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.

Hello Dakka,

I was just woundering how you guys like to build your army lists personaly, do you like to go all fluffy to how your faction is within your codex, or do you build lists soley to win? and why?
Care to share an example?(because sharing is caring, except when its diseases)

Personally I build my army lists(and my collection of models) fluffwise, because I'm a sucker for a backstory

Theme first, and then power within that theme.

My Grey Knights, for example, commonly run an 'elite spearhead' sort of force. So, no squishy henchmen, no slow and ponderous Dreadnoughts, and lots of Terminators and Paladins.

I've got enough models to mix it up though.

I got an idea in mind. Like the list im running now involves a few units staying still, While other are fast hard hitting units that get to the enemy fast so i can kill them fast.

No Henchmen? :(
Fluff first for me; I care more for the appearance/backstory before competetiveness. I actually like losing as long as it's fun.

Example: I know Infantry got a bit worse in 6th, but I bought squads anyway for IG.
^ for using Outrider/Pistolier heads (stormtroopers)
and using HE feathers on normal Guard Helmets for Veterans.

Yay for the Rialto Bridge Grenadiers!

You need a third (& fourth? fifth?) option (maybe suggest a poll?):
1) Fluff
2) Power
3) Looks
4) Other? (i.e. price? availability? primary strategy?)

I chose my army (CSM) on the Look of the models as much as the other two.


(also, sharing diseases IS caring, if your army is nurgle )

darkkt wrote:You need a third (& fourth? fifth?) option (maybe suggest a poll?):
1) Fluff
2) Power
3) Looks
4) Other? (i.e. price? availability? primary strategy?)

I chose my army (CSM) on the Look of the models as much as the other two.


(also, sharing diseases IS caring, if your army is nurgle )

Done, thanks for the idea

Yea but not everyone is Nurgle

Fluff. It's not like I'm gonna win anyway.

The way I build my lists starts with picking something that I want to do (as others have said, a theme), and then making the most powerful list I possibly can according to said theme.

For example, in 5th edition, I wanted to make the most close-combat-powerful foot guard army. On the one hand, I was going for power. On the other hand, it was within the restrictions of being a foot list, being an assaulty army, and being from the guard codex.

As such, I hesitate to say that power is the only thing I'm after, as if that were really my highest priority, I would have floated around with the highest power list of the army of the month.

Fluff then power. like my space marines I'm going to start up,
There kinda like the elysians, They drop in on important objectives and complete there jobs.

Coolyo294 wrote:Fluff. It's not like I'm gonna win anyway.

Why not?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

kinratha wrote:Fluff then power. like my space marines I'm going to start up,
There kinda like the elysians, They drop in on important objectives and complete there jobs.

Kind of my old Marine army, all in Drop Pods. . . until the ex. GF hit them. . . slaughtered to a man

I try to get a healthy middleground, as I'm sure many do. I like my army to be fluffy, but not to the point where I have a techpriest for every Leman Russ or something. My Crimson Fists are very fluffy, but the fact that mechanized Sternguard are good helps me reach a balance of fluff and effectiveness. I'm sure it's not the most efficient thing in the world to give every sergeant a powerfist or refuse to field understrength squads, but it's fluffy dammit!

redkommando wrote:

Coolyo294 wrote:Fluff. It's not like I'm gonna win anyway.

Why not?

I suck at playing 40k. Seriously. In the three years that I've been playing it, I've won a grand total of two games. One of those victories was against a ten year old.

Coolyo294 wrote:

redkommando wrote:

Coolyo294 wrote:Fluff. It's not like I'm gonna win anyway.

Why not?

I suck at playing 40k. Seriously. In the three years that I've been playing it, I've won a grand total of two games. One of those victories was against a ten year old.

oh no my friend, thats is not good
do you know why? Army? tactics? Luck?

Without sounding like im blowing my own trumpet, with my 11 years of Blood Angels Ive lost 8 games. When I had my thing with the Grey Knights on the other hand, out of 12 games I lost 10 and drew 2. . .

What! No PowerFluff option? There are plenty of was to make a fairly potent yet honestly fluffy list.

Lobukia wrote:What! No PowerFluff option? There are plenty of was to make a fairly potent yet honestly fluffy list.

hahahaha I'm sorry
But where did your orginal idea to buld it spawn from?
Did you say "I want to make the strongest list possible" and then "I want to make it fluffy too"
Or was it "I want my list to strictly be from the fluff, but I don't want it to suck"

Basiclly, which is more important