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.

If you had to pick a single army to play, what would be the largest deciding factor in your choice? Would the other factors make a huge difference? (i.e. Would you play a super weak army if you loved the appearance? Would you play a super cheap army if you hated its fluff? etc)

How the army looks: You are going to spend an eternity painting them, you better love how they look.

And that was my mistake: I started with necrons, don't get me wrong, I love them, but I HATE their vehicles. Add the fact I've always been a space marines fan ever since I discovered 40k, it didn't take that long to switch and I couldn't be happier.

Looks MATTER.

Looks and Playstyle.

For example, I play Eldar Mech and I've always been a fan of their models and mobility over anything else.

Granted, they're currently really good, but they weren't always so and that was fine because they still were the only army that looked friggin good and played the way I wanted it.

I voted other. I feel it comes down to these two different things for me

Crunch- Does the army have solid rules that are clear to understand for the most part and is useful in what the army says it does? (not necessarily WAAC)

Esthetics- Does the army appeal to the player in question in either looks or fluff?


I picked necrons for my first army because they appeal to me Esthetically speaking as well are a "solid" army that can be effective in the type of way i like to play.. I have sisters as a 2nd army because I hate my wallet and love their fluff but with them I go with a very strict list, not because their options are better but because the other options are clearly and vastly bad and just not effective.

I did looks and other armies nearby. Fluff is also important, but is a little easier to fix, so it goes down the list somewhat for me.

I'm not going to play an army I don't like painting, though, and I'm not going to paint models I don't like. It also makes that fluff thing easier if I don't have to justify mirror matches. Unless, of course, I was an evil faction of some sort. Still, I wouldn't want to step on anybody's toes.

There is one thing I'd add for "other" though, and that's what other armies I already own (or plan to). I know you said single army, but if I have plans to at some point in the future start a space marines army, it would dissuade me from choosing one of the SM splinter armies in the present.

Looks. I have to love how the army looks. I've picked armies based on looks alone before.
Then I look at fluff. They need a cool story or they bore me.
Next is hoow they play on the table. If they're underpowered or too powerful, they bore me. (CSM and Eldar respectively. Back in 2nd and 3rd I played both. Not so anymore.)

Fluff and fluff alone. If you love the faction itself - you'll have the most fun playing it.

Here's mine in order of importance...
How the army looks
The fluff of the army
What other armies are in your playgroup
The cost to buy all the models you want
How competitive/powerful the army is

My other considerations.
Playstyle,
Speed/complexity/fun to paint,
What stuff I've already got,
What the last army was.

 TheDraconicLord wrote:
How the army looks: You are going to spend an eternity painting them, you better love how they look.

And that was my mistake: I started with necrons, don't get me wrong, I love them, but I HATE their vehicles. Add the fact I've always been a space marines fan ever since I discovered 40k, it didn't take that long to switch and I couldn't be happier.

Looks MATTER.

Couldn't have said it better myself

In recent years, I've spent 5x more on Dark Eldar than Eldar, simply because DE models are just so much better. It kills me to buy bad models, no matter how good they are on the table


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
Here's mine in order of importance...
How the army looks
The fluff of the army
What other armies are in your playgroup
The cost to buy all the models you want
How competitive/powerful the army is

My other considerations.
Playstyle,
Speed/complexity/fun to paint,
What stuff I've already got,
What the last army was.

I think this reflects my priorities exactly Except that currently, I don't care so much about speed to paint -- I'm happy to spend a lot of time on each model.

I never said it was a fast speed.

Looks and fluff were the most important. It's great to have a strong army but if you can't enjoy it when you aren't playing a game then it just doesn't seem worth it.

After that it was what other armies were in my play group and since I play with a small bunch of mates, there were only a few choices that no one else had. I was just lucky that on my first visit to a GW shop, they had Space Wolves displayed in the window.

Vikings = yes
Wolf theme = yes
Super soldiers = yes

I don't even care how broken their fluff might be or how much everyone hates them. The only thing that matters is that I'm happy with them.

I voted other. To my it's how the army feels. I you look at an army, read the fluff and tell yourself "damn, this is awesome", then that's all the motivation you need.
I collected and played Red Scorpions since 5th and played Cadian IG as a side army (which later became my main). I loved the look and fluff of both armies, and it always felt good placing those armies painted on the tabletop.

It all boils down to one word: Fun. Now, the decisions that go into determining if it's going to be Fun are many (basically, the non-'Other' choices for this poll), and all have to coincide. If for any of them you need a "well..." or "except..." to answer, look at the next army.

Oh, and power level: you want your army to be average, at all costs.

When it's too good, the whole internet and even people you play against will insist that your codex (yes, a book) won all of your games for you, and that you play a no-brain army.

When it's too bad, most of your games will be one-sided, requiring you to completely and utterly outplay or outlist your opponent to get a minimal victory.

Fluff Fluff Fluff and little bit of look

Apparently the hardcore tournament gamers are busy sleeping off victories or still on coke and hookers binges after a successful weekend.
50 votes and none for the 'How competitive/powerful the army' slot.
Surprising.

Other. How fun the army is to play.

Looks are a close second.

Looks and fluff.

I spend alot more time looking at my army thenn i do playing themm,.

Looks and pleasure to assemble and paint.

As an example, love how Orks look, hate having to paint them.

Love how Tau look, love painting em.

 Carlson793 wrote:
It all boils down to one word: Fun. Now, the decisions that go into determining if it's going to be Fun are many (basically, the non-'Other' choices for this poll), and all have to coincide. If for any of them you need a "well..." or "except..." to answer, look at the next army.

Pretty much. If there's anything about the army you don't like and can't mitigate, whether that's aesthetics, playstyle, core fluff or anything like that, then don't bother.

Definitely looks and fluff/playstyle.

I don't get the whole "power gaming" aspect of things. You're moving around little toy soldiers and having an imaginary war...how serious can you possibly take it?

I don't care if I win or lose, the act of playing and chillin' while doing it is key. I've only run accross TFG once thus far at my local shop.

For me the most important factor is performance. I don't want the best, but at least average. Wh 40k is a game with a winner and a loser in the end, and I don't consider losing all the time fun.

Secondly is playstyle. I'm more of a gamer than modeler and if the army is not enjoyable to play then it's a no-go.

Fluff: I like WH 40k fluff a lot but since the tabletop does a spectacularly poor job of transposing said fluff on the table I don't really care about my army's fluff all that much.

Looks: I've come to grips with the fact that I suck at painting and my models will look average at best. Therefore, until I can afford some commission painting it's not a very important aspect for me.

 ncshooter426 wrote:
I don't get the whole "power gaming" aspect of things. You're moving around little toy soldiers and having an imaginary war...how serious can you possibly take it?

It makes sense to want to play the game to the fullest though.

I wouldn't buy a new army, assemble and paint it like a clown to stand a better chance in a tournament though.

People who do that generally just trade in their armies all the time, so choosing an army is not very relevant to them.

For me it goes
Playstyle/Fluff. I play fluffy, so fluff and playstile is intrinsically linked.
Looks. I'm not gonna paint aesthetically unpleasing toy soldiers, and certain schemes are beyond my limited capabilities. Being able to do some simple conversions is also a bonus (limited skills).
Other armies. I tend to prefer lesser-played or more unique armies (thus conversions) and my aversion to playing SM. This and competitiveness plays a role, as I will still tool my army into being functional in my local meta.
Cost. It's irrelevant. I'm spending more on my guard to make them look better and more unique; I've got so many models to pain anyway that the cost gets spread over time anyway.
Competitiveness. I don't really care, but none of the armies are unplayable, so it's a non-issue.

Fluff, fluff, fluffity floof.

me ==>

I think a huge part of picking your army is which phase you like to play the most in. Having known nothing about the game when I first started playing, I picked Tau without knowing they had no psykers and a year later I'm kinda regretting it. >.<

So here is what I tell new people getting into the game.

You have 2 things to consider when you pick an army, first off is how the army looks, pick something you think looks cool.

Second is what is your preferred battle strategy for games, small elite strike force? Mass horde of units? Lots of Firepower? Tough to kill? Quick and Agile?

Pick a few things and I can recommend a few teams that might fit those roles well, and then pick one that looks cool from that list.

How the army looks and their fluff. I'd rather play a weak army that I like than a powergaming army.

Playstyle comes first.

If the playstyle is fun, but the codex is subpar it will make up to it on how you feel about the games, even if its a bit one-sided.

If the looks are a bit off, but the playstyle is fun-you convert your own unique look that DOES appeal to you.

If the fluff isn't your cup of tea, but you enjoy playing with that army, you can just ignore the fluff and focus on the game aspect of the faction.

If everyone plays that army, you got a big bit trade/model trade market around.
If nobody does, you get to have that something unique.

Fluff first, followed closely by how awesome the models are. After the first couple of armies, then it's time to consider going for something that has a different playstyle.

Power of the army is a meta dependant choice - You're not going to run pure deathwing in a high tier competative meta, but you might get away with triwing or ravenwing w/ white scar allies. Likewise you're not going to run a Serpent/Jetbike/Wraithknight tourney list in a casual meta unless you like not having friends.

How fun the army is to put together and paint is something I feel can only be ascertained after you've started, but certainly does become a factor on which army gets more attention. I quite enjoy painting daemons, so they've tended to get more love the my other armies, even though I like the fluff for the others a bit more.