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 mainly build and paint models for the hobby but I have been wanting to learn how to play as well. Usually when I build models I give them weapons based on what looks epic over what might be better in terms of gameplay wise. If I wanted to play some games at a local game store how hard would I be gimping myself?

For your average friendly game? probably not much unless your opponent is running a tournament list and that will be easily enough found out just by asking.

For example, with my deathwing units, even though the most effective (points wise at least) setup is straight bolters / powerfists i run mine with mixed range/cc weapons because it just looks so much cooler.

Also, in previous editions, every member of a squad had to fire at the same target, so mixing anti-tank and anti infantry weaponry was pointless as you'd be wasting at least some of your firepower whatever you fired at. This is no longer a problem (which is why my tactical marines now have missile launchers and lascannons instead of heavy bolters again).

Im not a tournament player really so if you want advice on competitive play ill let others answer.

Is there any other way?

Seriously though, I tend to pick load-outs with a general idea of what I want the unit to do leaning more toward the lore or general role in my army over the current rules. As a consequence my armies are never optimized but also don't suffer as much when the rules change and 'it' weapons/units move around. The two big things that perennially weaken my armies is I tend to both have too many toys in my units, and I like to mix weapons in units. A lot of time the cheapest options are best, and I can never think of a time that a general purpose squad really was an advantage or a special purpose one in 40k.

I don't usually play opponents with highly optimized army lists and never play in tournament. For the most part I do okay. I tend to lose more often than I win, but I think that is largely due to the fact I don't play all that often, really study the rules or put a whole lot of effort to get better at the game. Which for me is fine as long as the game wasn't an absolute blow out, I mostly play 40k for everything surrounding the game and not really the actual game.

Yep - I don't play as much as I did so its just what I like or think looks good....

I 100% think about cool when building although within the scope of the rules. But I don’t think about points or tactics. I always figured you could write on paper what gear you units actually have for a game.

I am painting some old SM scouts for use as chaos cultists. At least 2 of them have eldar weapons (GW sculpted them that way) but on the table the will have auto guns and pistols and melee weapons as per the codex. I don’t see why that’s should be an issue

A few thoughts

1) The optimal choices are not always the must-haves that some might argue. Sometimes they improve the statistical output of an army only by marginal values. In addition don't forget that some are only valid within certain army combinations and setups.

2) Magnets. For models of a good enough size you can use magnets to swap key weapons. This means you aren't fixed to one single option. On big expensive models (where magnets are often more practical and easier to use) this can represent a huge saving. Both in terms of letting your vary your builds game to game, but also in terms of varying builds edition to edition.

3) Legality. I tend to build at the very least "legal" units within the rules. Of course edition changes can shift this around and sometimes make illegal what was once legal. Though its rare and typically only affects bigger things.


4) Buy more. This is another aspect. You might choose the rule of cool for somethings, knowing they "aren't the best", but at the same time might buy another version of the model to equip with the "better option".
Again this is giving you options to vary today and for edition changes too.



Personally I'm a bit of both and magnets. I'll certainly try and equip things with good weapons, but I'm not opposed to going for the cool stuff too. Heck I've some banshee on the desk and one has a trisklie weapon which isn't regarded as "the best" however right next to it I've got a metal banshee I picked up of ebay which has an execution blade, which is very popular right now. So I can swap the leader model for whichever one I want.

As you say, depends on your goals.

If you collect mainly to paint, you would be silly to buy for in-game effectiveness.

Now, the odds of you ending up playing against a tournament player if you are a collector are slim.

In the same way that it is not fun for you to play against some tournament list, the other player isn't getting much of a challenge. Hence, unfun both ways.

The analogy would be an artisan who enjoys crafting chess boards and pieces playing against a tournament chess player.

As to whether you can inadvertedly gimp your army badly, I think the answer is yes. I am still catching up, but even back in the day some lists were auto wins versus others, and I doubt that has changed.

But then again, tournament players won't seek you out to destroy your list.

For choosing which units to -buy-, sure, I'll often buy something because it looks cool.

For choosing which options to assemble, that's either going to be 'Give me one of each option', or figuring out which of the options I want.

I've never really had the situation arise where Model A looked cooler than Model B because of which weapon those models were holding. But I've bought entire squads of 'guitar' Noise Marine models because that particular model looked cool.

I've magnetized everything. Building models for strategy doesn't work anyway as next edition/ codex update what is now good can be irrelevant.

 Ultima Bahamut 93 wrote:
I mainly build and paint models for the hobby but I have been wanting to learn how to play as well. Usually when I build models I give them weapons based on what looks epic over what might be better in terms of gameplay wise. If I wanted to play some games at a local game store how hard would I be gimping myself?

That depends on what you mean. My company commanders have assorted weapons like power swords and not-laspistols. Nobody cares if I use them as their "base loadout" of chainsword+laspistol. You can usually "downgrade" from the modeled loadout for unimportant aspects of characters without question, though options taken that are relevant for the characters' functions should probably be modeled on; I went back and cracked off all my Space Wolves' WGPLs' and Wolf Lords' arms to replace them with thunder hammers.

If it's a conversion or something, it can often fly as anything similar. I have my Leman Russ tank guns cut up, using the muzzle brake of the Eradicator replacing the end of the Vanquisher gun barrel extension, nobody questions that they're battle cannons, but they probably won't pass for Demolisher Cannons or Punisher Cannons. [the barrels are actually swappable with the actual battle cannon bit, but I don't change them out because I prefer how they look and nobody cares]. Homemade Ork Battlewagons can usually get away with whatever they want to have on them without changing the loadout, since they often are just bristling with unidentifiable weapons.

For special and heavy weapons, I usually like to see the actual weapon on the model. A lascannon weapon base would only fly for a mortar weapon base if I knew my opponent was trying out mortars before considering buying more heavy weapons, and didn't have enough mortars for the list as is. At the very least, your counts-as should be consistent.


As for just using models as built: none of my Leman Russes have sponsons, and none of them probably ever will. I built them at a time when sponsons didn't contribute meaningfully to the tank's performance, and new Leman Russes need to conform to the old ones. Also, the space in my Leman Russ transport box doesn't accommodate for sponsons. I run my tanks all "as modeled" and do just fine. It would be more efficient to load them out with plasma cannons, but there aren't plasma cannons on the model and I'm not going to put plasma cannons on them, so I don't run them with plasma cannons. It doesn't make that much of a difference, my tanks do fine.

I magnetize a lot.

But sometimes, I just go with what looks cool, or just the easy road. I generally prefer power axes over swords, but they don’t look as good and are harder to source bits for. So a lot of guys just end up with blades.

Or in prior editions I was under the firm belief that thunderhammers were not worth the points over power fists. But they looked a lot cooler, so got handed out. I’ll pay the extra 5 points to look cool.

Level of gimping depends seriously on what unit you are talking about. Sometimes difference isn't that big thing, sometimes even taking the unit will be basically automatic loss(stompa, any of the big titans etc are basically "I lose" buttons).

As for me I'm somewhere on the middle. I don't go for hard core tournament lists which I find boring but I'm not totally ignoring what's useful and good. But I also keep switching army lists a ton.

I haven't played yet and also magnetize a lot, but I would claim to also mostly build for rule of cool. When I look at my collection so far there are a lot of choices that were made following the rule of cool or lets say my personal taste even though I know they are not the most competiive. I prefer the look of grenade launchers and flamers over plasma, so my infantry carries those. They also have voxes with them, even though I'm not sure I will really have any use of those. And while my Leman Russ is magnetized I prefer the look of the Exterminator (I know he is one of the worst, but it just looks better than the BC to me).

I hope to find someone with the same mind set, when I get around to play a bit or otherwise I hope I can still enjoy the game, even if I will likely loose A LOT. But in the end I spend much more time building, painting and just looking at my models in the vitrine than I will ever spent shuffling them around on the table top, so my preferences are clear.

I tend to go with rule of cool, but within the rules of the game. So my miniatures equipment are legal/accurate to the rules, but I do not meta-chase or magnetize for various opponents, etc.

 Ultima Bahamut 93 wrote:
I mainly build and paint models for the hobby but I have been wanting to learn how to play as well. Usually when I build models I give them weapons based on what looks epic over what might be better in terms of gameplay wise. If I wanted to play some games at a local game store how hard would I be gimping myself?

depends on army, and if the models become illegal. A chapter master dual wielding thunder hammers, and no stormshield. Not much of a problem. Trying to run an orc army without a super shokka is playing orks without one of the few good things they have.

also with TLoS any modeling for cool looks can be very bad, specially for melee models.

The closest to a rule of cool build for me were my Space Wolves.
I started that army before the 5th edition codex and new kits came out so it was all kinds of kitbashed models in every unit and later when it was "finished" during 5th edition each unit was fixed. I only had what I had built and painted and didn't add more models or weapons swaps and just played with what I had. But each squad had a set of options to complement each other. I had even made my own resin bases for that army. I parted with it a few years ago because I found I never took it out to games any more.

I am thinking about starting a themed Am army with lots and lots of infantry to wonder around the table with a few artillery units It wont be anywhere op but it should be a lot of fun to play. The other part to that army is that I am trying to make it backwards compatible to as may earlier editions of 40K as I can. So I will have very specific unit choices and only a few units I will have to drop when we play those older edition.
It should be really crazy when it's all done.

 Ultima Bahamut 93 wrote:
I mainly build and paint models for the hobby but I have been wanting to learn how to play as well. Usually when I build models I give them weapons based on what looks epic over what might be better in terms of gameplay wise. If I wanted to play some games at a local game store how hard would I be gimping myself?

Depends, really:

I like stalktanks f.e. no Model for them so i converted some amirigers and Run them as leman russ e
Punishers or exterminators.
They are higher and an easy Target for that matter, otoh i absolutely adore autocannons in my Chaos marines, just happens to be a good Overall allround answer.

The key is that you are consistent and close enough lookwise to what it is supposed to be and at a flgs you shouldnt habe any issues getting a game.

I also like to model for the rule of cool. To me that is the main way to show off your army’s uniqueness. I can understand if you are playing in a tournament or something not wanting to use them but anything else should be allowed IMO. But I am not a competitive gamer for what it is worth.

I'm pretty sure that I'm going to end up building one of my Tyrannofexes with a Fleshborer Hive. I know that's dumb, but I think it looks cool. Ditto for a Flyrant with lots of Devourers (using the Fleshborer Hive bits to represent them!).

When I built my original Leman Russ Executioner (the FW one, long before the plastic one existed) I gave it sponson Plasma Cannons and a hull Plasma Cannon. Why? Because it looked cool. Never cared if that wasn't possible.

For models with lots of options I prefer to magnetize. It lets me display the fun choices on the shelf, use the ones that are optimal ingame, try out different army builds while staying WYSIWYG, and keeps them future-proof against rules changes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm pretty sure that I'm going to end up building one of my Tyrannofexes with a Fleshborer Hive. I know that's dumb, but I think it looks cool. Ditto for a Flyrant with lots of Devourers (using the Fleshborer Hive bits to represent them!).

When I built my original Leman Russ Executioner (the FW one, long before the plastic one existed) I gave it sponson Plasma Cannons and a hull Plasma Cannon. Why? Because it looked cool. Never cared if that wasn't possible.

Fleshvorer hive arms are great bits, but man are they lackluster guns on a Tyrannofex. I've gor some on a custom Flyrant as well, they also look great on Carnifexes.

As often as I can! Anything Chaos works the best!

yeah if its fairly simple (or not) I will magnatise because I try to be wysiwyg when possible. It also saves money if you want your stuff to be strictly wysiwyg as youd end up with 3 veriants of the same thing etc.

I only build for the rule of cool. Don't play that much and if I do it is often skirmish (Kill Team) and I can easily select a legal Kill Team out of the models I have.

Modelling and converting is the part of the hobby I love the most, I use a lot of 3rd party bits and actually I see no reason to build a GW store legal army, because I don't see me attending tournies or travelling to a shop to play. When I play 40K it's with close friends and we have no problems at all with house rules for conversions and such. There is no "that guy" here. I learned that actually those homemade things can be a lot of fun especially in narrative games.

The rules also change a lot with time and do require adaptations to always get the max out of your points, e.g. for Sororitas back then rending heavy bolter retributors were a must have, later it was vanguard moving dominions in a repressor and murder Celestine with Geminae. Then storm bolter spam became a thing and now with the new codex other stuff seems more attractive. So you need new models from time to time.

I understand that more competitive players build an optimized GW army for maximum win in matched play, but that's nothing that would give me much joy nowerdays.

Cool will always be cool, game efficiency changes over time.

I always choose the weapons I think suit the narrative of my army, while keeping all of my models legal and WYSIWIG. A lot - if not most - of my army sports sub-optimal loadouts because of it. This means I suffer in competitive games, but they're not my preferred way to play anyway.

Right now I am having this problem, sort of, building Commander Shadowsun. Which fusion blasters do I put on?

It is only the back part of the weapons that are different. No competitive play or official tournaments for me, but if there is an obvious better choice I’d prefer that. One of my friends suggested the assault 2 (dispersed fusion blaster) seems better.

What do you guys think?

Probably no one, excluding maybe other tau players, is going to know the difference. specially from the other side of the table.

 TBD wrote:
Right now I am having this problem, sort of, building Commander Shadowsun. Which fusion blasters do I put on?

It is only the back part of the weapons that are different. No competitive play or official tournaments for me, but if there is an obvious better choice I’d prefer that. One of my friends suggested the assault 2 (dispersed fusion blaster) seems better.

What do you guys think?

Apart from what above said if you want to be true to wysiwyg Im not sold on the dispersed myself. Doesn't seem that useful to me those couple shots. Couple tank busting shots meanwhile can have big impact.

I usually go with rule of cool unless I can magnetize or get additional models with the powerful weapon option.