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.

Just wondered what made you guys decide to start a particular army? the fluff in the codex/armybook the models accompanying novels ?
For me its been models that have made me want to start collecting a particular army. My DE army was started by a love of the some of the models in particular the latest cold one knights. Dont really jump on the bandwagon for "OMG this new army is so powerfull i must have it"
At the moment i am considering starting a Skaven army purely because the models and fluff really appeal to me.
Just wondered what you others go for when you decide "i want army xxxxx"(xxx not being of the adult variety )

Fluff and the miniatures attract me to an army, gameplay or flavour of the month have no bearing really.

Tanks, flak armour, unshaven chins.

Models.

Cool rules (not necessarily overpowered).

Concepts.

Not necessarily in that order.

For example:

(Each faction lists the order of things from most to least important).

Alaitoc Eldar > Concepts, Models, Rules

Grey Knights > Models, Concepts, Rules

Harlequins > Models, Concepts, Rules

Menoth > Models, Concepts, Rules

Trollbloods >Rules, Concepts, Models

Retribution of Scyrah > Models, Concepts, Rules

Khador > Models, Rules, Concepts

Cygnar > Models, Concepts, Rules

Cryx > Rules, Concepts, Models

Legion of Everblight > Concepts, Rules, Models

models seem to be it so far although as i have an unshaven chin i shall make sure to be careful around brookm so as not to give him the wrong ideas

Moar tanks!

And what their respective spaceships look like.

I think all the armies have cool models. I think the fluff behind them all is cool enough too except for D.E. and Chaos who seem like poorly thought out 'evil for evil's sake' kind of motivations under a thin veil of necessity for the D.E. but when it comes down to it, did you need to dress like that to ward off Slaanesh too buddy? The rest of them have solid cool backgrounds and all of them have nice figures.
The rules is where it gets me. I was a long-time Magic The Gathering player and I got so tired of the flavor-of-the-month power play that went on with that game. I played in many D&D games too that were always compromised by that one (or more) player that never got the concept of 'group storytelling' and instead minimaxed some slowed combat badass character in order to 'beat' the DM. What never occured to these fools is that it just makes for an uninteresting story, a boring game, and no character whatsoever and the DM doesn't have a points cap like in a wargame if you want to make an abusive minmaxed character the DM can just throw a dragon at you if he wants to put you in your place...

NOT SO with 40k. I love making interesting armys. I hate watching them get beat to hell by the no-brainer lists. The same mentality of the D&D minmax munchkin player or the ebay MTG net-deck card shark can go into 40k, but this time, there is no DM, just a points limit and a few OBVIOUS army builds that can take advantage of it to its fullest. So why don't we all load up on some long fangs and thunderwolves and play exactly the same game over and over and over... (oh wait, that would be a tournament, wouldnt it?). Oh wait, you play Eldar? Then you better have 3 serpents full of fire dragons and spam the fire prisms too since everything else you have sucks. Lists that are so spammed because you have to be an idiot not to use certain things mean a bad codex. Every time I see an ork list that uses trukks someone is always pointing out how bad they suck. Every time I see a list that has a drop pod it has ALL drop pods. I don't like the obligatory units in some armies. Sure you CAN play an ork list without a sick wad of 2 wound nobs with slightly differing gear so you can cheat up on wound allocation, but does anyone? You CAN take a land raider that isn't full of TH/SS termies but why would you? I don't know any Eldar player who uses Falcons any more after the 5th ed shift, I don't know of a single SW army that isnt Longfangspam, SS bearing TWC or loganwing either.

Those are the kind of armies that I don't like. I like Marines because they really are kind of in-the-middle. You can try all kinds of different builds and they can all be fairly good, if not spamtastic like their BA/SW cousins codex allow, they really do allow an anything goes and you'll still be okay approach. I like being able to take a basic troops slot with a few options, an optional transport, and a small amount of customization, and feel that it is not overpowered ("You absoltely need las/plas on your tac squad" crap annoys me... really? Why are there so many other options then?)

yeenoghu wrote:
Those are the kind of armies that I don't like. I like Marines because they really are kind of in-the-middle. You can try all kinds of different builds and they can all be fairly good, if not spamtastic like their BA/SW cousins codex allow, they really do allow an anything goes and you'll still be okay approach. I like being able to take a basic troops slot with a few options, an optional transport, and a small amount of customization, and feel that it is not overpowered ("You absoltely need las/plas on your tac squad" crap annoys me... really? Why are there so many other options then?)

I agree.
I run my tac sqauds with flamer and heavy bolter because I like too. etc

I like the fluff and models.
Hence Guard. And hence happily sacrificing (with a noble intent of cause!) squads of men and infantry just so I can have a good fun game is what has kept me in this hobby for a while. I tend to suffer with fleetingluck syndrome. I can have (and have done) highly WAAC armies in the past and suffered with the worst luck one can.
I like to be a bit brutal in games and play for fun, so an army that can give me that will always get my attention.

good post yeenoghu i could not agree with you more the "i will do this because then i will win" people do tend to destroy a good game.
In my local gaming group we have banned the premade characters in the armybook (we play WHFB).
we are currently doing a campaign and one of the things we set as a prerequisite was that you had to make 4 lords and 8 heroes and these were the only ones you were allowed to use during the campaign. to ensure they could be used in the same game no duplicates of magic items were allowed and we had to write a little fluff and name them all.
This all adds up to loads of fun and a more relaxed evening (though we do occasionally throw our toys out of the pram)

I just started collecting Chaos afther I read Fulgrim.

I like fluff, and then probably models after that.

I have a "Play-as" Raven Guard SM army that I am going to just repaint as actual Raven Guard. I like their style of play and the story behind the Raven Guard is what made me choose this particular army.

I also really like Imperial Guard for the same reason, and they will probably be my next army for 40K. Something about out-gunned and under-armored men standing up against all odds against the worst the universe has to offer just sounds like fun. I will probably make it a infantry heavy list for that reason.

I also have the strange desire to watch Starship Troopers everytime I talk about the IG.....

Models and playstyle/rules. This is why I've been waiting for the DE re-do for years and am now in hog heaven.

I choose based on models and theme. For me, Orcs and Goblins are 2 different armies. Different models, different rules and thus different themes.

My wife picked Dark Elves based on models, so I built her the strongest non cheese list I could come up with. Right after that I decided to start High Elves as thematically they are perfect to constantly battle her Dark Elves.

Next she wants VC, so I'll pick something that compliments such a choice. I'll end up with Empire, but I'll go to great lengths to get the models that I like(6th edition infantry, not the pajama party current models).

If I were to play 40k it would be Tau based solely on the models.

Prior edition Chaos codex models and the vast amount of "fluff" associated with all nine legions. Hopefully somenone will find the pages that are missing in the present Chaos codex!!!!
Also credit is due to all the great converted and painted armies I have seen at various tournies.

Fluff and mini appearance for me. The game play comes after the fact.

BrookM wrote:Tanks, flak armour, unshaven chins.

A man after my own heart.

Models are what really do it for me. Even if they have less than optimized rules, I can still have fun with them if they're looking good. Besides, I wouldn't pick an army that I'd hate painting, since a lot of time goes into that.

It's all about the theme, looks, and fluff of an army for me.

After I pick something based on coolness I adapt to its playstyle after the fact.

And this selection method isn't just for 40k, I do this when maining someone in a fighting game, picking a class in an RPG, selecting a faction in an RTS, and so on.

Well I picked IG cause I like tanks... so I suppose thats fluff. I had never read the rules when I started buying them.

And I am starting a BT army because I love their fluff. It is hard too because of how much SM hate I spew.

Honestly, I'm attracted to every single army in 40k, with the exception of Eldar (both varieties), and Necrons.

The model line for the Necrons is so bleh, and I really really dislike both Eldar books.

For me its a combination of fluff and models. If I like the fluff and the models are good, then its a no brainer.

I know the truth hurts when I say this but I'm a hardcore marine fanatic - hence the reason I play 4 different marine armies (Salamanders, Space Wolves, Dark Angels [Angels of Death], and Word Bearers). I find the fluff to be what really attracts me to the models. I always wanted a Chaos army and the Word Bearers fill that need (I am waiting until the Legion Codex comes out before they see the tabletop as I am just pissed with the current codex). The Salamanders intrigued me as I read the Horus Heresy novels and wanted to play a Dropsite Massacre Legion (and wasn't a fan of painting the black armor). The Space Wolves were my little brother's army (when he does come over and play me, I let him use it as he traded it to me for all of my Magic cards). Lastly, fluff wise the Dark Angels have been my favorite army since I started. The rules for them have made them unplayable.

As far as model wise goes, I've also got a Saim Hann army that I've been putting together since the end of 3rd edition. They've seen the table top about 3 times but are almost finished - once they're painted, they will be my primary army

Concept art, photos of the army, and sometimes backround.

I say "sometimes background" because most armies' backgrounds are interesting to me so I have a difficult time approaching models with that bias. Except for space wolves, their omnibuses hold a special place in my heart.

Interesting mechanics (psychic powers, one of a kind rules like We'll Be Back)
Models
Fluff

In that order I think.

Space Wolves interested me for about two seconds - but then I read the fluff and saw the models. So far only Necrons have been able to hold my attention for more than a week or two.

I agree with Lion; fluff and the minis.

Id have to say the minis. Double so if its something I have to build and paint.

Gameplay & rules more than miniatures. If I don't like the models because I think they look bland *cough* Imperial marines *cough* I can just convert my own or use similar, much better looking models *cough* CSM *cough*.

Sure I get wierd looks running Alpha legion under a different book but if GW wants me to use the CSM book then they can produce one that doesn't suck or is at the least flexible. I enjoy building army lists & trying them out to test their effectiveness & synergy. It's not a WAAC thing it's that I like to see the mechanics of each unit functioning in perfect unison.

Models usually, although the dwarf models aren't that great in my eyes and I find myself painting a small army at present.

For me it's all about the models. Fluff is great but it's not a selling point for me if the models suck. And I could care less about the rules, I build my armies based on how cool they look (and that's probably why I always lose :p)

Minis number 1, fluff number 2.

The aesthetic of the army is paramount. If I hate how it looks, I can't even begin to think of collecting it.

Calibanite Lion wrote:Fluff and the miniatures attract me to an army, gameplay or flavour of the month have no bearing really.

As with many others, this is my perspective. Not that I haven't gone for 'flavour of the month' - I'm merrily collecting Dark Eldar, after all - but that's purely because I love the look of them. Just plain gorgeous miniatures.

For me, style trumps fluff trumps mechanics. So it is that I'll happily stick squigs in my O&G army, but won't use the wolf riders or spider riders that came with the brigade because they don't fit with the look of my army. Similarly, my Gondorian army has been planned out to be a combination of Dol Amroth swanhost - shining armoured knights, foot knights and pikemen; screening four units of ambushing rangers (hurray battlehosts). An expensive army to field and buy (the pikemen and foot knights, my core infantry, are metals), and almost certain to prove ineffective (four formations of quick-to-die archers, plus a small core of very expensive infantry, with no cheap close-combat fodder to hold the line), but I just like the imagery. I'm also considering a pure Gondorian infantry army - warriors and archers of Minas Tirith, and nothing else [bar heroes] - again, extremely limited through lack of cavalry or skilled units, but again, the image of ranks upon ranks of armoured infantry just appeals to me. The funny thing is, a mixture of those two forces would make a good, synergistic force, but it would spoil the image, so isn't something I'd consider.

As you might guess from this, I don't much rate my chances in a competitive environment