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.

An inverse of the other poll going on, this one focuses on units you have chosen NOT to purchase due to them simply being bad on the tabletop. I am particularly interested in this one because in my experience while meta units certainly sell better that trend is not nearly as strong as poor units selling badly.

I usually avoid units unless they're at least viable in competitive play. It doesn't have to be the cheesiest OP spam unit ever for me to buy it, but it does have to show up in at least a couple of lists that do well at GTs.

I said some because that's probably the fairest - but it depends really. I've probably grown less concerned over time.

Typically I will avoid units I know I'll instantly relegate because they are awful. But equally I feel far fewer units are in that space compared to say how things were in earlier editions.

There's also this rub that the game is updated far quicker - or, perhaps because I'm older, time flies far faster. (And admittedly, I don't play Guard). I remember say "2018/19 Knight Meta" seemingly lasting forever - but it was only 6-9 months. By comparison the "meta" of 2022 has been all over the place. (and in 3rd-7th, some armies just sucked for the best part of a decade). Since GW is constantly updating the game, stuff that's "bad" today, may be the best unit your faction has in 6 months time. And vice versa.

But then it might also be skewed that I have a DE army which was essentially finished years ago (since GW seem... disinclined to give us any new units, of whatever power level). I've therefore branched out into other factions and those collections can be more "for fun" without needing to satisfy that "but would this work in a tournament".

Been following the 'rule of cool' since 1994.

If it looks cool, I'll buy it, although I will cop to generally making acquisition of underperforming units a lower priority (unless they look *really* cool).

As I’m so out of touch with the actual rules, let alone the ever shifting meta?

I just buy what I like. If it sucks, it sucks. If it’s well ‘ard, it’s well ‘ard.

Though I do tend to buy stuff that could be hammered into a game legal army all the same. I just genuinely have no real idea of what makes something good or cack in the modern game.

The rules might influence when I buy, but not if I buy. When starting an army I have a theme in mind and make a plan what I want my army to have eventually. This is pretty much regardless of rules and sometimes happens prior to buying any Codex. If I realize that some unit has cool rules right now I might buy it before a unit that is said to be bad (in practice units are rarely/ never as bad as the internet makes them out to be, so in the end rule of cool dictates more than "the meta").

Depends, if I am buying a new secondary army i want at least a fast viable 2k build that i feel would go 2-3 or 3-2 at events and still be able to play for a long time (aka no skewed lists), if I am buying as a main army then no I want all units and multiple units for my main armies (which I was at 4 but limited down to 2 armies now).

I don't purposely buy stuff becuase it has bad rules, but that won't stop me from collecting them. I run a unit of 10 Hounds of morkai in my space wolves successor, love them.

 oni wrote:
Been following the 'rule of cool' since 1994.

Me as well. I buy only based on looks and background appeal.


But then, I’d rather play a One Page rule than actual 40k…

I bought 3 Pyrovores and a Maleceptor in 7th ed. I hope that says it all.

I still want 3 pyrovores in metal - they are just freakishly expensive whenever they rarely appear on ebay so I never end up getting them.


I tend to collect armies as a whole range instead of a single working force. So I'll end up owning most things. Plus as time passes what "works" in the meta changes. Things that were useless last edition become useful this edition. Army sizes are small this edition then huge in the next

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
I bought 3 Pyrovores and a Maleceptor in 7th ed. I hope that says it all.

Are those some kind of Tyranid?

I can't vote option 1 because unit viability does effect SOME purchases. But I can't vote number 2 because I buy many units that aren't particularly viable at the time of purchase.

If it looks cool, it gets bought.

The churn of what is good or bad changes too much to worry about its rules at the time I get it.

Unless the unit has bitz I want, pass. However, Counts As is a thing and should be encouraged.

I buy (AND PLAY WITH) models I like.
A model/unit could be objectively terrible rules wise, but if I like the model(s) I will use it. And I will figure out how to make it work for me.
This approach has been working for me for decades, so I don't see any reason to change now.

I usually give some thought to how it performs, but not extremely so. I mean, I won't buy something if it's terrible even if I like it, but if something has use (or I think it has use) I'll consider getting it even if it's not "meta"

Echoing ccs: I buy and play models that I like, and that fit the theme of my armies. I'll figure out how to make things work if I want to use them. Hell, I still played my Fellblade even after gw almost doubled its price for no good reason. I definitely complained about it, but I still used it.

Nope. Never.

The main reason I avoid buying things is due to the medium in which they are created.

I love Tyranids, but I don't own any Pyrovores because they were in metal and then FineCost. I've never bought a Biovore as I have never liked a single version GW has ever made for that model. I avoided buying Venomthropes completely as there was no way I was going to deal with spindly tentacle arms in metal (let alone FineCost). I got them when they were released in plastic.

Not to say I've avoided metal or resin models in the past - I have Hive Tyrants, Raveners, and all sorts of things in metal - but these are usually from times when we had no idea - not even the smallest hint - that these things would go to plastic.

I have tons of units that I know are crap, but I don't care because I like the models.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Echoing ccs: I buy and play models that I like, and that fit the theme of my armies. I'll figure out how to make things work if I want to use them. Hell, I still played my Fellblade even after gw almost doubled its price for no good reason. I definitely complained about it, but I still used it.

This is my sentiment exactly.

I have done the opposite actually. If I knew I wouldn't be playing 40k for some time, or I wouldn't be playing a particular army for some time I occasionally will pick up a used model used that I've always liked the look of which has fallen out of favor between editions the price has hit rock bottom.

For example during 8th I picked up a nicely painted Wraithknight for $60 and the paintjob far exceeds my meager talents.

Back when I was active in 40k (7th) I would usually avoid models that had no viable usage on the table top (for example 6th edition Flash Gitz, Vespids, the Tau plastic flyers) but I wouldn't be deterred from getting models that had potential but might not of been a meta pick or even considered competitive.

Flash Gitz being the perfect example as the Gitz where one of my favorite units in DoW but the 6th edition rules for them where notorious for being terrible. Because of this I had very little interest in getting them because I knew they would never see actual play on the table. 7th rolled in and their rules didn't suck anymore (not OP but at least functional enough to not be a joke) so I converted 2 boxes of Nobz into Flash Gitz so I could field a 10 git squad. Ended up actually being a good asset to my Blitz Brigade as it had good synergy with the formation.

For me, I play(ed) the game to express an idea and fit a theme/strategy but I still needed the units being fielded to at least be functional (not playing the game to be the punching bag for somebody else's power fantasy.... and yet I played Orks). So using something that was dead weight took away from the expression part of it even if it was thematic or fluffy. I am not into the hobby to collect but instead it's about the gameplay so there is less incentive for me to buy because of looks alone.

Hard to say. I bought GK at the start of 8th ed, and I still play them. I also got gifted 2 lumineth lords starters, and myself I only bought a unit of sentinals and wardens. I didn't buy teclis, the beastman stuff which is good, but I also bought a loremaster and a celery chick. Although it is hard to imagine a LL army without them. I also bought the Shrine, which is hard to judge as a power choice. One one side it is a power choice, but on the other the whole army is build in mind that you are running it.

In-game effects change every few months, while nice models are forever.

I buy what I want to paint, then figure out how to make lists from what I've got painted.

"This model is terrible, no one bothers to buy it to use it in the game" isn't particularly surprising. If you have nice developers for a game, they're usually working on figuring out how to fix the model (or at least create situations where all of the models have a purpose), even if that can seem to take a very long time...

But does it count if I can say that I've purchased models made for games that I don't ever plan on playing, because I wanted to use those models in some other game that didn't particularly care where the models came from? Seriously, I own ten zombie riflemen (Revenant Crew Rifleman unit attachment, sold two to a pack), Lord Longfellow (a spider in a coat carrying four pistols), and some Retribution units that were all purchased with no intention of ever playing Warmachine with those models. And Pirate Queen Skarre and GW Zombies have been used together in the same game as part of a themed outlaw group.

Seriously, I'm old enough that I've got a few main rules for buying figures:
* If I buy a model, it's because I'm satisfied enough with the model that if it gets assembled and painted, it'll look nice on my shelf.
* If I don't like a particular model as it is but want to use it for a game, that particular model is either going to get modified until it is what I would like, or I'll source a replacement for it.
* I own a collection of models that I use to play games, I don't own "armies", because "armies" don't last. (Games don't always last, either....)

I'm also way too fickle to stick to one army list and use it repeatedly. I'd rather try a bunch of different things out. Doing that has in the past buying a model with "bad" game stats to try and see if I could find a use for it.

As far as "Do I avoid buying a model that's not very good?" If the model doesn't have any other redeeming qualities, it's not going to be very high on the buy list. If it's terrible according to the game, but a good model according to other qualities, then it's probably going to get purchased for those other qualities.

None; but if I think a GW Model is hideous, instead of buying it I will print, convert and/or proxy a model in it's place (ex: primaris ATV & the huge-ass ravenwing landspeeders will never be seen in my collection).

 solkan wrote:


As far as "Do I avoid buying a model that's not very good?" If the model doesn't have any other redeeming qualities, it's not going to be very high on the buy list. If it's terrible according to the game, but a good model according to other qualities, then it's probably going to get purchased for those other qualities.

That was a very insightful read. Did you had this view points always, or did you gravited to it over some time?

I prefer a cool, fun and diverse army over a WAAC one. I don't buy ugly models though.