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.

What guides you when you are either buying a new army or modifying an existing army when a new codex comes out for it? Do you look first at the pics of the models and are like "Oh, those look so cool!" or do you scour the rules section, crunching numbers and options in order to make a "hard" list?

For me it is mostly about the models. I like converting stuff and once I am done building my cool new model, I then try and find rules that match the theme of the model. Or if there is an existing model that is cool and matches the theme of my army, then I take it, regardless of whether the rules suck or not.

For example, my demons are definitely model driven. They are all either pre-painted Undead minis from Rackham or D&D minis. I buy the minis that I visually like and that I think will go well with the visual theme I am aiming for and then I look for rules that best suit the model on the battlefield. Take the Gargantuan Orcus model, for example. Orcus, according to D&D, is a Demon Lord of the Undead. The model, to me anyway, is just awesome, and I knew I had to get one as soon as it came out. The model is as big or bigger than the Forgeworld Bloodthirster! Using the rules for a normal, smaller Bloodthirster just doesn't match up to the size of the actual Orcus model. Now the rules for An'ggrath on the other hand, fit it perfectly!

I didn't look at the Codex and look for all the possible combinations that would make a "hard" list. I simply bought 4 starter boxes of the Undead Rackham models and then tried to figure out what rules best matched the models, like using the rules for Plaguebearers for all the Skeleton models. This method results in a hodge-podge selection from the army list that, rule-wise doesn't seem to be coherent, but model wise and visually has a nice coherent theme to it.

So what is your driving force behind army selection? Do you take cool looking models because you like the way they look even though their rules might suck? Or do you look at rules first then buy the models based on how well they will perform on the table top? Or do you do a combination of both?

I try to stick to model driven army building. Often I end up playing with just what I have, and I try not to proxy.

But, I do tend to build theme driven armies. All troops, all mounted. made after some fictional or historical army. A good example would be my armord cav marine army, 2 preds, 4 razor backs, command squads in rhino's.

I may focus the armies towards a little more power if I feel its lacking, like switching my 2nd ed marine army away from characters and towards troops. Eventually focusing and eldar army away from aspect warriors to guardian squads and support weapons.

Currently I'm working on Orks. Initially I wanted to do all cult of speed with lots of bikes cause I like them so much. A few trucks a battle wagon or two. But, now I'm mostly focusing on foot troops, Big Meks and Kanz/dreads. I'm kind of up in the air and just building them as I go. I really fell for the models and now I've lost focus.

I imagine once I'm done with my orks I'll have solid units of Lootas, Rokit boyz, foot troops, battlwagons, dreads, kanz bikes etc...

Ill pick through and go with the models i like, but if there is a strong unit with poor models, ill convert.
Also like to try and add a theme into the army, so looks are pretty much everything.

For me 90% of the time its model driven. If i like the model the unit or the idea behinde the unit ill use it. Unless of course it is very very poor. Which I will just go with a counts as sorta thing. I play much more for fun and the social aspect of the game then the WAAC part of the game.

Definately a model driven gamer...however I do like to win, so I may buy and paint up a model/models but the model may not get used that much in tourney games.


GG

I picked my first and favorite army (Orks) mostly based on the fluff, actually.

Outside of that, I usually pick up new stuff based on models rather than rules. Which could explain the number of half-armies sitting on my shelf....

It usually starts with a model I particularly like.
Then I go looking for rules and build an army list.
And then I go through the models making sure there's no stinkers.
And no really expensive bits to make it WYSIWYG.
And not too boring to paint.

It takes me a while to design an army. Usually longer than building and painting it.

I'm mostly rules driven, in that I want to make sure that the model I'm picking up will work decently with my army. Of course, if it's pretty enough I'll often buy models that don't play nice just to paint.

I am model first then rules. I paint and model more then I play so I like collecting great looking figs. I must admit after reading all about the Imperial Guard Psyker battle squad I thought about having one in my army but the models are lame!! But I most likely will not use them in my army unless I convert my own models to look cooler. Nothing like a cool figure in the game and a bad model to rep him.

A bit of both, I'll compare model vs rules. I like the IG punisher as a wip but the weapon on paper makes me cry a little. So after buying a LR and basi I may start the quick kitbash but I typically wish-list a good while and decide what I feel I'll get a lot of use playing.

Well, for 40K, I suppose it's a little of both. I play Space Marines, Space Wolves, and (and getting into Blood Angels) because I like the story and the fluff behind them. I build on a theme (Drop Pods for Vanilla, Mechanized for Space Wolves and Blood Angels will be all Jump Packs) though that's more because I think the end result will look cool as opposed to trying to get any rules advantage. Though admittedly part of the mechanized SWs were to see why everyone says Mechanized is King in 5th ed. Pretty much the only unit I would never even consider taking would be Vanguard Veterans, because of the cost.

On the flip side, I really like Tau models, but I refuse to play them until they get a new codex, since I just perceive the current one as way to weak to justify the investment.

For Fantasy, the only army I like, and probably the only army I'll play are High Elves, once the starter box comes out in September. They're the only really "clean and crisp" army, which appeals to me more than the "Were medieval and we don't know what soap is" aesthetic of most other armies. I have the Army Book for the HEs, but I don;t know the Fantasy rules nearly well enough to crunch out a good list for them yet. So definitely a models based decision there.

Take from that what you will, I guess.

I am rules first, then models.

While I try to model to a high standard, for me, considering the cost models in this hobby, to get the most value from my models, I insist on being able to use them effectively in a game. i.e. If the model is cool looking, but has terrible rules - it doesn't represent good value to me, since once built, it will reside on the shelf for all eternity. Models with strong rules are pants, I can still fix them by converting them (which to me, is an enjoyable process), as having a good looking army is important too.

While this sort of paints me as WAAC... this is not really the case. Considering that I am already cursed with a negative probability field resulting in high quantities of 1's and 2's being rolled at all times... (True story, this past weekend, in Warmachine, I needed to roll 10 on 4D6 to win and I rolled a combined 7! On 4D6!!! 7 is average on 2D6... 11 is average on 3D6!!!!!!) So... I'd rather not handicap myself further by taking sub par units.

Definately models first. If I don't like the models I can't play them. Second comes playstyle. I am not so bothered about how powerful they are as long as I enjoy playing them. Rules do play a small part as I will shelf an army if they do become so broken it isn't fun anymore.

I would have to say im about 50/50, rules and fluff usually get me interested in the army, and the models seal the deal. How the army plays is important also...

Like i loved the daemons fluff and playstile, The models are really good too imo. However in 7th edition fantasy i didnt want to play them cause they are overpowered and cheesy.

Now that 8th edition is out and they got toned down im really looking forward to getting them!

Ouuuuu Shiny new models *Drools*
ya i like what looks cool

For my CSM (the army i first did on returning to the hobby) I litrally went through the book, choosing units I like that would make an interesting army, and pretty much stuck with atht untill i got bored of khorne's point and click, and began to experiment with new units.

Then the new book came out...

As for the daemon army I have, I had a theme, I bought the models, painted them, looked cool. Then I thought 'you know what I could really do with something like X in my army' got it played around a little, maybe then tried something else.

So that went from model driven to rules driven as the army evolved, though with the new releases, I couldn't immagine any of them breaking into my main list, but i like the models so they'll be there.

My Eldar Army I'm currently working on was different again. This time I had a play style I wanted, no rules in particular, but I wanted an army that would play differently to both of my other two, and that was what guided me on my choices. I've now just started playing with them, and hopefullly give them a game or two more and i'll get used to them, but i'm certain as i use them they'll change models will come in and models willgo

For me, I would say it was a combination of models and theme. I really like tanks, and the IG had a bunch, even under the 3rd ed. codex. Plus, I thematicaly identified with a bunch of poor bastards that were given laser guns and told go kill the scary space monsters!

this aint difficult in 40k

a beginner:

oh look! things! lets buy

an adequit understanding

okay. I'll give this one a plasma gun, cos it's cool.

The 'I know the game well.'

Oh! sword, or fist! Agh!

The experienced player.
He needs a sword. he needs a fist. hga!

The true experinece.

The combination of beatuifully painted models, an awesome storyline, and a semicompetitive army.

You'll find you have more fun during storymaking, and cracking little jokes and skits then actually playing the game!

you'll hear, 'it was a good game.'

an excelent game is difficult, challanging with a beautiful backbone.

it won't matter if your new or old, or even how good you are at the game. if you know how to enjoy storymaking, you've just captured the true purpose of these wargames, and RPG's in general.

Definately the models. But the utter blandness of the CSM dex made me explore. Explore a little too much however.