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.

Depends. Though I will lean heavily towards aesthetics and lore over rules.

I'll pick an army based on a whole plethora of things, be it a paint style and/or scheme I've not done, a thing in the background I like or simply how it plays, though that part is a consideration, it is not a large part of the hobby pie.

Even going back to my very first (proper) army, I picked it based on looks. The 2nd ed Legion of the Damned box had just been released and I got them? Why? Because they looked cool and a friend said not to get them as they were hard to paint, so stubborn me goes and gets them to prove a point. Lo and behold they actually get an army list in WD the same month, so... excellent I guess!

Space Wolves were next, and TBH it was a toss up between them and Dark Angels. Go into my local GW and find out they are having a sale as this was the clearout of all of the old style boxes etc. to make way for 3rd ed. My paper round money gets stretched very far with a small force of Ragnar, WG Termies, GHs and BCs to start off.

Eldar came next, as I got them for Christmas. Bought into them as I loved the background and they were different from everything else I had. Went with a essentially a blue Alaitoc scheme made from watered down midnight blue over a white undercoat. I thought it looked cool. Most of my Eldar followed a similar painting scheme. Yes, I was using contrasts (apparently) 20 years before they were a thing...

Did CSM next, because they looked cool and I found some for cheap in a random comic shop. Didn't really do them properly and just bought random stuff. Had a bit of a dabble with WE in the middle of it, but a lot of them got repainted into DG and that got cemented when they got their Index Astartes article in WD.

Did IG, solely because the plastic Catachans came out at Games Day. Picked up a box and that was that. Never really made a large force though, due to how our store did games on Saturdays where you had big group games with each person having one or two squads and a character.

Did Necrons just to be different (and because I got a load of the metals for cheap). Dead easy scheme and I was the only guy playing them. I liked the feeling of being a wargaming hipster with only a WD list for my army. This will be a running theme for some lists of this period.

I think I had my DG mk2 around this time when the IA article came out. This was the start of a beautiful friendship with papa Nurgle. One of the main draws was the conversion opportunities, even if some were a bit sloppy.

Dabbled with Orks, though I never really got a proper army of them. Loads of infantry and a looted Land Raider too.

Did Iyanden Eldar solely because I didn't have a yellow army and Wraiith units were cool. A lot of this force was cannibalised from the previous Eldar army.

Kroot got their WD list, so I had to give them a go for the conversions. I feel this army is the genesis of how I picked all other armies going forward, if it has good modelling opportunities, I'm in. It was a small force, only 1000pts or so but I loved to use it. Had a Master Shaper made from the Dark Emissary mini and various other things. The scheme was another odd one that was influenced by the rules. I chose Ork Hybrids, as it was the best trait- so they had to be green. But goblin green was boring. Time to use a colour that truly lived up to its name. Vile green. The colour was terrible until you toned it down with chestnut ink, but when you did... *chef's kiss!*
I retired the force after other gamers kept making daisy chains out of the dead Kroot. I am not making this up. Hated them doing that.

Next force was bought all in one go as I had a proper job. 1000pts of Cursed Founding Flame Falcons. They were a complete blank slate, no scheme. Nothing. time to go nuts. Got a fair few of the Chaos Tzeentchian minis to make the HQs (Commander was made from the Tzeentch champ on disc, minus the disc; with a few marine bits added). Every single model had flames sculpted on them and the special unit, called Abominations was made from a mix of SM parts and Tzeentch Flamers. Painted them in a dirty yellow scheme with white pads with a black trim. Loved this list, as it was a bit of challenge to play with the SMs lacking ATSKNF.

Next I had a Blood Pact list that was cannibalised from the IG minis I had. All of these were converted as well, with each having their Grotesque helmet made from CSM accessory sprues.

Went to uni, so it was time for expanding other armies like my SWs. Many of the above armies were sold or cannibalised to make others as I was a poor student.

Made a Nurgle LATD force in my 2nd year. Was drawn to it as it was a Chaos force of the dregs and the conversions it presented. I sold the force later on as, although it was okay; the rules did not favour them. Losing a whole unit of Big Mutants to a sweeping advance was a bit of a bummer.

Bought a DE Wych Cult force in my 3rd year based on two criteria- firstly, GW had made a spray paint called Ogre Flesh (for the OK release) and the rules. DE were in this weird spot at this point where everyone (including GW sometimes) forgot they existed. You could be wily and use this opponent's unfamiliarity with the army to your advantage. And I did. Now, I don't want this to be misconstrued as "cheating" or whatever, but that was genuinely a draw of DE for some people around that time. Players were a bit ignorant of what they could do and using them was a bit of a test of skill, which I can attest do as the army either won big or got slaughtered.

Next I did Necrons again, though with the then current range. The decision to do them was largely influenced by finding a full case of them for sale in a local FLGS.

5th ed rolled around and it was time for some propa Orks! From here on out (with two exceptions) these are all the armies I currently own. Everything else was sold off to finance other projects etc.
Orks were in the starter, so they had to be done. Always wanted to do a force of them so I did. The conversions once again drew me in with my bitz box getting a good workout. The AOBR Nobz were made into Flash Gitz, had a huge Battlewagon made from a Rhino stretched out with a deffrolla made from Lego wheels.

Next up was Chaos Daemons. I chose Khorne because I wanted to be a bit unsubtle (plus I had Nurgle Daemons already for WHFB). The decision for Khorne was largely that and the fact I did a Skarbrand conversion out of a LOTR Balrog with a pair of Netheraxes from Heresy minis. Dude needed an army to go with him so here we are.

Space Wolves got their 5th ed codex so it was time for a revamp of that army.

Built a Blood Angel army when their book came out. Converted a Storm Raven from a Valkyrie as well. This force was built for several reasons, but I'll be honest and say the rules were no one of them, even though they were Marines +1 in 5th. Sold them as I had to finance moving to a new apartment.

Then came the 3rd iteration of my DG. This I one army I truly regret selling. Did these guys because my local store was running a "Summer of War" thing were you'd build your army month by month. Did DG as I will always be enamoured with all things Nurgle and I wanted to see how far my bitz box would stretch. Loved this army, though it certainly wasn't for the rules, which was circa 4th ed CSMs, a codex that was so bland and boring, if it was a spice it would be flour...
Foolishly sold this force as I was trimming the fat thinking I wouldn't get back into 40k. Though the sale did finance a sizeable Khador force for WMH.

In between this had a bit of a stillborn DE force. All I have for it is a few Haemonculi, 2 warrior squads and a Lady Malys conversion. Chosen because I liked the fluff for the aforementioned Lady.

Then we have my Tau. Built for two reasons. 1, because I loved the background for the Farsight Enclaves and 2, because I have a friend who used to work for GW; who when they were about to take the "buy product by weight" perk away from them bought loads and load of Crisis suits, as they were 50p each. I bought 10 off of him for £50 (far far cheaper than GW) and got the core of my army. This was also built circa 5th ed with the scheme being inspired by Iron Man.

Then I took a break from GW stuff as 6th was rubbish and 7th doubled down on the stupid.

Which leads us to today, with my DG; which is the 4th iteration of them if you have been keeping tack with my ramblings. These are a labour of love and as soon as I saw the 8th starter had them I was in again. The army is now huge and I pick smaller lists from it that are largely based on what looks cool, but also taking performance into consideration.

Lore, and the interaction of it and it's representation within rules.

Which is preciscly why i switched around from Orkzs to Chaos Marines to R&H.

Gw seems to hate customizable and adabtable rules, especially for chaos....

The Harlequins weren't my first choice for an Eldar faction, but they were surprisingly good as a kill team. Looking ahead to 40K they have a lot of advantages regarding rules, maintainence model count and price. I'm looking forward to jumping in with the 9th edition codex.

Model wise I didn't go much on the Harles but they grew on me. Pleasantly the lore was in harmony with their rules - especially when it came to the Psychic Awakening.

So yes, rules were first and the lore was the icing on the cake.

I started by wanting one army for each of the Super factions (Imperium/Chaos/Xenos).
Admech was the army that caught my eye and that no one else was playing at my LGS.
Then i wanted something that played faster so i went for drukhari.
Then i wanted something with psychic capabilities so i went for thousand sons.

After that i've been going after whatever i find looks good. (Eldar, Quins, Night lords, Demons)

Mainly the background and models.
Although I suppose the rules did in a high level sort of way, as I knew I wanted horde of doughty warriors.

It's a mixture of army concept, aesthetics and playstyle for me.

Typically, it's that if one of these things doesn't interest me, the army's a dud for me. I hate static or predictable armies, which disqualifies basically any 'all melee' or 'all shooting' army like Tau, Khorne, Primaris, etc. I also really dislike lots of huge models, which means monster mash and knight armies are generally out.

Then there's army concept of do I find their shtick interesting. This generally disqualifies Guard, straightforward 'we are the spiky marines' chaos marines, khorne and nurgle

And then there's "do I want to paint this thing/paint this paint scheme" This mostly disqualifies anything that's just brown, muted, camo patterned, gray, etc. So nurgle, guard again, etc.

That leaves me with a whoooooooole lot of armies I can find stuff to love about.

Which is...how we got to where we are now, isn't it.

It's a combination of models and lore.

Models help me pick the army. Lore helps me build it.

I may tweak based on rules if I have to, but usually what I try to do is bend the rules to the service of the lore. An example of this is detachment structures; I like using these to tell stories; my Holy Sisters, for example, do NOT share detachment space with Penitent troops. My Arcos, Repentia and Mortifiers are kept separate from the Holey Sisters, lest they contaminate their kin.

I'm a big Inquisition fan too, and as Imperial Agents, their detachment structures are even more narratively complex.

Even before Crusade, I often made my armies fight missions to earn their relics, and I frequently add purity seals to models who perform well in a given battle. A few of my characters have received promotions based on game performance; this is now easier to reflect with models as most plastics allow head swaps.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Simple question: When you choose to start a new army, do you make the decision of which army it will be based on your love of its lore, playstyle, look, etc, or do you choose it because of how strong its rules are?

Secondary question: If you choose your army based on its lore, do you try to use units that fit that lore, even if they aren't the best available to it?

Lore & look are the most important to me. I make fan lore behind all my armies, and I certainly spend more time looking at them than playing. But there are a LOT of armies I like the L&L for, so play style is also an important factor. As for rules, I run less-optimal builds to fit with fluff/preference. Though if the units I want to run are really bad then that can cause me to avoid them, or avoid starting that force. Equally, if an army is really overpowered I will avoid it, and for the same reason. I HATE showing up to a game knowing the result has already been determined before deployment. Though fortunately too-strong stuff can be mitigated by self-handicap so there's some leeway there.

Lots of great answers! Love how most people consider the lore and look of their armies before rules when choosing them.

For my part, I chose Night Lords when I started in 3rd because I loved how not only did they hate the Imperium and its "Corpse God" but refused to worship any of the Chaos Gods as well. And the paint scheme of the "Metallica Marines" appealed to a metal head like me (if you don't get the reference, just look at the cover of Ride the Lightning, then look at a Night Lord, nuff said). And I'd never trade my Legion vehicles for something more "competitive", even if they suck up all of my CP now.

Later, I started R&H, because how I could create an army that fit my own personal headcannon for them with the customizable rules in IA 13. I went with a force of elite mercenaries using the Bloody Handed Reaver demagogue devotion. Lots of grenadiers, Chimeras and Valkyries, because I wanted a fast, quick strike force, whether it was competitive or not. My own spiky A Team or Wild Geese.

I picked up space wolves for the Lore and Aesthetics. I really wanted to start a space marine army, and after reading Burning of Prospero/ Thousand Sons I was sold on the wolves (white scars and Iron Hands were on my shortlist, but this was three years ago before the suppliments). I really love the Saga and hunt for glory aspect to them, very thematic force.

my other 40k army, Harlequins I bought purely because of the models. I picked up the plastic kits when they first released with the collectors codex and built my army week by week as the pre-orders came out. Gameplay wise, I lost more games than I one for the past five years, but now they are finally getting their time in the sun lol.

When I first started I picked 1ksons because always play caster architypes in games. 1ksons turned out to be one of the worse options in an army that was already not in a great place so I fiddled around with other armies for a while. Then near the end of 7th 1ksons got a new model done up and a shiney new Primarch model so I dove back in.

It's complicated? Like, I'm generally initially drawn to a game because of models that catch my eye and then I look into the game's rules to see if they are interesting and then I see if I like the style of the faction of the models that caught my eye and see if I get into the lore and then I see if the playstyle is something I'd like and then if none of that lines up I buy it anyway because I want an army with those models.

I play Mordians. Definitely fluff/models over rules in my case.

Deathwing: Space Hulk and its expansions were the first GW games I played, and I loved Terminator models

Eldar ( waaay back before they were Asyriani or whatever ): Very simply, the first White Dwarf I ever bought (because of Space Crusade rules no less) had a picture in the Eavy Metal section of something called a "Banshee Class Eldar Dreadnought" which apparently whippersnappers these days call a "Wraithlord". It was the most beautiful, gangly weird looking thing so I endeavored to find out more about them. This led me to Jes Goodwin's concept art in the 40k compilation and well...anyone who has seen that knows.

Tyranids: While my Eldar army was all about jetbikes (Saim Hann) My absolute favourite part of the 40k background very quickly became the story of Iyanden so it was only a matter of time really. Finally got around to them when the plastic Gargoyle box was released (wanna say circa 5th?) and have been merrily munching my way through the galaxy with Kraken (obviously) ever since.

As you can probably tell by my having started Tyranids with the "££$£&&%^% awful 5th ed codex, rules have never ever been a consideration. I would rank Look of models very slighty higher than fluff in importance.

One of these days we will get Noise Marines that I can bear to look at in any way and I'll jump into chaos too.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Simple question: When you choose to start a new army, do you make the decision of which army it will be based on your love of its lore, playstyle, look, etc, or do you choose it because of how strong its rules are?

Secondary question: If you choose your army based on its lore, do you try to use units that fit that lore, even if they aren't the best available to it?

Both.

In order to play a faction at all, I have to like the models and the playstyle dynamic.

Subtraction is usually rules based though. I play different subfactions/subfaction combos pretty regularly until I settle into one that's working.

I chose both Dark Angels and Eldar because of their awesome lore, cool models, and supposed play styles. I chose Eldar as my primary, but 5th edition came along, so I (already) needed a new rulebook, and picked up Assault on Black Reach to get more for my money, and because SM were allegedly an "easy" army to learn- because 40k has a learning curve, or something.

Sadly, I didn't know much about the rules of 40k before I bought in....

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Simple question: When you choose to start a new army, do you make the decision of which army it will be based on your love of its lore, playstyle, look, etc, or do you choose it because of how strong its rules are?

Secondary question: If you choose your army based on its lore, do you try to use units that fit that lore, even if they aren't the best available to it?

1. I choose based on several factors: model range (including conversion potential from other ranges), depth of the current books rules/ playstyle options probably being the biggest two.
Lore isn't a big deciding factor because I like to put my own twist on things anyway. Add to that I genuinely like at least some of each factions existing lore.
And lastly I suppose power plays a factor in that I won't pick up a trash tier army without a concept I feel will be very sound and enjoyable (since these armies typically have very limited viable builds). But otherwise power isn't a big deal to me since I enjoy the middle tables and casual play most of all.

2. I do enjoy fluffy units, but I like to stretch the definition a bit. For example I currently run 2x5 chosen in my alpha legion. They aren't top tier but not bottom either and have great synergy in XX legion. perfect unit IMO since they are flexible and have modeling and unit customizing potential. On the other end is the sniper lord. A fluffy include that I would prefer to run as infantry since I feel that best represents a sniper. However this halves the weapons' effectiveness so I stretch this into either a terminator lord or a biker lord to maximize the weapon.

Brutus_Apex wrote:Always models and lore. Never rules.

Thats the rules

Never a bad thing

chromedog wrote:Neither.
I chose based on the models. Aesthetics.

There wasn't so much lore when I got into 40k back in RT.
I preferred the look of the Eldar to the orks or marines - and tbh, the chaos stuff was waaaaay too comic-book-badguy.

same here but I chose Salamanders; green(check), fire(check), likes to make weapons(check) = easy choice.
then I saw Squat bikes/trikes in a WD & said "ummmm coolest thing ever" My biker gang was born.
cut to 25yrs later I get back into 40k after the Squattening.
Admech fully released; cybernetic "humans"(check), big piloted suits of knightly armour(check), body horror(check) = easy choice
New Chaos sculpts; look like the art(check), interesting new units(check) = easy choice
Sororitas in plastic, I don't even feel the need to explain this one.

Lore obviously, the rules for DKoK are horrible now

Lore is important to me but so are rules. Not powerwise mind you, but an army has to feel right to play. It was why I made the switch from Orks to Death Guard. Ork fluff is amazing and fun but gameplay wise it wasn't clicking for me, then I found DG and I'm in love ever since.
Which is why I'd actually argue against some posters here saying you should collect what you like the look of. I'd agree to an extent but it depends a lot on what you want out of the hobby. For me, I actually dislike the whole diseased/mutated look of my army but it is gameplay that I'm here for so I say: find an army you like the playstyle of first and foremost if you prefer the gaming aspect most of all.

Always choose subfaction based on rules. When you're making Your Dudes, you can make them fit into a subfaction that isn't awful.

My two most recent armies...

Tau: I like the look of the battlesuit models, and found there was a good price on used Tau models in my area. I also don’t mind the Infantry. So I was happy to buy into the models I liked, figure out a decent list to use them in... painted them in a Blue and Orange scheme (similar to Sa’Cea Sub-Faction) and I use the Tau sub-Faction Rules so far, because they play very well in 9th edition scenarios.

Chaos SM: My very first 40k army was Chaos SM. I got into them for the (2nd edition) Chaos Terminators, Abbadon, and Dreadnoughts. I recently found an ancient metal Dreadsock-style Dread, new in Box. It was inexpensive, so I bought it... and put feelers out for more (Old) Dreads and Terminators. I’ve bought a used Land Raider, got a pile of the old Abby models for converting into Termie Sergeants... a bunch of Metal Termies, 3 Dreads and am planning to get a Termie Sorcerer and the new Abby model.

They’ll be Black Legion Rules by necessity to use Abby. I’ll probably paint them in normal-ish Black Legion colours because that’s an easy scheme to whip off quickly. It truly is a nostalgia project more than anything.

 Castozor wrote:
Lore is important to me but so are rules. Not powerwise mind you, but an army has to feel right to play. It was why I made the switch from Orks to Death Guard. Ork fluff is amazing and fun but gameplay wise it wasn't clicking for me, then I found DG and I'm in love ever since.
Which is why I'd actually argue against some posters here saying you should collect what you like the look of. I'd agree to an extent but it depends a lot on what you want out of the hobby. For me, I actually dislike the whole diseased/mutated look of my army but it is gameplay that I'm here for so I say: find an army you like the playstyle of first and foremost if you prefer the gaming aspect most of all.

You do have a point. I've thought about collecting Eldar (even been feeling the bug lately, thankfully there is Dawn of War), but the range of a majority of their weapons is absolutely idiotic for a dying race to have. One would think they would have figured out how to get Guardians to be as accurate at range as Dire Avengers, at least.

I play Space Wolves for the lore. I like the concept of the Norse warrior culture based Space Marines.

As for if I play fluffy units or not I guess that depends. I like units that fit the original fluff. I don't care for Wulfen. I liked the fluff more when 'The Mark of the Wulfen' was more like the guy was a crazy berserker, not a literal werewolf. I think Thunderwolves as a concept are stupid. But I like the way they look so I do use them.

I play Guard for the lore. But my Guard armies are far more Basic usually. A platoon of men with some tanks and arty backing them up. Hard to make that not fit the fluff.

I don't really play t'au or eldar any more.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
Lore is important to me but so are rules. Not powerwise mind you, but an army has to feel right to play. It was why I made the switch from Orks to Death Guard. Ork fluff is amazing and fun but gameplay wise it wasn't clicking for me, then I found DG and I'm in love ever since.
Which is why I'd actually argue against some posters here saying you should collect what you like the look of. I'd agree to an extent but it depends a lot on what you want out of the hobby. For me, I actually dislike the whole diseased/mutated look of my army but it is gameplay that I'm here for so I say: find an army you like the playstyle of first and foremost if you prefer the gaming aspect most of all.

You do have a point. I've thought about collecting Eldar (even been feeling the bug lately, thankfully there is Dawn of War), but the range of a majority of their weapons is absolutely idiotic for a dying race to have. One would think they would have figured out how to get Guardians to be as accurate at range as Dire Avengers, at least.

You just wouldn't send guardians to the battlefield full stop lore wise..
Rangers maybe. They make sense. Can set up using web way, shoot out of safe distance while being nearly invisible and in theory should be able to evac via webway.

Even most of the aspect warriors seem a bit of a stretch in terms of combat potential vs value of eldar souls...
I'm really surprised there isint a range of wraith automata/ drones. But this has been talked about on an old thread previously.

Weirdly enough the current mechanised eldar play style with lots grav tanks/vehicles seem to be the most logical (but fluffy because reasons) to me ironically.

I chose Orks for the models and conversion capacity. Never looked at the rules before going for it.

Bit of both, really.

For me, there has to be a mix of cool background (to catch and hold my interest), and the rules, ideally, should at least partially reflect said background.

Example?

I kinda like Nids, but have never felt it possible to write a list which reflects them as described in the background - bugs of all sizes, a chittering tidal wave of chitin and claw.

Goblins? Described as innumerable Gobbos, alongside Trolls and insane artillery pieces. Yes, I can make that form of army!

I'm very much models and lore over rules.

I started playing again back at the start of 6th edition, and went with Khorne-worshipping CSMs (now formally identified as World Eaters) based very much on the look of them and the lore. You didn't pick Khorne CSMs back then for their rules!

Likewise towards the end of 7th edition I started collecting DE as an alternate army; which was again down to just how damn cool the models are, and the notion of playing evil BDSM space pirates... Likewise, DE in 7th was not really a rational choice based on their rules...

Finally, I'm now building up the Space Marine side of the Indomitus box as Salamanders - which are slightly for me but mainly for my youngest son. I can honestly say that I chose them based on the cool green + flames colour scheme, and it was a very happy coincidence to discover that they're powerful!

Lol when I first began, I collected Dark Angels and only did because green was my favourite colour, but I later began to love their lore. Then Eldar, mostly because I liked that the Exarchs (and I'm not kidding) had higher initiative and WS and BS over the troops they led. But again, later really began to enjoy their fluff.

Now, it's Inquisition and most definitely because of their lore, especially that from the Dark Heresy TTRPG, the Eisenhorn Trilogy the Ravenor Trilogy. I love the diversity of methodologies and philosophies and how complex and full of intrigue and nuance. It's quite awesome.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Always models and lore. Never rules.

Thats the rules

Always this.