would you say it's a fair price?

Effectiveness.

I write Fan fiction and draw as well as animate when I want to create things. When I play warhammer I play to win.

simple really.

I think you really have to balance the two. If I wanted a stratagy game based around victory, I'd play chess (and I do).

On the other hand, an army that's all theme but has no field viability loses is ability to be fun very quickly. I don't mind losing, but getting trashed sucks.

I'd say a mix of both. As others have said, I won't use a unit that consistently sucks just because it looks cool. On the other hand, I don't tool my armies specifically around the most powerful build. For example my new Death Guard army is going to be exclusively Nurgle and non marked units. No last prince, no random other gods, not obliterators. Basically I do like to win but at the same time I don't want to field a completely "unrealistic" (if that term really even applies to a fantasy game) army. I also like not having the same force as everyone else. Customization is amazing....use it!

I have been playing games competitively for a while, so any list I craft up will have to be at least relatively competitive. But 40K has such wonderful fluff that theme would weigh into it significantly.

Probably end up 1/3 theme 2/3 effectiveness.

Mars.Techpriest wrote:I think you really have to balance the two. If I wanted a stratagy game based around victory, I'd play chess (and I do).

On the other hand, an army that's all theme but has no field viability loses is ability to be fun very quickly. I don't mind losing, but getting trashed sucks.

This post contains the same opinion I have. Well done sir.

If I had to chose between the two, I might go for effectiveness

It's very possible to incorperate both theme and effectiveness in to an army,but personaly I go with theme and work in the "effectiveness".
By the way,wasn't this covered a few weeks back in a "fluff or waac" thread?

I don't think there's any overarching theme that can't be horribly manhandled into fitting whatever ultra competitive army that you want it to.

For example, I'm building a Word Bearers Chaos list that's just a variant of Lash/Oblit spam.

My beef is with cookie-cutter lists. When people bring those to casual games at the FLGS, they try to justify it with really, really bad excuses. Come on, people, this is a fething friendly game! You don't play to beat the gak out of each other, you play to have fun.

When it comes to tournaments, I do build my armies to win. I find that I do just fine without any of the cheese filth cookie-cutter lists like Dual Lash/Oblit spam. I run a horde CC Ork list that works just fine. Thanks to some Grots, Ghazghull, and sheer numbers, I can avoid a lot of casualties. My non-mechanised IG do fine as well. My only models in transports are Psyker squads and Command/Platoon Command squads (for the increased order range). Say hello to 100+ lasgun shots per turn.

Insert obligatory objection that competitive games can be just as fun to many people as gamers where two people trying their hardest to lose.

haven't seen that 'fluff or waac' one...sorry. (look sheepish)

Cheese Elemental wrote:My beef is with cookie-cutter lists. When people bring those to casual games at the FLGS, they try to justify it with really, really bad excuses. Come on, people, this is a fething friendly game! You don't play to beat the gak out of each other, you play to have fun.

When it comes to tournaments, I do build my armies to win. I find that I do just fine without any of the cheese filth cookie-cutter lists like Dual Lash/Oblit spam. I run a horde CC Ork list that works just fine. Thanks to some Grots, Ghazghull, and sheer numbers, I can avoid a lot of casualties. My non-mechanised IG do fine as well. My only models in transports are Psyker squads and Command/Platoon Command squads (for the increased order range). Say hello to 100+ lasgun shots per turn.

Quoted because your sentiments are made of win. Also, I agree.

I play what I have fun playing. Some days its a strong list. Some days its a theme list.

Theme for me - my primary army is a footslogging Nurgle Death Guard force. Over time, depending on the rules edition its effectiveness has waxed and waned, but I'm still fielding those original seven squads of seven!

Both!

1.) I try to build and experiment with a tough competitive list that works and fits within my play style. I'll tweak it and experiment with friends. It's serious business.

But...

2.) Most friendly games I always try to throw at least one of the more colorful units in there and really relish some of the goofiness that is the Orks! I also try to use all of the Codex over three or four games, never throwing the same list or combination of units out there twice. It helps me know my codex and how my units will perform, which feeds directly into #1. That and I love it when people give me that, "That's really in your codex?" followed by the "F-ing Orks" look. Priceless!

I use a mix of A and B, I like to use units I love and everyone else hates (Biovores), but as said above if a unit underperforms swap it.....but think about why it underperformed.....bad deployment? target of terminator deepstrike? hit in cc by wraithlord? Not always is a unit junk it depends on the battle and the players.

Pretty much entirely theme for me.

The problem with everyone playing 'optimised' lists is that you really limit the sort of armies you see. How boring does the metagame get when EVERY chaos armuy is dual lash and EVERY guard army is mechanised?

I also think that it might just take you a while to learn how to win with an unoptimised list. I play with a lot of army lists that are ridiculously uncompetitive, but playing with them for a while I can usually figure out HOW to win with them.

By the way,wasn't this covered a few weeks back in a "fluff or waac" thread?

This is a topic as old as the game, trust me, its come up many more times than that.